|
 merican
unity has been one of the unintended consequences of the terrorist
attacks in New York City and in the nation's capital. Although that
unity is starting to dissipate as we return to normalcy, America
is a much less divided nation now than it was one month ago. While
this has generated enormous benefits on charitable fronts, it has
also created an artificial and potentially dangerous homogeneity
on the political front, as individuals seek some remedy — any
remedy — to all that went wrong on September 11.
Although all
Americans shared in the national tragedy that unfolded at the World
Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in southwestern Pennsylvania, we
should not all share an equal burden in fixing what went wrong that
day.
Specifically,
spreading the costs of securing the nation's airports among all
taxpayers is a fundamentally inefficient and inequitable course
of action. Yet, because of our new solidarity, there has been little
outcry against the suggestion that airport security should be federalized
through the creation of a new agency — an agency that would
likely add tens of thousands of people to the federal payroll to
screen bags and passengers at airports, and that would cost nearly
$2 billion, according to Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta.
While none
of us wants to see events like those of September 11 repeated, it
is difficult to justify a situation in which fliers and non-fliers
alike would be taxed to provide a service that primarily benefits
the first group. Further, in an industry in which nearly 93 percent
of revenue-generating capacity last year operated out of major airports
(99 percent out of major and national airports), it is difficult
to argue that the benefits of the proposed federalization would
be well distributed throughout the country. Patriotism and concern
for America do not warrant that these facts be ignored. In fact,
the principles of federalism demand that they be recognized.
The federal
government can play a useful — though limited — role by
setting minimum safety standards, collecting and disseminating information
on the best practices and available technology, and monitoring the
airlines to ensure that the safety standards are met. But it should
not be in the business of running the security operations at our
nation's airports.
With the federal
government filling only a limited role, airlines and customers would
be able to decide what form the increased safety costs will take.
Some airlines may choose to hire more inspectors and buy more sophisticated
technology, in order to meet the required safety level with little
inconvenience and lost time in the inspection process. Bargain airlines,
on the other hand, may choose to keep their price advantage by relying
on more time-consuming, but equally effective, inspections. In this
way, the costs of increased safety would be placed with their beneficiaries,
without resulting in the loss of consumer choice that would likely
accompany a simple airplane ticket tax. Forcing one-size-fits-all
policies on the industry and its customers will rob consumers of
this choice — without guaranteeing them a safer product.
Such a ticket
tax is included in the airport-security legislation proposed by
Senators Ernest F. Hollings (D., S.C.) and John McCain (R., Ariz.).
Though the proposal notes that much of the federalized security
can be paid for with only a $1 per ticket tax, this estimate assumes
no decrease in the nation's air travel relative to the year 2000
level. Given the reduction in demand the industry is likely to face
for some time to come, this tax will have to be revised upward substantially
or else taxpayers will be left with the bill. By reducing the price
gap between low-cost and higher-cost airlines, such a tax would
undoubtedly harm those carriers that have been successful in providing
frugal consumers the product they desire. It's the airlines that
know their customers best; they are in the best position to customize
procedures to remain attractive to the consumer, while still meeting
the highest standards of safety. While the federal government does
not have a proven competence in meeting the goals of either consumer
satisfaction or safety, it could serve important roles as a source
of information and as a third-party check that the airlines do not
fall below the required security minimums. By imposing fines and
informing the public of any airline misconduct, the federal government
could oversee the safety of the nation' s air travel — without
suddenly becoming the airlines' police force.
In the wake
of a tragedy of truly national proportions, it is comforting to
see America presenting a unified front — but that unity is
not a green light for policy makers to ignore the principles of
good government and simple economics. Federalizing airport security
is a bad idea, motivated by emotion rather than common sense.
|
