AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > January > 10 > Entry
Are the new X-ray scanning machines appropriate for airport security use?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The first day on the job, the Democrat-led congress promised to strengthen homeland security. They probably were not suggesting widespread use of the best new airport screening tool around - the fully-body “backscatter” machines that ACLU reps call a “virtual strip search.” But backscatter scanning plugs some long-standing security holes, and is sorely needed. Plastic explosives hidden on someone’s body will be seen right through their clothes - which is, of course, what the ACLU is worried about. But in this instance, anyone who is more concerned about privacy than about preventing people from killing us is missing the point. Privacy concerns should be used to improve our necessary security advancements; not prevent them altogether.
I travel a lot, and I’ll shortly be going through Phoenix … where the first American backscatter machine just came online. I’m not thrilled about the idea of a TSA official eyeing my extra holiday pounds. But the TSA has instituted many privacy protections. The image will be erased from the screen after each passenger, and the screening official - who will be at a remote location, away from the person being scanned — will have no way of printing, storing or transmitting the image. Travelers can also opt for a manual body search instead.
David Holtzman, the author of “Privacy Lost: How Technology is Endangering Your Privacy,” is an unlikely convert to the need for backscatter scanning. But as he concluded in a January Business Week article, “We need a new kind of privacy. Getting professionally patted down or XXX-rayed should be O.K. in [an age of terrorism]. Invasive searches are a necessary evil whose potential benefits outweigh any momentary anxiety.”
In a recent telephone interview he explained that, “The mode that we are in — post 9/11 especially — is optimization; trying to get thru the security hurdles as fast as we can. A lot of things that might be embarrassing aren’t anymore. People adjust to that in security lines, like unbuckling pants or lifting up their shirt. This technology can be useful, so we must put in safeguards against abuse. But it’s a dangerous world, and there are people who want to hurt us, so anything we can do to protect ourselves is good.”
Rebuttal
Technology may shoulder the moral burden with “fig leaf” technology and blur our unmentionables if human weakness prevails. But it’s the humans who are the puppet masters. It’s not hard to imagine the day when a backscatter security clerk ‘screen grabs’ a particularly embarrassing x-rated x-ray and uploads it to YouTube. It’s almost guaranteed.
“As this technology becomes commonplace, you’re going to start seeing those images all over the Internet,” said Barry Steinhardt, the head of the ACLU’s technology and liberty program, in a USA today interview. “These images are going to have high commercial value.” Pornography always has, and backscatter images are “comparable in quality to those found in Playboy magazine,” says a report in the Criminal Justice Policy Review. Big brother wants you to believe invasive searches are a necessary evil. But evil prevails when good people do nothing about protecting their privacy — and their health, because there are questionable health risks if this technology goes mainstream.
I know - “they” say there’s no health risk associated with walking through a low level radiation scanner. But imagine a frequent flier going through these scanners every week. This same traveler visits his doctor for an unnecessary MRI, while being assured by the kindly doctor, that the harmful effects of radiation are minimal. As he gets older, he has more x-rays, but not just in the confines of a hospital, but en route to work.
I wouldn’t rely on the intelligence of a sales pitch, because the pundits also told us that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) didn’t cause breast cancer, but recent studies show a sudden decrease in breast cancer, likely due to the decreased use of HRT. And they also said x-rays weren’t harmful, but x-ray radiation was added to the Department of Health and Human Services’ list of carcinogens in 2004.
Personally, I’d rather subject myself to a pat down than to a digital strip search. The former lasts for a few minutes, after which I could enjoy a cigarette. Digital strip searches could have regrettable repercussions, lasting years. And I wouldn’t even get to smoke.
I know — smoking is bad for me. But so are x-rays and strip searches.
Comments
By Brian Curtis
January 15, 2007 08:19 AM | Link to this
Well, here it is, the current neocon/Republican motto: “It’s a dangerous world, and there are people who want to hurt us, so anything we can do to protect ourselves is good.”
Truly there can be no stupider or more dangeorus attitude for citizens to adopt in a supposedly “free” country. But it’s been the Bush-backer’s slogan for nigh on six years now: “Anything the government wants to do is okay, as long as they claim it’s to Keep Us Safe. Beeee afraaaaaaiiid… booga booga!”
Sorry, Shaunti. Not interested. Safety is just not as important as freedom.
By Chilao
January 15, 2007 09:18 AM | Link to this
I personally think the increase in our cancer rates could be correlated to our increased exposure to electronic waves(of all sorts). And have had Public Health people agree with me, however that correlation would be extremely difficult to prove, since diet also is a big factor in the increased cancer rates(as well as Alzheimer’s).
And who could have known Diane would get so excited over being filmed, or is it from merely the excitement/apprehension of knowing the filming MIGHT show up on YouTube. Sorry, but that need for a cigarette was especially funny. LOL
But as I eluded to last week, with the thoughts of a buggy bumper sticker in mind, Just Say No to Travel.
By Happy Birthday MLK!!
January 15, 2007 09:28 AM | Link to this
The truth about radiation is that there is no truth. It’s quantum chaos and the Homeland Security hirelings are enzymic catalysts for radioactivity’s consequences on human chattel. You’ll find cancer if you look for it. Dont submit to xrays. They are disease-monkeys in an orbital spectrum of probability and destiny.
By NetBanker
January 15, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this
I can’t agree with Shaunti on this one and as a fairly frequent flyer I am concerned about the cummulative affects of all those x-rays on my body. To be blunt, I really don’t think that given hightened airport security and awareness of passengers that using a commercial airliner is high up there on the list of future terror attacks. With cockpit doors having been reinforced there is no real opportunity to take control and crash a plane into a building. If the purpose of terror attacks is to instill widespread fear in the population one must consider that the percentage of the population that does fly is relatively small in proportion to the total population. The fear factor from 9/11 was more on the ground than in the air.
I predict that the next attacks are going to be biological or some form of dirty bomb or an attack on the powergrid. These types of attacks are ones that affect huge numbers of people and are of the variety that would instill a sense of fear in those not directly affected.
Using a commercial jet to spread a biological agent is a very likely scenario since carriers of a virus can be quite contagious without being or appearing very ill themselves and no amount of x-ray or electronic scanning would pick up the virus. The brilliance of this type of attck is that those ‘victims’ who do become infected quickly scatter into the general population and infect others. The amount of detective work required to trace back to the source is extremely high and takes time. Given our lack of national health insurance there are certain to be uninsured people who become infected and do not quickly seek medical attention which prolongs the period of time in which the virus can continue to spread.
An attack on the powergrid or several power plants in a particular part of the country would have devastating economic impact and affect the very fabric of our daily lives. Think about the affects of hurricanes in Florida where people are frequently without power for 5-10 days. No refrigeration for foods or medicines, no power to run gas stations to pump gas, limited access to generators, medical facilities affected, elevators don’t work, no ATM access, no credit card processing for purchases, rail traffic affected, subways affected, etc.) If power were cut off because plants were damaged to the point that it took months/years to rebuild them AND the power grid was also attacked areas of the country could be without electricity or reliable electricity for months. The entire NorthEast could be almost completely shut down.
In my job I have to assess risk on an almost daily basis. Some of the questions that I ask are what is the probability of X type of failure, how frequently might this happen, and how many of our clients’ customers would be affected. As I’ve illustrated above there are several other types of attacks for which we are no where near prepared and for which the funds should be spent before installing backscatter x-ray machines in all of our airports. Flying might be safer, but those funds could be used to plug greater holes in our borders and ports and responder readiness that would provide far greater security for far more people that the machines in airports.
By T-Rex
January 15, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
Sigh…..here we go again with another scintillating topic from Swoozie and DeeDee (NOT!!). I would’ve really like to see them put some EFFORT into their posts!!! There is so much going on now that are REAL ISSUES; yet they wish to discuss an issue that’s old and decrepit. If you ladies actually READ this blog, (you couldn’t possibly read the garbage you write) and read our comments; do you notice how after 1/2 day the blog turns to more interesting topics because what you two post is right up there with Brittney mania?
How do you guys GET a cushy job like this? You only write once a week and you synchronize your comments to mesh exactly like con artists trying to fleece little old ladies in Florida. Hey, let me know if your bosses are hiring!!!
By Carlton Wyatt
January 15, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this
Shaunti and all those who think like she would have loved living in the old East Germany. They would have been very safe there. Of course, there was no privacy or freedoms left, but as long as they’re safe, right?
By Informer
January 15, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
T-REX (are you the egg that survived the ark?)
Can you also do web-site maintenance for the ajc? and do database administration for them as well?
Diane at least does all that as well.
By kimberly
January 15, 2007 01:25 PM | Link to this
If we MUST be violated at the airport, then I believe we should have a choice. Do you want to be visually and radiologically violated? Or do you want to be felt up by a stranger instead? Umm…. I’ll choose the latter IF I can select the frisker from among the available staff. {;->
By Chilao
January 15, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this
I had to wonder myself if that cigarette would get shared with your TSA screening rep. LOL
By NetBanker
January 15, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this
Umm…. I’ll choose the latter IF I can select the frisker from among the available staff. {;-> I’m willing to agree with you, KImberly, but I want one more caveat…turnabout is fair play so I get to frisk them too!
Really though why can’t they debate achieving energy independence or the contents of the article from yesterday about the myriad affects of using corn to produce ethanol or how the U.S. ranks 139 in participation by elgible voters out of 172 democracies in the world (And we hold ourselves up as THE example of democracy to world?)?
By NetBanker
January 15, 2007 02:03 PM | Link to this
Silly people, smoking isn’t allowed in that part of the airport. Diane will have to go outside in which case she’ll likely get frisked again going back through security (which could lead to a missed flight if the frisking is good enough to keep looping through) or she’ll have to hope that her departure concourse still has smoking lounges.
By Chilao
January 15, 2007 02:20 PM | Link to this
NetB - it’s merely 40,000 feet kinda stuff. LOL (hypothetically)
By Chilao
January 15, 2007 02:23 PM | Link to this
I did a transfer in Memphis once, you had to walk all the way out to the OUTSIDE, and then not near the doorway. Conversely, Dulles had the same rule, but it was merely down a ramp to the outside and they were not enforcing the not-near-the-door rule.
By Lyrazel
January 15, 2007 03:37 PM | Link to this
I don’t really care what kind of machine they have in airports. Like NetBanker I do not think airports will be the next target of terrorist attacks—and to be blunt—no machine will stop someone bent on destruction. Nor am I concerned about ogling my person—I mean 976,307 flights in 2006 left Atlanta. That would dumb out any voyeur to the point they stop seeing…even the lechers get bored after their 3,000 passenger that day—same old stuff—for 6.00 measly/hour—5 days a week. Nah, won’t happen! Remember all those celebrities and rich folk fly private charter flights. They don’t pass through airport security—so that factor of selling porn of celebrities going through scanners would net only someone like Sally Struthers…now I ask you is there going to be a lot of internet traffic going to nudes of Mrs. Struthers? Kind of doubt it…
Delta airlines just hauled back someone who was stowaway in the wheel well of the plane—thus proving there is more than one area where airport security will fail. Had this stowaway been on any kind of a mission—carried plastic explosives—Delta’s jet would have blown up. How many people would it take to breech security at an airport and walk on a tarmac with a explosive device and blow up a wing of the airport? I believe just a dayglow vest and a hard hat wearing a fake but official looking pass would get anyone into secure areas—and its been proven to happen. The planes are so close together if one blew up there would be a domino effect!
By Mile High Club
January 15, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this
The right kind of frisking might lead to more fun on board, eh?
By Brian Curtis
January 16, 2007 08:12 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel: Although it’s true that prurient interest is a minor aspect of this issue, do you really want to embrace the mentality that “intrusion’s okay because I have nothing to hide”? That way lies tyranny, like warrantless wiretaps and government opening of mail.
By kelly johnson
January 16, 2007 08:31 AM | Link to this
To Whom It May Concern, January 15, 2007
I am writing this letter for Help! This picture is of my Daughter and me. She is my Heart!She is 2 years old here. She is 9 now. This was when my nightmare began. Please I beg that there is someone out there that can help. I moved to Nashville Tennessee away from my ex boyfriend. He is not her biological father. I had a paternity test done when I first moved to Tennessee and then another when Mark took me to court in 2000. When my Daughter was 4 this man got full custody of her. I had lived in Tennessee for a year and court was supposed to be there but he somehow got it to be in Georgia. Year after year the courts tell me I need to get more stability and I can have my baby girl, my only Daughter back. But year after year they keep making up excuses on why not. First they tell me that I can not have men around my Daughter unless they are family or my husband. They tell me no one is allowed to stay in the house unless they are family, blood related or by marriage. They tell me to live in one place for a long period of time. They tell me to keep a job. I do all of this. I have been married for 5 years now. I had to start my own business so that I could keep a job because no one wanted to work around my visiting schedule. I lived in the same house for 4 years. But it didn’t make a difference. My final order stated that this is how it is. But everything they tell me not to do Mark, the man that is not my Daughters biological father, does this. He has had a girl stay the night and go to Florida and sleep in the same room as him. Now he is with a different girl who stays the night and takes my Daughter places. The courts are letting him get away with everything they condemn me for but they take a little girl away from there biological mother who is not unfit and give her to a man that is not her biological father. The only family she has down there that she is aloud to see, unless I am there, is Mark his brother his father and a 6-year-old cousin. (All men) She is about to turn into a young woman and start experiencing things. I have never mistreated, abused, not fed or done any harm to my little girl. I have done nothing but love her and fight for her. They tell me that I can not go back to court anymore. I don’t have the means to. The Guardian in my case was newly appointed and the old one of 4 years moved on. This new Guardian never called me never talked to any of my witnesses but one only because we called and called trying to get her to hear my side before the court date. But when she got to court she told all about Mark and nothing about me. She knew nothing about me. I pray everyday that I can find help or get this in the news for help so that I can have peace in my heart. I cry all the time and want to break down but I don’t because I have to try to keep strong for my little girl but sometimes I can’t help it. I cry day after day and my heart breaks day after day. I just want and need someone to help me. Not to long ago, there was a case just like mine in Atlanta Georgia. There was a woman named Kelly just like me who went through the same thing except the courts in Georgia took her little girl at 4 months and she got her little girl back at 4 years old. She still will have time with her Daughter everyday while she is young. My Daughter will be 10 on May 11th. My beautiful little girl was given to me on Mothers Day of 1997. I would like nothing more than to be able to bring her home again. Just like Kelly brought her Daughter home.
PLEASE SOMEONE OUT THERE HELP ME GET MY DAUGHTER BACK.
I don’t have much anymore but a family shouldn’t consist of money. A family is love, caring, understanding and taking care of those you love. It is support and a support system that stands by you through thick and thin. It is when you are down and out and have someone telling you to keep fighting because you will get through this. It is not fancy homes or cars or things. Material things come and go. They break and get lost. Love doesn’t go away or leave you or get lost. It is always there. A family is always together through thick and thin not because you have things and money. I have always taken care of my Daughter. She has always been fed and clothed and warm. I DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO BECAUSE HE IS IN CONTEMPT AND TELLS ME I CANNOT TAKE THIS TO COURT. PLEASE JUST HELP A HELPLESS MOTHER GET HER DAUGHTER BACK AND MAKE MY HEART WHOLE AND COMPLETE AGAIN. HELP ME BE ABLE TO TUCK MY BABY GIRL INTO BED AT NIGHT AND KISS HER FOREHEAD WHEN SHE IS OFF TO SCHOOL. PLEASE! HELP ME! Thank you for your time, Kelly Johnson 662-423-3885 1010 CR 992 Iuka, MS 38852
By chuck
January 16, 2007 08:43 AM | Link to this
This is not an “intrusion” Brian. The public has a decided interest in Airline safety. By travelling on an airplane, you actually GIVE permission for searches. Have you ever read the fine print on your ticket? There is a simple way to avoid it as well. NOBODY is forced to ride on an airplane. We choose to do so. Would not the same argument apply to Turner Field, SEC football games, concerts and the like? I have had to show the contents of a cooler at a Braves game a number of times and it is a PRIVATE venue. Airports are owned and operated by the government. Should they not have more security than a gathering of overgrown kids getting millions for playing a game?
By kimberly
January 16, 2007 09:01 AM | Link to this
Heh heh… he said “thrust.” Admit it Chuckie, you get off on the intrusion power trip, doncha? C’mon Dude. You know it’s true.
By Brian Curtis
January 16, 2007 09:37 AM | Link to this
And the purpose of government is to balance the public interest against personal freedoms such as privacy. The more the government can intrude into our private lives, the less freedom we have. Where do YOU prefer to draw the line?
I’m willing to accept less safety (especially illusory safety) in return for the greater freedom of restricted government in this area. Others may disagree… why?
By The72John
January 16, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this
Chuck is up to his usual strawmaning tricks again, framing this in a false dichotomy of absolutes - Searches against NO searches.
The objection raised in this particular case is not that we, as airline travelers, refuse to submit to any kind of security checks, it’s that there is concern about this particular kind of overly-intrusive and possibly dangerous security check.
Now, if he can raise valid responses to the specific concerns about this type of search, namely that they are an invasion of personal privacy above and beyond the normal course of searching, that they pose a potential health hazard, particularly to regular airline travelers, and that they provide an illusion of safety rather than addressing other sources of risk not connected to airline travel and where the money could be better spent, then by all means - we would love to hear it.
I’m not holding my breath, however. The “OMG why don’t you want to be searched! Why do you want to blow up airplanes! Why do you hate America!” arguments of the ultra-right are predictable at best.
By Chilao
January 16, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this
Black and White: you’re edda wid us or agin us.
sidebar: the US military in Iraq can tell when Al Queda has moved into an area before any attacks. Why? Tomatoes and cucumbers disappear from the local produce market, being too suggestive in nature. Can we all (or at least I will) say primitives lacking basic self-control. Reminds me of our own less-evolved times, when table-clothes went to the floor, least a healthy-man get side-tracked by the visual of that hot elm/lathe-scupltured leg. LOL
By Chilao
January 16, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this
There’s an interesting article at MEMRI related to the question if Saddam was hanged for 156 deaths, what will be Bush’s punishment for at least 30,000(their figure) collateral damage deaths.
By Chilao
January 16, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this
Shaunti quote: But backscatter scanning plugs some long-standing security holes, and is sorely needed. Plastic explosives hidden on someone’s body will be seen right through their clothes
Shaunti has a point here, should we also include finger-probing of both female orifices and the male single orifices, since explosives COULD be hidden there. Can’t be too safe, you know. Key word in her quote made me think of all that..LOL
By Brain
January 16, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this
First off whats with the wack job Mom begging for a hand out? Secondly air travel is a privilege not a right. No where in our constitution does it guarantee you the right to air travel. With privilege come prices and the current price to fly includes these LEGAL searches. Have a problem with being searched…then don’t fly! This country has become a bunch of FAT BABIES! Political correctness has taken the place of common sense and common courtesy. The expectations that folks have are unreal and the entitlement ideology that has taken over this country is the reason we are in decline. Other countries envy our freedoms and despise our arrogance….gee wonder why!
By Lyrazel
January 16, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this
Brian, I have been stopped at security every time I fly. My bags are opened and I am given a wand search. My name, I guess, is similar to names of those the government is suspicious of. As much as I find the constant searches annoying I must comply or not fly. What irritates me is this is just another in a series of underfunded un-thought-out plans utilizing unproven equipment requiring a skill level for operation not achieved when hiring workers at 6.00/hour—whereas a dog needs to be trained and will 90% of the time detect the same explosive substances, or drugs better than machine or human employees. Dogs are used still in the back of luggage rooms (especially when that fancy equipment goes kaput and they have to wait 8 weeks for someone who can be found who knows how to repair) and are much cheaper to hire and maintain. Bring a dog aboard every plane after the passengers are seated and it will find them with drug/explosive residue on their person…
One thing Brian, I will not give my name to be put on a list as a frequent flyer. Our government seems incapable of maintaining the data it collects. Strange as it seems there is no program in operation to protect any government electronic files from being breeched.
What Me Worry?
By Chilao
January 16, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this
Sounds like air travel, period, is Unconstitutional.
By Brian Curtis
January 16, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel: To, me those are all good reasons to clamp down further on what we allow our government to do.
