Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Republicans blocked Obama TSA nominee on ideological grounds... just like in 1996...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-29-09 08:47 AM
Original message
Republicans blocked Obama TSA nominee on ideological grounds... just like in 1996...
I see the Washington Post noting an "alleged attempt to blow up a transatlantic flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas would be all-consuming for the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration -- if there were one."

"Instead, the post remains vacant because Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has held up President Obama's nominee in an effort to prevent TSA workers from joining a labor union."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/28/AR2009122802131.html

I seem to recall the Republican-led congress shooting down (pardon the pun) the recommendations of Al Gore's Commission on improving air transportation safety because it would require more tax revenue.

"In 1996 then-President Clinton asked Vice President Gore to chair a commission on improving air transportation safety. The commission's report, issued in February 1997, included the following recommendations:

* Treat aviation security as a national security issue, and providing appropriate funding.
* Mandate security enhancements, including explosive detection, automated bag matching, and profiling programs.
* Work with airlines and airports to ensure positive identification of passengers.
* Work to improve air transportation security internationally.
* Control access to aircraft and improve physical security.

Some in the airline industry questioned that security was even an issue. This attitude was exmplified by TWA spokesman John McDonald, quoted by Newsday as saying, "TWA last year carried 21 million people and we didn't have a single plane blown out of the sky by someone who carried a bomb on the plane through security. I don't see it as an issue. The reality is, it hasn't occurred." Other industry spokespeople argued that increased security measures would be disruptive as well as costly, because they would frighten away passengers. Susan Rork, managing director of security for the Air Transport Association of America, the industry's lobbying group, said, "We sell an illusion. Travel is supposed to be pleasant."

The airline industry promoted their views with political contributions and lobbying. Over a two-year period, airline political action committees contributed to 24 of the 25 members of the House subcommittee on aviation. They also contributed to eight of the nine Republicans on the Senate aviation subcommittee, but to only one of eight Democrats. Airlines and related groups, including airline employee unions, distributed more than $2 million in contributions to hundreds of candidates during the 1995-1996 campaigns. Lobbyists included former Labor Secretary Ann D. McLaughlin, who headed the 1990 Bush Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism. A so-called "legislative action" -- a lobbying position paper -- by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association claimed that the commission had overstepped its mandate by recommending "aviation user fees" to pay for its proposed security improvements.

The industry position was supported by the conservative press, with most arguments denouncing the commission recommendations as not "cost effective."

As Paul Krugman pointed out in an op-ed piece, airport security is treated as a law enforcement issue in Europe, funded by airports or the national government. In the U.S. it's a perfect example of "privatization," paid for by the airlines. Robert Crandall, chairman of American Airlines, proposed in 1997 that responsibility for airport security be be given to a national nonprofit corporation. But congressional and public opinion favored reducing the role of government, not expanding it, and the proposal went nowhere. Then the Republican Congress opposed any increase in government spending that was not explicitly military. In 1996 a panel on airline security proposed spending about $1 billion, or $2 per passenger, on improvements. But it rejected the idea that they be funded by an airport tax, arguing that general revenues be used. That, of course, would have required Congress to act, and it didn't. Krugman concludes "we have nickel-and-dimed ourselves to death."

http://www.thedubyareport.com/terrorism.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Christa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-29-09 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-29-09 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R Heard this on the radio this AM!!
Let's see now..just who is it that puts personal political agendas over National Security???????????????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-29-09 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. Afterthought... Gee, I wonder what airport security might have been like on 9/11/01 if
Edited on Tue Dec-29-09 12:03 PM by BrklynLiberal
Al Gore had been allowed to take his rightful place as President? Ya think that maybe,...just maybe..airport security would have been upgraded to a point that the World Trade Center would still be up, and thousands of victims would still be alive??

I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-29-09 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
4. Kick for more exposure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-29-09 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. better duck wyldwolf. people on DU nowadays call ME a paid DLC operative.
Edited on Tue Dec-29-09 09:44 PM by dionysus
thought you'd get a kick out of that.
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. welcome to the party!
LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
7. Kick!
:dem:
OK Rahm, where's my nickle?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC