November 19, 2001
The Feds at the Airport
After a few weeks of trivial arguments between congressional Republicans
and Democrats, Congress voted last Friday to pass a very bad aviation
bill that vastly expands the scope of the federal government. The two
parties really had very little to argue about, as the only real issue was
whether airport security would be fully nationalized sooner or later.
Sadly, only a handful of Republicans (and no Democrats) abided by the
Constitution and opposed this latest federal power grab. The bill grants
the airlines billions of taxpayer dollars in new subsidies, imposes new
taxes on travelers, and rewards the federal unions by creating thousands
of new government jobs. What the bill does not do, however, is create
innovative approaches to safety in the sky.
A constituent of mine who happens to be an airline pilot put his
opposition to federalized airport security quite succinctly: “I don’t
want the same people who bring me the IRS and the ATF to be in charge of
airport security.” In other words, federal agencies are not exactly known
for their efficiency and excellence, to put it mildly. So why are we
convinced that a federal takeover of airport security is such a good
idea? I have spoken to many commercial pilots since the events of
September 11th, and hundreds more have called, written, and emailed my
office. I can assure you that not one agreed that airport security should
be federalized. These men and women spend their working lives in airports
and in the air; they are more vulnerable than any of us to terrorist
hijackings. We should listen to their ideas about airport security before
we let Congress create a massive new federal bureaucracy.
Remember, several federal agencies failed to prevent the September 11th
attacks, including the FBI, CIA, and FAA. Now Congress wants to pour
billions into the creation of a new federal workforce at airports. No
doubt the federal union bosses are excited at the prospect of thousands
of new members, but there is no reason to believe that an expansion of
the Transportation department will produce better results. The pattern is
always the same: government agencies fail to do their job, yet those same
failed agencies are given more money and personnel when things go wrong.
Congress should be privatizing rather than nationalizing airport
security. The free market can and does produce excellent security in many
industries (including most European airports). Many security-intensive
industries do an outstanding job of maintaining safety without depending
on federal agencies. Nuclear power plants, chemical plants, oil
refineries, and armored money transport companies all employ private
security forces that operate very effectively. No government agency will
ever care about the bottom-line security and profitability of the
airlines more than the airlines themselves. Airlines cannot make money if
travelers and flight crews are afraid to fly, and in a free market they
would drastically change security measures to prevent future tragedies.
In the current regulatory environment, however, the airlines prefer to
relinquish all responsibility for security to the government, so that
they cannot be held accountable for lapses in the future.
I’m happy to report one small victory in the aviation bill, however.
Legislation I introduced to allow the arming of pilots was included in
the final version (despite the efforts of anti-gun forces in both the
House and Senate). I plan to closely monitor the Transportation
department to insure it moves forward with programs certifying pilots to
carry firearms.
