Hacker News Reader

> Congress diverted funds collected from the "9/11 Tax" (per-ticket fixed fee used to fund TSA) to other parts of the government budget. The union is requesting emergency funding for 8,000 additional TSOs, which would only bring it back to 2011 staffing levels.

There is a good chance they are deliberately trying to cause long delays so media will get outraged, and then they can say "it is because of not enough funding, we need more money, call your Congressperson".

Remember the "sequestration" a year or two back, how they started closing parks, while still spending billions on defense and other things that public would have little involvement in. This could be something similar.

This is called the Washington Monument Syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_Syndrome

It is a common tactic governments employ to spur the people to accepting higher taxes.

The bit about money is nonsense. The TSA was given more money than it requested for 2016:

> "The agency charged with overseeing security at the nation's airports was given a $7.4 billion budget, which was $211 million more than it had in 2015 and $93 million more than was requested."

http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/2016/3/relief-at-msp-...

Just a nit: The management technique you're talking about is called "attrition". I think it's ideologically neutral. Either way: "starve the beast" isn't a neocon position; Grover Norquist isn't a neoconservative.

Neoconservatism is primarily about activist foreign policy, something that sets them apart from traditional conservatism, where isolationism is a more prominent strain of thought.

This is not a small thing: Starve the beast is emphatically a right-wing tactic, and well known one at that. To call it ideologically neutral w/r/t government is blatantly wrong.

Whether it's technically neoconservative or not is a red herring. (Neoconservative being just one subset of the overall conservative movement.)

Starve-the-beast is certainly a conservative strategy! RIF through attrition, though, is a general management technique.

"Starve the beast" refers to cutting government revenue to force tougher decisions about which departments to reduce or eliminate.

I agree, like I said, it's just a nit.

Fair distinction!

The traditional definition of a neo con (pre GW Bush) is an ex leftist in the 50s/60s who moved to the right. There are domestic and foreign policy neo cons. The foreign policy sorta overshadowed the domestic side during the Bush years. I.e a conservative being a liberal who was mugged by reality, broken windows, Norman Podohertz's notorious 'my negro problem and ours' essay, etc.

Every time government (or union) incompetence comes to light, they call for more funding (or pay).

you make a very good point but I still think the TSA can adapt and survive if they stop the security theater bullshit and figure out a much faster screening process requiring less staff. Unless I am missing something, that is what they are being asked to do

I do think we should replace/get rid of the TSA, but the neo-conservative method of government excision where you cut off the cash flow and wait for everyone to get pissed off ("starve the beast") is incredibly unpopular.

I'm not sure that's even in play here. Neo-conservatives talk about "small government" but it's mostly lip service, especially when it comes to anything related to the military/industrial/espionage/security/prison complex. Cutting the budget for the TSA doesn't sound in harmony with the normal neo-con agenda.

Here's what the Tea party website has to say:

http://teaparty.org/tsa-misconduct-highest-levels-160893/

There are many other articles on conservative channels ripping the TSA as a big government boondoggle.

Note that teaparty.org is definitely not "the Tea Party website." It is just one of many Tea Party organizations, and not a major one. The Tea Party is a decentralized movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Composition

It's really not lip service.

The budget sequestration deal in 2011 resulted in 10% across the board cuts in 2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_sequestra...

Likewise, if you look at how Congressional Republicans responded to the Obama Administration's request for funding for Zika research you'll see the same thing. The answer was both "no" and "why don't you divert research funds from Ebola to Zika research if you want it so badly" (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/16/congr... )

Budgets have been cut. Not in ways anyone would ever want, but to say that they're not have an impact is not correct.

Those weren't neocons driving those cuts (neocons position in the Republican Party -- and thus national politics -- peaked under Bush and rapidly receded after he left office.)

One point of correction is that neocons are in both major US political parties and are know chiefly by their [chicken-]hawk-ish foreign policy.

There are few, if any, neoconservatives in the Democratic Party (there are hawkish neoliberal internationalists in both parties, though, and the distinctions between those and neoconservatives are fairly fine.)

Hillary is a neocon.

>the neo-conservative method of government

The only use the word "neo-conservative" has anymore is to identify people who only know political buzzwords.