Why Federalizing Airport Security Is A Bad Idea
October 24, 2001
The Senate has passed legislation that would give us a government-run passenger-screening process at airports nationwide. The House has the measure under consideration.
Critics see a number of flaws in the proposal:
- It concentrates on passengers and ignores the thousands of caterers, cleaners, refuelers and others with access to airports and jets who lack mandatory background checks or ID cards.
- It is essential to be able to discipline or fire incompetent or untrustworthy security personnel -- but that would be nearly impossible to do in a federal civil-service bureaucracy.
- Passenger airports vary enormously in size and design -- so a "one size fits all" solution mandated from the top down is likely to be a poor fit at many airports.
- Policymakers should admit that no one yet has "the answer" for implementing more effective and affordable airport security -- and although all sorts of solutions are being proposed, no one knows how costly or effective they will be.
Critics argue that a regime of tough federal outcome standards makes better sense than federalizing the entire system.
Many European airports tried the federalized approach and later abandoned it for a privatized approach. Either corporations were created to manage security or private firms were hired to undertake the task. This approach has demonstrated success.
Source: Robert W. Poole Jr. (Reason Public Policy Institute), "Safest Course to Airport Security," Washington Times, October 24, 2001.
Browse more articles on Government Issues