The “our way or the highway” monopoly they have on air travel means that, theoretically, we have to put up with whatever procedures they choose to institute if we want to fly somewhere. And given their record of incompetence AND intrusiveness, I’m not willing to give them much slack. I prefer slapping their hand whenever they extend it into my personal domain.
By Lyrazel
January 16, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this
Dear Kelly Johnson, If you need custody assistance a legal-aid lawyer would be a good place to take your case. Taking it to a blog will only result readers having doubts about the authenticity of this post. I doubt anyone here will send you money. To be even more cold: judging from your post I deem the authorities have good reasons (reasons you are intentionally not relaying) that would effect their continued judgement against your receiving custody. Sorry…but thanks for sharing.
By Chilao
January 16, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
I thought Kelly’s post was an Anti-Crack, Anti-Meth Anti-Alcohol, and Pro Socially-Accepted/Defined Virtuous-Woman advert.
By Lyrazel
January 16, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this
Brian I do agree with you but your method cannot be put into actual practice. I cant slap a government TSA employee or just say no to search yet still be allowed on the flight. It wont happen.
By A Day Late and a Dollar Short
January 16, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
72John—I’ll x-ray the female passengers, you can scan the male passengers.
By Brian Curtis
January 16, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel: True. I really meant a metaphorical “slap,” through voting and legislation to scale back what government is allowed to do.
By A Day Late and a Dollar Short
January 16, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this
I just had an idea for a new dating website. Instead of photos, you would be required to post your body scan.
By DTVRXGXG1
January 16, 2007 01:01 PM | Link to this
Hello. DTVRXGXG2 [url=http://www.tDTVRXGXG3.com] DTVRXGXG3 [/url] Thanks
By NetBanker
January 16, 2007 01:35 PM | Link to this
Have a problem with being searched…then don’t fly! This country has become a bunch of FAT BABIES! Political correctness has taken the place of common sense and common courtesy. Brian…do YOU really trust the government’s declaration that a machine that shoots x-rays (which CAN without doubt cause cancer and other problems due to over exposure) is safe when the technology is new and there isn’t a single long-term study of the effects on frequent flyers or employees working right next to the machines or the travelers in line? Our government doesn’t exactly have the best track record in determining what is safe when you consider DDT, Agent Orange, the whole host of drugs approved by the FDA that have had to be pulled, etc. that were all previously declared just fine by the U.S. Government. They also aren’t exactly the best at spending money where it needs to be spent, but instead spending it where it gives the most impression of action…it’s about the perception of security rather than actual security.
You also don’t address the point I made yesterday that from a probability standpoint a commercial airliner ISN’T likely to be the next target and that the hundreds of millions/billions that will be spent on unproven technology that could, in fact, have health damaging effects could be better spent on another security hole such as our border, ports, or the hundreds of un-secure chemical plants, or 1st responder readiness which is woefully inadequate, or stockpiling anti-dotes for radiation exposure or various vaccines, or applying airport-like security to train stations, or even energy independence. Common sense tells ME that the cost/benefit ratio of these new machines isn’t worth the investment. Part of my resistance may be yet another search, but realistically IMO there is too much focus on air travel simply because that is how we were attacked on 9/11. Our adversaries are not stupid and it would take a serious fool to attempt another attack using the same/similar strategy when there are myriad other open doors. Even our own terror experts are focused on biological or dirty bomb attacks rather than airlines.
By Monica
January 16, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this
Is this the same technology they used to find and shoot bombs at people in Eraser? Seems to me that we could already be walking through these types of scanners at the airport and don’t even know it… sharpshooter backscatter technology… some snipers are hiding in the ceiling panels at Hartsfield, scanning all of us as we walk past the metal detectors! ~Please detect hint of sarcasm~
By The72John
January 16, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this
No, no no, Monica - those weren’t bombs in Eraser - they were railguns. Railguns use magnetic fields to fire a metal slug at super-high velocities. They really exist, but the real guns haven’t solved some basic problems to make them practical as military-grade weapons yet. Like, the magnetic-generating rails melt after each shot because of the extreme heat involved :-)
By NetBanker
January 16, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this
~Please detect hint of sarcasm~ hehehe…there was more than just a hint there, Monica.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 02:04 PM | Link to this
NetB—As always, you are right on the money that ultimately this is another cost/benefit question.
To fully comprehend the current situation, however, we need to keep in mind the history of hijacking . In the 1960s, hijacking became popular among Leftist radicals who successfully diverted many planes to Cuba. The US adopted a very “soft” approach to hijacking at that time because the hijackers rarely killed anyone. This practice ended only when Cuba made it illegal to land a hijacked plane there.
Unfortunately, this “soft” approach by the US eventually spawned the infamous D.B. Cooper, who extorted $200,000 from the government during a hijacking in 1971. This spawned numerous “copycats”, of course.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 02:06 PM | Link to this
The bottom line is that there should have been secure doors leading to the cockpit all along. The technology has always been there, it was the policy of appeasement which prevented their usage.
By chuck
January 16, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this
72john’s favorite strawman is accusing others of using one. Every time he can’t refute an argument he resorts to calling it a strawman.
The argument is not about the type of search so much as it is about the perceived loss of liberty. Why would ANY type of search be allowed if this one was prohibited based on a 4th Amendment violation. It is no more intrusive than any other type of search. As stated, you can opt for frisking rather than back scatter. The point is that no type of search is fool proof. This is the newest and best technology that we have available and it should be used to keep us safe.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this
I completely agree with you, NetB, that too much focus is being spent on airline safety at this point. The most a terrorist could do now is kill all the passengers on board, which isn’t particularly spectacular. You could do more damage in a shopping mall.
By The72John
January 16, 2007 02:15 PM | Link to this
72john’s favorite strawman is accusing others of using one. Every time he can’t refute an argument he resorts to calling it a strawman.
Well, I think I DID refute it, and it IS a strawman argument.
The reason I bring them up so often, chuckie, is because you and yours resort to them all the time. I suppose when you’ve built your entire life around a spiritual “strawman” it’s just to be expected.
By The72John
January 16, 2007 02:21 PM | Link to this
The reason it’s a strawman, by the way chuckie, is because you substituted an easily attackable argument for the actual argument.
In other words, when the topic was clearly not about searches or security checks in general, but about whether or not this particular search was too intrusive and violated privacy, you tried to make it about very routine and expected searches, i.e. having to open your cooler at Turner Field.
Rather than try to deal with shades of meaning (surprise, surprise) you reduced the argument to polarities - either FOR searches or AGAINST searches. You didn’t address the basic question - are X-RAY scans problematic - you simply attacked Brian for not ever wanting to be searched.
It’s what you always do, chuckie. Live with it.
By GOB
January 16, 2007 02:21 PM | Link to this
It is no more intrusive than any other type of search.
So you really think that this new technology, which amounts to a virtual strip search, is “no more intrusive” than a pat down or wand search? Really?
By Monica
January 16, 2007 02:25 PM | Link to this
Sorry 72! It’s been a long time since I’ve seen the movie and I was fuzzy on the technology. This week’s topic just reminded me of Arnold and Vanessa Williams hiding behind a refrigerator to avoid being “railed!”
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 02:26 PM | Link to this
Really, 72John, can’t you get a little more creative once in a while? If I had a quarter for every time you used the words vapid and strawman ……. You even ripped off false dichotomy from Mongrel. Pretty soon you’ll be accusing chuck of errors of proportion .
By The72John
January 16, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this
Cur, in case you are unaware strawman and false dichotomy are both part of the language of critical thinking. You didn’t invent them, and I was familiar with them long before you stuck your unwelcome nose into our discussions.
And if you don’t want me to use “strawman”, then please - refrain from making them.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 02:37 PM | Link to this
“Our” discussions ?? You own the blog, 72J?
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 02:40 PM | Link to this
Chew on this strawman , 72J. You Libs constantly harp about tolerance , diversity , and free speech , but you don’t seem to tolerate those whose opinions don’t match yours very well.
By The72John
January 16, 2007 02:41 PM | Link to this
I think you’ll find that absolutely no one wants you here, mutt. No one.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 02:44 PM | Link to this
Pain! Without love, Pain! Can’t get enough, Pain! I like it rough, Cause I’d rather feel pain than nothing at all.
By Chilao
January 16, 2007 02:45 PM | Link to this
I think MY would be the proper term for possessive ownership. Any English teachers here? Monica? OUR has a different meaning.
By Chilao
January 16, 2007 02:48 PM | Link to this
I never was an English Major; however, I always loved the bumper sticker I is a college-student.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 02:49 PM | Link to this
Such a loving guy, that 72J. Unfortunately, his love only extends to himself.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 02:54 PM | Link to this
Chilao—Don’t forget “The mind is a terrible thing”.
By The72John
January 16, 2007 03:00 PM | Link to this
Chew on this strawman , 72J. You Libs constantly harp about tolerance , diversity , and free speech , but you don’t seem to tolerate those whose opinions don’t match yours very well.
Speaking of creativity - this old saw comes out of the mouth of every demagogue on the radio.
Chew on this Dog. It’s not your opinions that are offensive, it’s you. Your constant belittling of people who, ironically enough, have opinions that don’t match yours very well and your dismissal of anyone who doesn’t agree with you as being simply too stupid and…what was it, runt…”not nearly as smart as they think they are.
Or how about your almost rabid eagerness to attack people on a personal level, or your obsession with ACTUAL ad hominem attacks. By the way - your post about “libs harping about etc. etc. etc. and you don’t practice it yourselves, is in fact a form of the ad hominem fallacy. Funny, huh?
Or your rude and suggestive comments to the women, or your constant harping about your Walter Mitty accomplishments and experiences, your constant nastiness to anyone and everyone, your assumption that your expertise in every subject vastly outstrips that of anyone else, including people who have spent longer than you’ve been alive studying that subject, your general narcissism, and just the fact that you are obviously a very emotionally disturbed and nasty individual who gets his pleasure from abusing other people.
So no, flea-bitten he-b***, it has nothing to do with not being tolerant or either diversity or free speech, and everything to do with the fact that I, and I suspect just about everyone else here, can not stand you. You are an odious bastard who makes every new topic an absolutely miserable experience once you start posting on it.
Do us all a favor and go away.
By lozen
January 16, 2007 03:02 PM | Link to this
72John just tells it like it is. Noone… Absolutely noone!
By Chilao
January 16, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this
I think MY would be the proper term for possessive ownership
oooops. SINGULAR possessive ownership. like i said, never was an english major
By NetBanker
January 16, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this
The most a terrorist could do now is kill all the passengers on board, which isn’t particularly spectacular. You could do more damage in a shopping mall. Exactly! Passengers are on guard and even with the reinforced cockpit doors aren’t about to sit still waiting to die. For real examples just look at the 2 airline incidents in the past 3-5 months with the ‘Flying Imams’ and the lady lighting matches on the plane (to cover the smell of her gas) that forced an emergency landing. Sending a group of people infected with a virus into a shopping mall or a Sarin gas attack or even a bombing would result in more terror and economic impact. It would be so darn easy to disguise oneself as a maintenance person to hide bombs in a bunch of those kiosks that are in the center of every mall hallway or do something like put a biological agent into the perfume bottles that Fragrance Models are always spritzing people with or drop radioactive wastes into the air handling system to be spread all over the mall.
OK…maybe I should stop giving ideas to potential terrorists.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 03:07 PM | Link to this
I am curious who the Three Days Grace fan is, however. Too bad my powers of deduction aren’t better. I’m better at inductive thinking. I wonder if they play 3DG on Project 9-6-1?
By Monica
January 16, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this
Chilao, “My” is singular possessive, whereas “our” is plural possessive. John’s use of “our discussions” most likely pertains to the collective group of regular bloggers who, with the exception of a few, manage to argue in a civil manner without dominating the blog with both endless posts about themselves and feeble attempts at picking up women, namely Kimberly. Just a guess though.
By NetBanker
January 16, 2007 03:11 PM | Link to this
The most a terrorist could do now is kill all the passengers on board, which isn’t particularly spectacular. You could do more damage in a shopping mall. Exactly! Passengers are on guard and even with the reinforced cockpit doors aren’t about to sit still waiting to die. For real examples just look at the 2 airline incidents in the past 3-5 months with the ‘Flying Imams’ and the lady lighting matches on the plane (to cover the smell of her gas) that forced an emergency landing. Sending a group of people infected with a virus into a shopping mall or a Sarin gas attack or even a bombing would result in more terror and economic impact. It would be so darn easy to disguise oneself as a maintenance person to hide bombs in a bunch of those kiosks that are in the center of every mall hallway or do something like put a biological agent into the perfume bottles that Fragrance Models are always spritzing people with or drop radioactive wastes into the air handling system to be spread all over the mall.
OK…maybe I should stop giving potential ideas to terrorists. Heck, I’m even starting to scare myself at how easily these ideas just pop into my head
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this
NetB—Although the vaunted 72John keeps mocking the concept of “errors of proportion”, in fact, proportionality lies at the heart of risk analysis.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this
So 72J, you’re telling me that you’ve never been nasty to any bloggers here? Never engaged in a personal attack? (BTW, I’m glad to see that you’ve been spelling ad hominem correctly. More thanks to cur).
By Chilao
January 16, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this
Good guess, Monica, thanks…LOL
Are we aware the Flying Imans intentionally behaved the way they did(distributing themselves widely over the plane and acting very bizarrely, for a public airline-flight at least) so they could then be screaming about Anti-Moslem bigotry?
How about sports stadiums in this at the mall discussion?
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this
Heck, I’m even starting to scare myself at how easily these ideas just pop into my head Must be that Pisces schizophrenia kicking in again, NetB.
