Skip to main content

TSA: Walmart Greeters With Badges


Taxpayers may blush when they learn that their $8 billion-per-year Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is hardly satisfying its purported mission of protecting the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. According to a June 2015 report by the Huffington Post, the TSA has failed 95 percent of airport security tests conducted by Homeland Security. Corroborating this story, ABC News reported that undercover investigators revealed security failures at dozens of the nation's busiest airports, successfully smuggling mock explosives or banned weapons through checkpoints in 95 percent of trials.  

Oddly yet unsurprisingly, the Transportation Security Administration conveniently dismisses rules — such as the removal of shoes, belts, and jackets, the separation of laptops from luggage, and the use of bins — when these shortcuts suit their whims. One may then wonder how many of these perceived rules have spawned from the traditions of TSA workers who were, in the strictest sense, operating merely from their own discretion, suspicions, and loose interpretations of their respective positions. 

The make-work only seems to fester within these busy-bodied organizations of ambiguous ends. Even the queue now falls under the systemic scrutiny of TSA agents full of Walmart-style greetings, multi-billion-dollar smiles, and the childish curiosity of unskilled adults trained to swipe hands to determine whether travelers are fit to roam the airport and board an airplane, all with only a perfunctory understanding of technical indicators supposedly capable of achieving these ends. 

While swiping my hands today, the TSA agent wished to engage me in conversation. When did this become compulsory? He was conspicuously confused and displeased with my silence, resorting to harsher, more demanding tones upon my continued silence despite his repeated attempts to buy my efforts, my words, and something more than my obedience, probably to reconcile the discomfort of unfounded authority into which his employment has placed him. 

Complementing the scene of organized incompetence is a K9 unit which strolls about the aisles, seemingly successful only in disrupting the gaits of eager travelers who, despite understanding the futility of the TSA, tolerate the inconvenience because their fellow travelers are willing or because the marginal costs of resisting outweigh any probability of benefit, or to serve the long-shot chance that their minor inconvenience will enable the TSA to thwart that next terror threat, despite a tested record showing otherwise. 

Part of the reason why so many people are willing to work for or endure the processes of the TSA is related to the continued deference and social payment of smiles and gratitude issued to those who work for this fruitless agency. They earn far more in the social graces shared with them than they earn on their paychecks, but the combination comfortably warrants the per-capita ease of the sufferable masquerade. In due time, however, the theater will become more tangible and more vast, eventually reaching you before you even arrive at the airport — some of this is already happening

With each forced smile, uncomfortable discussion, swiped hand, and groping agent, we surrender our personal dignity and our liberty to favor a notion which presupposes that each individual is a criminal until cleared by a higher authority. The TSA has proven to be nothing more than a modern boondoggle. 

Let’s free its workers to contribute to the lives of its donors instead of forcing Americans to pay for a service to which they never consented. The TSA is yet another example of the progression from physical, apparent slavery to its psychological, more palatable counterpart of assumed responsibility and taxation. This isn’t progress at all. What's more, it's unconstitutional.
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes