One solution to problem-plagued TSA: abolish it
The proposed holiday airline boycott fizzled but there’s a new and simple formula for dealing with the TSA: get rid of it.
In economic terms, it simply makes sense to eliminate the Transportation Security Agency, persuasively argues Art Carden in The Economist.
The Economist says that the government-run agency fails at its basic mission: saving lives.
“Even if the TSA has made us safer and saved lives (it hasn’t), these saved lives have come at a cost. For every life saved in a TSA-prevented terrorist attack, more lives are lost on highways as people substitute away from air travel and toward driving,” he writes.
So getting rid of the TSA — and skipping any moral arguments — is a life-saving measure.
There is no free lunch and people change their behavior, he says. The TSA by making flying more arduous through such new drawbacks as pat-downs and “nude imaging” scanners causes more people to choose driving over flying.
“The additional highway deaths that will almost certainly occur as a result of the new TSA procedures are certainly not intended, but that doesn’t mean that they are any less real or that they aren’t the direct consequence of the new screening procedures,” he writes
The uproar that arose after the TSA started using body scanners and more invasive pat-downs did not trigger a scanner boycott earlier this week. “But holiday travelers in the western U.S. had to contend with a chaotic mix of snow, sleet and ice,” which did delay flights.
The idea of abolishing the TSA is not really new and has been repeated by others.
“It’s time to dismantle the TSA, the official fondler of women and children refusing airport naked body scanners,” wrote the very conservative Republic Broadcasting Network. “Even the Nazis didn’t do this.”
It’s certainly safe to say, as surveys show, that most Americans do not want to take that drastic step — to eliminate the TSA. And equating the TSA with the Nazi’s is certainly a wild exaggeration.
But on the other hand, the recent debate opened up questions and made fliers convince top officials to review its rules. In addition, the debate represented the first time the TSA took an action that was widely discussed and debated.
The public uproar also led some lawmakers and others to again take a look at privatizing the TSA. Airports have the option of avoiding the TSA by setting up their own security systems.
The uproar also led some commentators to suggest the new rules are the “tipping point” that will convince airlines to take a stand for their customers, fliers.
“Let security measures be implemented by the people and organizations most interested in providing safe travel for its customers: the airlines themselves. As unrealistic as that appears now, wandering around in the dark labyrinth of trying to fix something that is irretrievably broken will surely lead to more of the same,” wrote Bob Adelmann in NewAmerican.
He wrote that months ago — well before the recent new TSA edicts.
By David Wilkening
David
Have your say Cancel reply
Subscribe/Login to Travel Mole Newsletter
Travel Mole Newsletter is a subscriber only travel trade news publication. If you are receiving this message, simply enter your email address to sign in or register if you are not. In order to display the B2B travel content that meets your business needs, we need to know who are and what are your business needs. ITR is free to our subscribers.

































Phocuswright reveals the world's largest travel markets in volume in 2025
Cyclone in Sri Lanka had limited effect on tourism in contrary to media reports
Higher departure tax and visa cost, e-arrival card: Japan unleashes the fiscal weapon against tourists
In Italy, the Meloni government congratulates itself for its tourism achievements
Singapore to forbid entry to undesirable travelers with new no-boarding directive