IT'S AN explosive issue that makes it into nearly every presidential, senatorial and local election: big government. America today quakes at any mention of the term and its negative connotation in this society most cynical of its leaders. In light of recent events, though, citizens of the United States must put any qualms they have about excessive government power and interference behind them, especially when it comes to government intervention in airports. Most people now are wary of flying despite claims that security has been improved radically over the past several weeks. Stories continue to emerge about unqualified employees screening baggage and guarding airports, such as the case of a man at Dulles who passed airport security with a knife in his shoe ("Seven Screeners At Dulles Fail Test," The Washington Post, Oct. 17). In extenuating circumstances, such as the one we now experience, the federal government is obligated to step in for the sake of national security in federalizing airport safety procedures around the nation.
In what normally is reserved for classic clashes between Democrats and Republicans, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta - in an alliance with the majority of the Senate - now finds himself in conflict with House Republicans and the White House. Mineta is backing a Senate bill - dubbed the Aviation Security Act - that proposes making all those who screen and check baggage at the country's largest airports federal employees. In smaller airports, local law enforcement would be in control.
Undoubtedly, this sweeping legislation garnered the outcries of protesting Republicans in the House. They refuse to support the security measures claiming the inevitable future growth of the federal bureaucracy to unwanted proportions.
These dissidents, however, neglect to perceive the much greater threat possible if the proposed measures are not put in to place. For some Republicans afraid of too much involvement of the federal government, it should come down to the lesser of two evils: continue to allow incompetent workers to hold the safety of millions in their hands or let the government control the most essential nuance of airport management.
Almost daily, disturbing reports of security breaches in airports around the United States continue to be issued. The media focuses on situations that would make any traveler reluctant to step on to a plane. Private corporations that control baggage screeners hire ex-convicts and illegal aliens. Some workers go on the job without sufficient training - they may not know the difference between a comb and a box-cutter in a scanned piece of luggage. Others carry false identifications as nine illegal immigrant employees did in Miami ("Nine Miami Airport Workers in Court on False ID Charges," MSNBC.com, Sept. 18). Many have failed recent tests of competence conducted after the terrorist hijackings.
One need not look that far into the past to find instances of the federal government provisionally receiving powers normally reserved for states or even private groups. During World War II, many essential private industries, such as the automotive and aviation sectors, were federalized to increase production. In that time of need, the government ensured the safety of Americans abroad and on the home front by creating a uniform system applicable to every plant in the country.
That kind of action is necessary today in the airline industry. The installation of federal employees as baggage screeners and handlers would generate a systematic approach to training and hiring airport staff. In addition to the obvious benefit of stricter security on our planes, Democrats see the plan as a way to employ airline workers laid off in the fallout of a drastic drop in air travel after the attacks.
Already, partisans from both sides of the fence have joined to support this initiative. The Senate bill was co-sponsored by a member of each party - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC). While McCain continues to be a relative liberal among his peers, his backing may prove the impetus to bring more Republicans on the bandwagon from the other chamber of Congress.
In an interview with NBC's Tom Brokaw aired Oct. 16, Tom Ridge, director of the Office of Homeland Security and a former Republican governor of Pennsylvania, commented on the possibility of federalizing airport employees and baggage screening areas or other secure locations. Such action at baggage and ramp areas would be implemented to maintain a "higher level of security" and "higher degree of competency." The White House and other Republicans had best follow Ridge's cue.
While the threat of danger in the skies continues to loom, a new federal system of security must be implemented in our airports immediately. In pushing to do so, the government does not seek any usurpation of unnecessary power. Rather, it proposes to protect those constituents without whom this national bureaucracy would not exist.
(Becky Krystal is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 3 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