By Chilao
January 16, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this
don’t y’all mean homonyms? dat other word looks like something you put in grits.
hahahahahah
By The72John
January 16, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this
So 72J, you’re telling me that you’ve never been nasty to any bloggers here? Never engaged in a personal attack? (BTW, I’m glad to see that you’ve been spelling ad hominem correctly. More thanks to cur)
No, I’m telling you that you attack everyone at one point or another, and on a far more personal level than I ever dreamed.
And please, get over yourself, you arrogant prick. I had far better teachers of the language than you could ever DREAM of being. You think that EVERYTHING has to do with you.
By Chilao
January 16, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this
heh, I can’t help it if the side of the Quaker Oats grit package got ripped off on the side, it was ‘hom’ something or other.
By The72John
January 16, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this
By the way, that is yet another example of your blatant hypocrisy. You jump all over simple misspellings, yet deride anyone who points out similar flaws in other posts.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this
Hey 72J—smoooooch
By Brian Curtis
January 16, 2007 03:38 PM | Link to this
Don’t feed the troll, folks. He comes here for attention because he can’t get it anywhere else.
By Chilao
January 16, 2007 03:39 PM | Link to this
72John - I think someone wants you.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 03:41 PM | Link to this
I hope it won’t upset you too much, 72J, but when I go gay, I’ll be looking for a guy like NetB, not you. I get along fine with folks who have real intelligence.
By The72John
January 16, 2007 03:42 PM | Link to this
I’d rather sleep with a woman.
By chuck
January 16, 2007 03:47 PM | Link to this
that’s fine 72j, except I was responding to a specific statement that was made:
Well, here it is, the current neocon/Republican motto: “It’s a dangerous world, and there are people who want to hurt us, so anything we can do to protect ourselves is good.”
Safety is just not as important as freedom.
He did not limit his comment to that ONE KIND of search. He did in fact imply that ALL searches were bad when he said:I prefer slapping their hand whenever they extend it into my personal domain.
So my other question would be, are there ANY restrictions on freedom that you would accept that are instituted for “safety”? What about speed limits? Safety belts? Public drunkenness? Warning labels on products?
Which of these are you willing to get rid of Mr. freedom before safety man?
What about restrictions of freedom that have nothing to do with safety, like compulsory education laws?
Why don’t we do away with ALL laws just to make old BC and 72j feel better.
By chuck
January 16, 2007 03:52 PM | Link to this
No offense NETB, but if I was on one of those planes it would be a pretty spectacular loss to ME.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 03:54 PM | Link to this
Pretty amazing, chuck, that the same folks here that are against airline searches (in the name of freedom) are the same ones who support socialized medicine (in the name of security).
You see, I can choose whether to fly or not, but I can’t choose whether to pay taxes or not. Another “error of proportion”.
By Mara
January 16, 2007 03:56 PM | Link to this
John - your 3:00 post was absolutely, positively, one-hundred-percent on the money! (But then I’m sorta biased, being a charter member of the John-n-Mara Mutual Admiration Society and all…)
ROTFLMAO!
Hey Brian. I don’t like being searched either. I thought one was “presumed innocent until proven guilty” not “guilty until proven innocent”…oh, right. My bad. I forgot, 9/11 changed everything…
(be afraid! Really, really, afraaaaiiidddd woooooooooooo! booogity-booogity)
By chuck
January 16, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this
That’s absolutely true brudog. They will argue ENDLESSLY for universal healthcare run by the government but God forbid you try to keep anybody safe or lock somebody up or deport ILLEGAL aliens. That’s an attack on FREEDOM by these fascist conservatives.
By Lyrazel
January 16, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this
NetBanker, I always knew those spritzer girls were Trouble—now if one comes near me I will shout for store police to arrest this terrorist (or potential terrorist which is good enough for Homeland Security to incarcerate suspicious citizens for months without a lawyer or actual infraction)! O thank you thank you thank you…
By chuck
January 16, 2007 04:01 PM | Link to this
AND, it’s perfectly OKAY for the government to confiscate and redistribute WEALTH, even though the wealthy earned it with the freedom we have in this country. Hey it’s not like a lab technician is ever going to be in that tax bracket (neither is a teacher for that matter, but I am against the death tax).
By kimberly
January 16, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this
Chuckie, compulsory education laws protect innocent children from ignorant parents, even though, occasionally, frightening fundies end up teaching them. So um, teacher, when the Constitution is toast, as some of the “conservatives” advocate, who’s going to protect us from those who are “protecting” us? And why don’t I feel safer now? Just curious.
72John, you might need to get a rabies shot, like, QUICK! Ewww… nasty mongrel germs.
By BUDDY
January 16, 2007 04:10 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel If you want to chime in with opinions on how things should be done…do something to put yourself in a position to make a decision, become a CEO or get elected or find a way to influence those with power, otherwise you are just whining like a fat baby
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this
Believe it or not, chuck, I actually do support inheritance taxes (the death tax) as the only way to prevent wealth from concentrating in the hands of a few families. The best situation for our country is if each generation has to go out and earn their own wealth. Remember, Argentina was the wealthiest country in the world in 1900. Unlike the US, they refused to pass inheritance taxes along with antitrust legislation, which led to their economic decline.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 04:15 PM | Link to this
I do admire kimberly for having the courage of her convictions in choosing freedom over security in terms of personal relationships. Now if she could only see the light regarding socialized medicine…..
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this
Also, kimberly, beautiful reference to Whitman’s “Song of Myself”. Apparently, you are a very cultured lady.
By Chilao
January 16, 2007 04:19 PM | Link to this
So this country is a great place to generate individual wealth, just as long as the people earning the wealth don’t have to actually pay any TAXES(gasp) for operating in the place that allowed them to generate that wealth.
What’s next, Stanley Tools deciding to move their corporation to the Caymen Islands to avoid paying US taxes? Oh, wait, they actually tried that.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 04:22 PM | Link to this
Watch out for those strawman arguments , Chilao.
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 04:31 PM | Link to this
So, kimberly, are you a fan of Three Days Grace? Or is that 72John? I would suspect Mara, but she isn’t that creative.
By The72John
January 16, 2007 04:46 PM | Link to this
Pretty amazing, chuck, that the same folks here that are against airline searches (in the name of freedom) are the same ones who support socialized medicine (in the name of security)
And the poor arguments continue, since no one is actually opposed to reasonable searches in the airport. The question, yet again (how many times does this have to be clarified), is in regards to ONE TYPE of search, and whether or not its potential risks and costs outweigh what has been suggested will be only marginal gains, if any, in actual security.
They will argue ENDLESSLY for universal healthcare run by the government but God forbid you try to keep anybody safe or lock somebody up or deport ILLEGAL aliens. That’s an attack on FREEDOM by these fascist conservatives.
