I guess I can't wrap my brain around that logic. The TSA was set up as a deterrent. It still has holes, but because they have not had any great save, this proves that their efforts are futile? I guess I could apply the same logic and say that since we have not had anymore hijackings where planes have been flown into buildings, then the TSA security efforts are a complete success.
True. It's like saying there haven't been any accidents at an intersection since they made it a four-way stop, so therefore the stop signs aren't necessary.
However, what is your alternative? No screening? Screening by a different, but just as messed up agency? Outsourcing to the private sector?
I'm not sure awarding to the low bid contractor means better security screening. Even Adam Smith noted that there are certain functions that are inherently governmental for which the profit motive is not the best course of action (he gave lighthouses as the "transportation security" example in his time). But currently the sad reality is that civil service jobs are unionized and firing someone is next to impossible. It's not a matter of being able to hire good people, but a matter of not being able to dismiss bad ones. Fix that and your personnel problems are reduced by 98%.
He was a lifetime postal employee.
You could have stopped right there and we'd have gotten the picture.
