|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Editorial: Don't Federalize Airport Security NewsMax.comIn response to tremendous fear of flying in the wake of the Sept. 11 disaster, both the White House and Congress have been desperately searching for ways to beef up airport security. Because of political correctness, the government has rejected the simplest, most effective method of securing planes by allowing the pilots to be armed. The pilots themselves have asked for this measure. Other solutions are obvious, such as stronger cockpit doors and increased screening of luggage. But one "solution" is no solution at all and may lead to weaker security. That bad idea, having the federal government take over airport security, should be rejected. One need only look to the U.S. Postal Service to see what will happen with the federalization of airport security. Would you be happy knowing the post office was running airline security? Jobs with the new airline security agency will be politicized and unionized. It will be as difficult to fire an incompetent federal security officer as it would be to fire an incompetent postal employee. The federalization of airport security will not solve the problems. Today, even with heightened security, knives and other weapon-like instruments still get through screening devices. No screening service, federalized or otherwise, will be perfect. That's why the U.S. should follow the example of Israel, which arms its pilots. They have not had a problem with airline terrorism in decades. And the federalized security force won't solve the real, sleeper problem of airport security. There are thousands of airport employees who work with airplanes in catering, maintenance and luggage. Many are not even citizens, some have never had a background check, and some are probably fifth-rate columnists. There is significant evidence that the terrorists on Sept. 11 may have had knives and weapons smuggled onto the planes before they entered the planes, with the help of airport employees. How would a federal takeover, creating a huge new $50 million bureaucracy, solve this problem? The last time the terrorists took over a plane, they used knives. The next time it might be done with smuggled guns. Only arming the pilots will help prevent hostile takeovers of planes. Clearly, the federal government does have an important role to play. But we believe it’s far better to have airports or private agencies responsible for security, and then have a separate federal agency responsible for compliance and dealing with breaches in security. In 1993, both Congress and the American people overwhelmingly rejected Clinton’s call for a federal takeover of health care as too expensive, too bureaucratic, and disastrous for health-care quality. Today we should reject a federal takeover of airport security for the same reasons. Voters across the country were swayed then with one powerful argument: Did they want their health care managed like the post office? Today we ask: Do you want your security on airplanes managed like the post office? Be sure you let your representative and senators know you oppose federalizing airport security. Contact them today: Efforts to make this idea law will be decided this week.
A product that might interest you: Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |