Hacker News Reader

Comment by fjorder | Hacker News Reader

The TSA's budget is just a tad short of half that of NASA's. Cutting back on the little-old-lady-molesting budget and giving the cash to space-explorers seems like a no-brainer to me. However, I'm not an American.

View on HN

Not to call out your comment specifically but I've always been curious why when people advocate against government spending on one thing they always feel the need to say it would have been better spent on something else as apposed to just not spending it at all. The general argument seems esp. perverse in light of the fact that the US Government is so far in the hole in terms of both total debt and yearly deficit.

Note economic stimulus resultant from the space race. Compare with the money being spent that actually ends up slowing economic activity.

It's a way to point out how wasteful spending on the TSA has become. People lack intuition for numbers on the scale we are talking about. Does $8.71 billion seem huge compared to $8.70 billion? (I'd sure like to be making $0.01 Billion a year!) By suggesting something specific be done with the funds one can give some impression of the potential that is being wasted.

For the record, I'm not disputing the fact that airport security is ncessary. I'm just arguing that it's only good in moderation. The TSA is both too intrusive for the security they provide and extremely wasteful. Back-scatter X-ray machines are a great example of this. The first models used were not adequately tested and proved to be easily defeated. The solution? Replace them, at tremendous expense, with a new generation of machines that have also not been adequately tested. At the same time, x-ray back-scatter vans are being rolled out on a truly alarming scale. It's a cash bonanza for someone!

Economic allocation means that if you're not spending time and treasury to one end, you're spending it on another. Now, if you want to advocate private-sector spending as opposed to public, that's fine. However economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources.

The comparison of budgets among different programs is helpful to provide perspective (though both TSA and NASA are minor components of the Federal budget overall) -- 0.22% and 0.5% respectively -- the US Federal budget is huge: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-...)

It's hard to see the impact of not spending the money, but it is easy to see the benefit of spending the exact same money towards something that actually gives a return on investment.

I think we could cut the budget significantly by dismantling our surveillance state and cutting useless law enforcement (TSA, drug warriors, etc.). But people seem to feel better cutting something like social security and medicare which we pay into.

Here's perspective: The TSA's budget is on par with what we estimate the CIA and NSA use.

The freaking CIA.

How much of the TSA's budget is secretly diverted to the CIA?

Given that the TSA budget is about $7B and that the total intelligence budget is around $50B, that seems a tad high.

You are talkin' loco. That could mean American excellence once again and we have vowed to end that.

> little-old-lady-molesting budget

How about a bit of maturity ?

The TSA performs a legitimate role that is required by EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY. Yes. Every country has a TSA. The difference is in the aggressiveness of their searches. So how about instead of this "abandon the TSA and let every gun toting idiot board the plane" why not focus on the specific policies.

Yes, as soon as the TSA begins loosening its procedures like other countries(using your example), gun toting idiots will come out of the woodwork to board flights. Obviously this is what happens in every other country. The current TSA procedures are the only thing stopping the hoards of gun toting idiots attempting to board planes.

To be fair, the US does have more than its fair share of gun toting idiots.

Well when they quit molesting old ladies, we'll stop pointing it out.

You know, I flew quite a bit before the TSA appeared in 2002, and somehow those flights were free of the "gun toting idiot" you are so afraid of. Must have been magic, since apparently the TSA is the only thing standing in their way.

Seriously. I have to wonder if he even considered why the 9/11 hijackers had to use box cutters of all things. As we learned that day, box cutters only work if everyone expects to live if they cooperate. No adult flying today would have such an expectation.

Look, just because you're another radical, misinformed anti-gunner, doesn't mean the rest of us should have to tolerate the abuse the TSA doles out. The simple facts are, the VAST majority of gun owners in the US never, ever use their firearm in the commission of a crime, and are just as lawful, peaceful and smart as you are. You could totally legalize carrying firearms on airplanes and you would still be just as safe as you are now. Worrying about a passenger with a gun causing a problem would make as much sense as worrying about getting struck by lightning.

>The TSA performs a legitimate role-

I'm going to stop you right there: bullshit.

The TSA shenanigans make us less safe by causing a false sense of security while being completely ineffective. The private screeners we had pre-9/11 did a better job. The one or two things necessary to prevent another airplane-as-missile attack are already done and don't require any government intervention. #1, locks on the cockpit doors, #2, passengers who will kick your ass if you try anything.

The "mature" thing to do is to disband the TSA. End of discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com