|
 ere
is how John Shadegg of Arizona, one of the rising conservative stars
in the House, describes the airport-security bill "compromise":
"A complete cave. We gave the Democrats everything. I'm furious."
So am I. The
airport-security bill is a complete capitulation to the Left's position
on federalizing airport personnel. And the GOP's negotiating from
the fetal position hardly inspires confidence as it starts duking
it out with Daschle and Gephardt on issues like the fiscal stimulus.
Just how bad
was this deal? Probably the most honest assessment was made by Peter
DeFazio, the ultra-left-wing representative from Oregon. DeFazio
refused even to play the role of the modest winner. "This was
no compromise," he exalted. "We promised we would never
compromise on safety. This was the Democrat bill." Alas, he
is right.
But DeFazio
is dead wrong on one issue: This is not a bill that puts safety
first. In fact, it could undermine airport safety, by turning the
entire security infrastructure over to federal bureaucrats. As NR
has reported many times throughout the last few weeks, the best
scholarly work on airport security has been done by transportation
expert Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation. Poole's research has
found strong evidence that those countries with the best records
on safety are the ones that use private contractors, not government
workers, for inspections.
This bill does
not allow private screeners in airports for the next five years.
In reality, that probably means they are banned forever. Once these
employees become federal, unionized AFSCME workers, we will never
be able to contract out this work to private security agencies.
The bill does
require that screeners speak English, and that they be U.S. citizens
— which is a vast improvement over the current system. Under
the current procedures, the screeners are scarier looking than the
passengers they're strip-searching. Last week, an Arab screener
was shaking down a blue-haired, 75-year-old woman. What's wrong
with this picture?
|
