[size=4]Backbones of jelly[/size=4]
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Republicans control both the House of Representatives and the White House. The president's approval rating is near 90 percent. Democrats have a slim one-vote edge in the Senate, far from control since it takes a three-fifths vote to limit debate and vote a bill into law. Then, why, oh why did the Republicans cave in on the airport security bill and agree to add 28,000 new workers to the federal bureaucracy?

We are being told that this is a compromise between the House and the Senate bill. Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott called it, "A victory for both sides." If this were true, why, during the vote on the House floor, were the only smiles on the faces of liberal Democrats. Conservative Republicans were milling around in a state of bewilderment. Last Wednesday, the House Republican Conference was working overtime placing members on radio and television shows to tell us why a federalized work force was a bad idea. On Thursday, GOP whip, Tom Delay, R-Texas, was passing out a two-page fact sheet extolling the virtues of a bill that drives private companies out of the airport screening business.

Like dutiful "Stepford Wives," they cast their votes. [b]Only nine brave Republicans chose not to stay aboard this sinking party ship. Kevin Brady, Texas; Howard Coble, N.C.; Mac Collins, Ga.; Ron Paul, Texas; Pete Sessions, Texas; Bob Schaffer, Colo.; John Shaddag, Ariz.; Bob Stump, Ariz. and Charles Taylor, N.C.[/b]

The biggest problem of a federalized work force, is that a federal worker is much more likely than a private worker to become a union worker and a union worker is much more difficult to fire for poor performance. A provision was added that ostensibly would allow the Department of Transportation to bypass federal rulemaking procedures in order to dismiss unsatisfactory workers.

Shadegg, an attorney and chairman of the 25-year-old Republican Study Committee put out a memo to let members know that the language "leaves it unclear whether the under-secretary would be required to follow certain established procedural protections (including internal and external appeals – including the courts) before terminating or disciplining employees."

- continued -

However, even if this were true, it is rare for an employee of the federal government to be fired, no matter how unsatisfactory he or she may be for one simple reason: It's just too much trouble and federal managers, unlike managers in the private sector, never have to worry about the bottom line.

Most companies presently holding the big airport-screening contracts have done a poor job. However, many of the problems that have been highlighted, such as the hiring of non-citizens, poor performance and lack of background checks, are the result of lack of oversight, watered-down laws due to airline lobbying, pressure from the airlines to hold the price down and pressure from the government itself through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to hire and retain these people.

A better solution would be tough new standards and "three strikes you're out." If a company fails an inspection three times, it is tossed out permanently.

A compromise indicates an even playing field. This one isn't. Within a year, the government will take over airport screening at all 450 of the nation's airports. After the system is in place, five airports out of the 450 can opt out and hire private contractors for what is termed "demonstration projects." What airport manager would put his or her job at risk and swim against this tide? Three years later, when the feds are firmly in control, other airports can opt out if they wish. Sure!

The idea that a federal work force somehow will be a better work force and will make less mistakes than a private work force is ludicrous. The kinder, more customer-friendly Internal Revenue Service is a case in point. After two years of pressure from Congress, a Treasury Department sampling of service at IRS walk-in centers this year found that agents gave taxpayers incorrect or insufficient advice on their tax questions 73 percent of the time – a slight improvement over last year's 81 percent error rate. Put that record up against the companies presently doing airport screening and even Argenbright begins to look competent.

So why did Republicans cave? Some say it was the pressure of the Thanksgiving holiday, traditionally the busiest travel period of the year. The bill will not affect security during this period but it's symbolism over substance. Others say that by giving in to the Democrats on airport security, they expect the Democrats to give in to them on the stimulus bill.

One thing should be clear: The biggest Thanksgiving turkeys this year aren't the ones on dining tables.

by Jane Chastain

See article at:[url]
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25394[/url]

Eric The(ISupposeMyE-mailsDidn'tGetThrough?)Hun[>]:)]

I have had many discussions with people about many similar issues. I would like to know just one thing that the government can do better and cheaper than the private sector, with the exception of the military.

Fantastic, absolutely fantastic...  

Well at least some people might finally realize how inept federal agencies are.  HAHAHA! *sigh*

1.  Expand Itself
2.  Extort Money from the Public mostly from the #1.
3.  F$%^ things up 3 times as they were to begin with.

Shall I go on?

Because, as much as it pains me to say it, most of the Republicans in Congress (mainly the Senate) are elitist fools, just like their Democrat counterparts.  So much so that it's truly difficult to tell them apart.

Law Enforcement.

Things best left to government:

1) Making WAR

2) Establishing a common currency system (where would we be without US greenbacks?)

3) Taking said greenbacks from people as taxes

4) Establishing and maintaining a national infrastructure.

5) Anything else you absolutely, positively NEED to have a simple issue turned into a gargantuan, dismal, complicated failure.

Larry Elder [u]The Ten Things You Can't Say in America[/u]

"Republicans and Democrats, about a dime's worth of difference."

Law enforcement?  Yer joking right?  I wouldn't trust a LEO to park my car.

Couple of weeks ago one of these dorks in blue fired into a civilian's car in a fit of 'road rage' his department suspended him!  Not fired, SUSPENDED.  (just one of the MANY examples I can list if you like)

Next time your local politician signs a gun grab bill please note all the blue shirts standing behind him/her applauding.

Wow. There's a big surprise: The Republicans caving in to the Democrats. [rolleyes]

After the Government is finished running airport security into the ground, people won't fly.  If people won't fly, airlines won't make money.  If airlines don't make money the government will take over that too.  Guess what we have then?  

Amflite.  A government run airway system that like Amtrak, never operates in the black but gets huge budget increases every year.

I can't wait.  [rolleyes]

Damn if only the LIBERTARIAN Party got unconditional support...




...there that ought to get this thread moving.

I made a similar statement here and basically got called a socialist...

I was mad that there will be yet bigger government and no real change for airport security.  I mean, what difference does it make whether the workers are federal employees or not?  They will still do the same so-so job.  It is impossible to have 100% tight security at airports--look at prisons.  What is next?  Body cavity searches and paper uniforms for all air travelers?  I'd rather see all the airlines go out of business.  If the border patrol is as bad as it is, imagine what federalized airport security is going to get us.

Just the fact that they are seizing nail clippers (an expansion of what has been taking place in the public schools, by the way) makes me ill.  By the way have you noticed the expansion of control--what started in the schools, has now been successfully extended to the airports.  The next expansion will be out from the airports onto public roadways.  Eventually, you won't  be able to leave your house without swiping your National ID card through the reader in order to unlock your own door.  A little tongue in cheek there, but not much...

Then again, if my opinion of federalized aiport security is correct, then the next big terror attack involving the airlines will be a huge black eye for the ones who pushed this through.  It will only result in them passing more laws to "close the airport security loophole" or some such bullshit though.  It never occurs to anyone that the laws themselves are often the problem, not the solution.  Look at the NFA and drug prohibition for good examples.

What pisses me off the most is that at the signing ceremony, Bush said something like "this bill will ensure that every American traveler will be safer during the holiday season."  Excuse me?  What?  How can that possibly be since it will take months to actually see the effects of the legislation.  It is as if these people believe that Bush's magical signature instantly makes everything all right.  What a delusion (or more likely, carefully crafted political spin)!

 So, what did you really expect from that pack of clowns?

 Chuck(The one with the dim view of politicians)

 SUCKBIRDS, They are suckbirds I tell ya, they are virulent scavengers feeding on the bloated carcass of American apathy.
 If they couldn't lick the sweat from the working mans back, they would wither and die as they should!!

 Chuck(My view keeps getting dimmer and dimmer)

90% approval? In 2 months we now have more Draconian laws imposed than ever before in violation of our Constitution, against the will of the people, by a man BARELY elected (700 votes?). A country constituting 40% people "of faith" with a President that has a 90% approval rating? We approve of the tyrant over God? Well, George BushII bless America!


Grim(oops! I voted for this guy!)shaw

Is this the govt law enforcement you were supporting?

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/national/21PORT.html?ex=1006923600&en=06b50dc0af1f0c5c&ei=5038&partner=ASAHI[/url]
==============
The Portland, Ore., police will not cooperate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its efforts to interview 5,000 young Middle Eastern men nationwide because such questioning violates state law, the department's acting police chief, Andrew Kirkland, said yesterday.

The decision is the first known case of a city's refusing to go along with the antiterrorism effort, which was announced last week by Attorney General John Ashcroft.

But top police officials in several other cities have also said that Mr. Ashcroft's plan raises troubling questions about racial profiling — an issue that has brought endless grief to police departments nationwide — and may violate local and state laws about issues like intelligence gathering for political purposes.

As the song says: You took the words right out of my mouth.

I heard a caller on Rush's show put it best:
Why are they taking the job away from the party that DID THEIR JOB?  The airport screeners made sure there were no firearms, bombs, or knives with blades over 4 inches on any of those flights.  The fed. gov. is supposed to make sure these terrorists are not even in this country.  Do you think we may be firing the wrong group of people?

I don't know why you people keep getting all bent out of shape about this stuff since it will only be applied against NON CITIZENS.