You didn’t pay attention to the admonition not to use poor arguments, did you Chuck. Let’s see - what do we have here. Ah yes, the old “liberals love criminals” nonsense. False. I think you’ll find that we all like to feel safe in our homes. People who commit crimes belong in jail.
As for the deportation of illegal aliens, I’m not sure who the “they” you reference is supposed to be. After all, the conservatives in office have proven to be as hesitant about mass deportations as the liberals. I guess it just adds to your tirades to throw this one in.
Why don’t we do away with ALL laws just to make old BC and 72j feel better.
Yes, because obviously we don’t want any laws. Right. Once again, chuck quickly turns his argument into polarized black and white. No room in his world for shades of gray.
No offense NETB, but if I was on one of those planes it would be a pretty spectacular loss to ME.
Ah, but think of the gain to the world. One less chuck in it.
By Chilao
January 16, 2007 04:55 PM | Link to this
Did everyone read that the TSA is now going to have advertising copy in the bottom of those little bins that contain your pocket contents pre-Xray machine?
By L'il John
January 16, 2007 05:00 PM | Link to this
72—It is perfectly valid to seek to understand the concepts underlying public policy whenever examining a particular issue.
To summarize my feelings for you: The whole airline “security” problem grew out of the hijacker appeasement policies embraced by our government in the 1960s. Once the door to the cockpit was made secure following 9/11, the risk to society became very small. As such, it is my opinion that we are spending too much money on airline security.
As for the freedom/security discussion, it is obviously a grey area (Go Brits). Legally speaking, the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable search and seizure”. An argument can be made that you are voluntarily giving up that right when you buy a plane ticket. Fortunately, there is no compulsion to fly, it is only a convenience.
By NetBanker
January 16, 2007 05:23 PM | Link to this
Must be that Pisces schizophrenia kicking in again, NetB. No…I think one of my other personalities is a terrorist wannabe. LOL.
Chilao…it could be the mall, sports arena, concert venue, race track, movie theatre complex, theatre, opera house, and/or any other venue where large groups meet. Personally, if it was a biological attack I’d pick the mall because of all the rug rats and teens that hang out there.
Chuck…No offense taken. If I was on the plane I’d feel the same way, but at least we’d have the chance to go down fighting and maybe stop the attack. The kinds of attacks I’ve talked about are ones where far more people would be affected and it would be impossible for the average citizen to fight back. I’d rather spend the money protecting those citizens as well as shutting down the most likely and damaging situations rather than the ones that falsely make people think they’re significantly safer. As another poster mentioned bomb sniffing dogs would be far less expensive and obtrusive while yielding the same net result of finding explosives.
I’m with Chuck on the deporting illegal aliens. I recently heard statistics that an illegal alien who is arrested is likely to be re-arrested up to 5 more times before finally being jailed or deported. If we shipped them off for being here illegally in the first place we’d make a dent in crime and reduce the costs for law enforcement let alone save approximately 5 future victims.
LOL, Lyrazel. A friend of mine called them Fragrance Bit ches. One time I agreed to be sprayed by one and then loudly exclaimed “Oh! Oh my God!! It BURNS! It BURNS!” and then ran away through the store. The look on the her face and those of other employees in the area was priceless.
By chuck
January 17, 2007 09:36 AM | Link to this
Chilao, I didn’t say the wealthy should not pay any taxes. They should pay their fair share just like the rest of us. What I am against is confiscating their property just because they die. The death tax does just that. Since those assets have ALREADY been taxed when they were earned, it is decidedly unfair to take more from them after they are dead. Talk about taxation without representation.
There is NO BASIS for saying that the government deserves that money MORE than the relatives for whom that person sacrificed all of those years of work. AND FOR WHAT?!?! Here are some examples of WHY the government does not deserve ANYBODY’s money right now.
Buried in the Department of the Treasury’s 2003 Financial Report of the United States Government is a short section titled “Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position,” which explains that these unreconciled transactions totaled $24.5 billion in 2003.[2]
The unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent. Blaming these unreconciled transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their expenditures adequately, the Treasury report concludes that locating the money is “a priority.”
The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year.
A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully refundable tickets. The GAO blamed a system that relied on department personnel to notify the travel office when purchased tickets went unused.[3]
Auditors also found 27,000 transactions between 2001 and 2002 in which the Pentagon paid twice for the same ticket. The department would purchase the ticket directly and then inexplicably reimburse the employee for the cost of the ticket. (In one case, an employee who allegedly made seven false claims for airline tickets professed not to have noticed that $9,700 was deposited into his/her account). These additional transactions cost taxpayers $8 million.
This $108 million could have purchased seven Blackhawk helicopters, 17 M1 Abrams tanks, or a large supply of additional body armor for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Federal employee credit card programs were designed to save money. Rather than weaving through a lengthy procurement process to acquire basic supplies, federal employees could purchase job-related products with credit cards that would be paid by their agency. What began as a smart way to streamline government has since been corrupted by some federal employees who have abused the public trust.
A recent audit revealed that employees of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) diverted millions of dollars to personal purchases through their government-issued credit cards. Sampling 300 employees’ purchases over six months, investigators estimated that 15 percent abused their government credit cards at a cost of $5.8 million. Taxpayer-funded purchases included Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, lingerie, bartender school tuition, car payments, and cash advances.
The USDA has pledged a thorough investigation, but it will have a huge task: 55,000 USDA credit cards are in circulation, including 1,549 that are still held by people who no longer work at the USDA.[4]
The Defense Department has uncovered its own credit card scandal. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.[5]
Medicare wastes more money than any other federal program, yet its strong public support leaves lawmakers hesitant to address program efficiencies, which cost taxpayers and Medicare recipients billions of dollars annually.
For example, Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies.[6] The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently compared the prices paid by Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care program for 16 types of medical equipment and supplies, which account for one-quarter of Medicare’s equipment and supplies purchases. The evidence showed that Medicare paid an average of more than double what the VA paid for the same items. The largest difference was for saline solution, with Medicare paying $8.26 per liter compared to the $1.02 paid by the VA.[7] (See Table 1.)
These higher prices not only cost the program more money, but also take more money out of the pockets of Medicare beneficiaries. In 2002, senior citizens’ co-payments accounted for 20 percent of the $9.4 billion in allowed claims for medical equipment and supplies.[8] Higher prices mean higher co-payments.
Medicare also overpays for drugs. In 2000, Medicare’s payments for 24 leading drugs were $1.9 billion higher than they would have been under the prices paid by the VA or other federal agencies. Although Medicare is supposed to pay wholesale prices for drugs, it relies on drug manufacturers to define the prices, and manufacturers have strong incentives to inflate their prices.[9]
Nor are inflated prices for drugs and supplies the most expensive examples of Medicare’s inefficiencies. Basic payment errors—the results of deliberate fraud and administrative errors—cost $12.3 billion annually. As much as $7 billion owed to the program has gone uncollected or has been written off.[10] Finally, while Medicare contracts claims processing and administration to several private companies, 19 cases of contractor fraud have been settled in recent years, with a maximum settlement of $76 million.[11]
Putting it all together, Medicare reform could save taxpayers and program beneficiaries $20 billion to $30 billion annually without reducing benefits. That would be enough to fund a $3,000 refundable health care tax credit for nearly 10 million uninsured low-income households.
