utive supporting the decentralization of airport security screening, Robert Poole, director of Transportation Studies at the Reason Foundation argues there are four good reasons for dumping federal screeners in favor of private companies. However, these reasons are specious at best and inane at worst. One reason Poole (2005, p. 1) proposes for the action is that it would result in ômore integrated security systemsö at airports which would enable staff to ôreduce boredom and enhance skills.ö Reduce boredom? Are we really ready to sacrifice the security at our nationÆs airports to reduce boredom among private screening employees?
Poole also argues that privatizing security screening would lower costs and save taxpayerÆs money. This shows just how much this proposal is what the Editors (2005, p. 1) of USA Today argue it is, ôa triumph of ideological rigidity and political scheming over common sense.ö Has Poole actually surveyed the American public? Considering private security screeners utterly failed the nation on September 11 and considering there have been no acts of terrorism at the nationÆs extensive airport system since 9/11 with federal screeners in charge, does Poole actually think taxpayers would rather risk their lives than pay the additional costs it takes for what is proven to be superior security? I think not. Though advocates of privatizing security screeners maintain this will maintain high standards, be more flexible, and more efficient, the Editors (2005, p. 2) of USA Today make an excellent point when arguing this represent ôreasoning we often favor in this spaceàBut not in circumstances where it has failed.ö
In conclusion, it is utterly ridiculou
...