Battling the TSA is political suicide right now, by and large. Might as well make some positive change with the power you have, rather than fighting a battle you know you can't win. That's not to say that there won't be a time for the TSA to go away or dramatically change form, but I don't think that's now.
Edit: To be clear, she could do it. She's on the Homeland Security committee. But she's a in a tough battleground state and it's she really has to pick her battles carefully
Politicians are also heavily influenced by money in politics right now, and I'm not even talking about lobbying, which I think is legalized bribery and that's a huge other problem. I'm talking about corporations being able to ramp up media campaigns against them, and make them look bad in the public's eye because of a position they've taken, that the corporations do not like. This is why many politicians are afraid to even go against certain policies, unless they are pretty sure many others feel the same way, and they have a chance of winning.
Maybe this problem would be ameliorated if there were short term limits, and they wouldn't have to worry about their "career in politics" as much, and would care much more about what impact they can have in the short time they are in Congress.
You say this like someone who doesn't know that everything they value the government doing, or not doing, can be cast as 'bad policy' by someone who owns a think tank.
> a much more fluid feedback system from the population
I think California's Proposition system is illustrative here. And, therefore, California's current budgetary crisis.
> Maybe this problem would be ameliorated if there were short term limits
Then the power would shift out of the hands of elected representatives and into the hands of unelected party bosses, because the elected officials wouldn't be able to develop the real-world experience needed to navigate the halls of power on their own.