In 2002, the Department of Education received an application to certify the student loan participation of the Y’Hica Institute in London, England. After approving the certification, the department received and approved student loan applications from three Y’Hica students and disbursed $55,000.
The Education Department administrators overlooked one problem: Neither the Y’Hica Institute nor the three students who received the $55,000 existed. The fictitious college and students were created (on paper) by congressional investigators to test the Department of Education’s verification procedures. All of the documents were faked, right down to naming one of the fictional loan student applicants “Susan M. Collins,” after the Senator requesting the investigation.[12]
Such carelessness helps to explain why federal student loan programs routinely receive poor management reviews from government auditors. At last count, $21.8 billion worth of student loans are in default, and too many cases of fraud are left undetected.[13] Tracking students across federal programs, verifying loan application data with IRS income data, and implementing controls to prevent the disbursement of loans to fraudulent applicants could save taxpayers billions of dollars.
The Army Corps of Engineers spends $5 billion annually constructing dams and other water projects. Yet, in a massive conflict of interest, it is also charged with evaluating the science and economics of each proposed water project. The Corps’ “strategic vision” calls on managers to increase their budgets as rapidly as possible, which requires approving as many proposed projects as possible.[14] Consequently, the Corps has repeatedly been accused of deliberately manipulating its economic studies to justify unworthy projects.
Investigations by the GAO, The Washington Post, and several private organizations have found that Corps studies routinely contain dozens of basic arithmetic errors, computer errors, and ridiculous economic assumptions that artificially inflate the benefits of water projects by as much as 300 percent.[15] In one case, a study’s authors inflated a project’s benefits by using a 2.5 percent interest rate that dated back to 1954. In many cases in which the Corps calculated that a project would be a net benefit, arithmetic corrections revealed that the costs would be many times greater than the benefits.[16] By that point, of course, the unnecessary and wasteful project is often underway and cannot be stopped.
These errors appear to reflect more deception than sloppiness. A Washington Post investigation uncovered managers ordering analysts to “get creative,” to “look for ways to get to yes as fast as possible,” and “not to take no for an answer.” After a public outcry, in 2002, the Corps suspended work on 150 projects to review the economics used to justify them.[17] However, given the combination of Congress’s thirst for pork-barrel projects and the Corps’ built-in incentives to approve projects that will increase its budget, real reforms seem unlikely.
Significant waste, fraud, and abuse pervade Medicaid, which provides health services to 44 million low-income Americans. While states run their own Medicaid programs, the federal government reimburses an average of 57 percent of each state’s costs.
This system gives states an incentive to overreport their Medicaid expenditures in order to receive larger federal reimbursements. Not surprisingly, the GAO has identified state schemes that shift money between state accounts to create an illusion of higher Medicaid expenditures. Similarly, some states have spent their federal Medicaid dollars on non-Medicaid purposes. Tight state budgets like those experienced by most states today have increased the pressure to use such deceptive tactics.
The GAO and the HHS Inspector General have also uncovered some states’ practice of recovering improper payments, retaining the funds, and then spending them on unrelated programs—a practice that costs the federal government well over $2 billion per year. Congress could enact legislation to prohibit these actions more effectively.
Minor reforms enacted by HHS in 2001 and 2002 are expected to save Medicaid $70 billion over the next decade. A small sample of financing schemes uncovered in a few states suggests that, if Congress acts, even larger savings are available.[18]
The earned income tax credit (EITC) provides $31 billion in refundable tax credits to 19 million low-income families. The IRS estimates that $8.5 billion to $9.9 billion of this amount—nearly one-third—is wasted in overpayments.
The complexity of the EITC law leads to many of these mistakes. Calculating the credits is more complex than calculating regular income taxes. While the credit amount depends on the number of children in a household, the tax code does not clearly define how a child qualifies for the credit. In addition, fraud and underreporting of income are common, and the IRS lacks the resources to verify the qualifications of all EITC claimants.
Efforts are being made to address this problem, but Congress can do more by requiring better verification of incomes and by clearly defining the standards by which a child qualifies for the EITC.[19]
Government’s layering of new programs on top of old ones inherently creates duplication. Having several agencies perform similar duties is wasteful and confuses program beneficiaries who must navigate each program’s distinct rules and requirements.
Some overlap is inevitable because some agencies are defined by whom they serve (e.g., veterans, Native Americans, urbanites, and rural families), while others are defined by what they provide (e.g., housing, education, health care, and economic development). When these agencies’ constituencies overlap, each relevant agency will often have its own program. With 342 separate economic development programs, the federal government needs to make consolidation a priority.
Consolidating duplicative programs will save money and improve government service. In addition to those programs that should be eliminated completely, Congress should consolidate the following sets of programs:
342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water; 50 homeless assistance programs; 45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations; 40 separate employment and training programs; 28 rural development programs; 27 teen pregnancy programs; 26 small, extraneous K–12 school grant programs; 23 agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics; 19 programs fighting substance abuse; 17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies; 17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements; 12 food safety agencies; 11 principal statistics agencies; and Four overlapping land management agencies.[20] Conclusion Lawmakers have an opportunity to take a strong stand for efficient government and spending restraint. Reforming wasteful programs will build essential momentum for the larger reforms that are needed to bring the budget under control.
Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation
By chuck
January 17, 2007 09:42 AM | Link to this
NETB, Here’s another reason to deport illegals. SIX PEOPLE ON AVERAGE PER DAY KILLED BY ILLEGALS IN THE UNITED STATES. HALF OF THESE ARE ACCIDENTS THE OTHER HALF MURDERS/MANSLAUGHTERS.
That’s over 100 Americans per year killed as a result of not aggressively pursuing and deporting illegals.
By Chilao
January 17, 2007 09:52 AM | Link to this
Chuck - had I known you would post a effin BOOK here, I would have kept my mouth SHUT. LOL
not trying to nitpick, but I think there is a typo on the math, as my handy long-hand/pencil yields 6*365=2190
By Chilao
January 17, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this
Chuck - I cannot help but point out that your GOP faves had AT LEAST 6 years to correct all that inefficiency in government. What on earth happened? LOL
By Chilao
January 17, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this
anybody catch the Final Jeopardy question last night, where the question was “what Cabinet-level Department’s web site does NOT end in .gov?”
Answer was DoD ends in “.mil”.
intawestin’ trivia, (more ‘good for cocktail chatter’).
By chuck
January 17, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this
I meant to say over 1000 Chilao, referring to the murders/manslaughters.
By chuck
January 17, 2007 10:10 AM |