Saturday, June 16, 2012

Rand Paul's Useless TSA Bill

Becky Ackers explains:
Wow. Rather than “abolishing” the TSA, as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was promising to do just a few weeks ago, he’s now seeking to “privatize” it – not only a bait-and-switch but exactly the non-solution for which Rep[rehensible] John Mica (R-Fl) is crusading. One of the two bills Rand’s introduced “would require that the mostly federalized program be turned over to private screeners and allow airports — with Department of Homeland Security approval — to select companies to handle the work.” Whether it’s Mica’s or Rand’s proposal, both leave the Feds in charge of bungling security at airports. Yes, the deviants pawing you at checkpoints will receive their paychecks – which your taxes will continue to finance – from “private” companies, but the TSA (or, per Rand’s bill, its ├╝ber-bureaucracy, the DHS) will dictate every move they make, from groping you to stealing your mouthwash.
The real solution is, of course, to return security to each individual airline, that way airline customers can choose the balance between security and convenience they want. Rand's bill just perpetuates the right of the government to dictate choices for us all,with just a different shade of lipstick on the pig, rather than moving us toward free market solutions.

12 comments:

  1. What company wants to buy the contracts of unionized govt employees??

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rand Paul's conversion into full-blown republican statist has been alarmingly swift.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Damn. Talk about selling your soul for 30 pieces of silver.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think underscores Rand's continued descent. This is the classic fascist distraction of "private" actors replacing state actors. What we'll get is all the trouble of the TSA, but now some crony will line his pockets with the contract. It's just Blackwater, airport edition.

    Screw you, Rand.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ms. Akers is 100% correct. Only abolishing TSA will fix the problem, not a tepid measure that will set ground rules for violating innocent citizens.

    We need our Constitution back and this falls a bit short.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I especially hate it when these faux libertarians use the word "privatization" to describe government controlled services. The disastrous resultant are then blamed on the "free-market." And don't even get me started on "deregulation."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No kidding Anon. I can't believe there are still people supporting this Rand character at this point. He sure had me fooled for awhile.

      Delete
  7. Man usually the false libertarians don't show their full statist streak until a few years down the road. Rand has broken the record. Has Eric Dondero embraced him yet?

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's turning out to be quite entertaining watching Rand Paul crash and burn.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I keep reading from anti-statists that Rand is a "false libertarian", or "he's turned full blown statist", as if what Rand really is, a proudly self professed Conservative, as being anything other than just that. You might as well be dissing Tiger Woods for being too promiscuous.

    At what point in time would you realize that when someone says, "I'm a Conservative", you'd all of a sudden think, "He might be the next Ron Paul"? Oh, that's right, you wouldn't. Because then you'd remind yourself that Rand is exactly what he's claimed to be this entire time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, remember even Tom Woods has called himself conservative in the past.

      Delete
    2. I think the phrase "he's turned full blown statist" is not off the mark, when you at least seem to be close to the edge of libertarianism as Rand has been the past year, only to turn into more and more of a "full blown statist", that endorses Romney, wants to "privatize" the TSA, and sanctions against Iran.
      There seems to be very little left of a guy that would endorse his father.

      Delete