Just another example of the inherent inefficiency of government...
The shutdown isn't actually saving the government any money, since the TSA agents will get back pay once the shutdown ends (as they should, of course).
The government has plenty of money to pay the TSA.
It's simply being wrecked and hundreds of thousands of people being subjected to significant inconveniences (e.g., 4+ hour TSA lines and consequent missed flights) all because of the stupidity of the political game.
I'm not going to blame one side or the other here because that misses the point. Democrats want to defund ICE (or at least hurt ICE) and are willing to hold TSA hostage. Republicans want to fund ICE and are willing to hold TSA hostage. I don't even really "blame" either side. Both parties engage in this sort of thing because both sides are trying win at the political game. Blaming one side or the other misses the point.
And the point is that government doesn't care enough about the customers to really fundamentally give a damn whether they're inconvenienced, because TSA has no competition and the government has no real financial stake in any of this.
I don't know whether TSA should be privatized or not. But I can guarantee you this much: If there were multiple agencies bidding on these contracts and customer service ratings factored into the contract award, you would never have this sort of nonsense.
Maybe TSA is too integrated into the security of the country and should never be privatized. Fine. But when government starts talking about taking control of grocery stores and banks and transportation, just realize that you're going to get this crap from time to time, aside from all other inefficiencies inherent in operation by people with no financial stake in the outcomes.
@sh76 saidDemocrats wanted to defund ICE? When did that happen?
Just another example of the inherent inefficiency of government...
The shutdown isn't actually saving the government any money, since the TSA agents will get back pay once the shutdown ends (as they should, of course).
The government has plenty of money to pay the TSA.
It's simply being wrecked and hundreds of thousands of people being subjected to significant inconveni ...[text shortened]... om all other inefficiencies inherent in operation by people with no financial stake in the outcomes.
2 edits
@wildgrass saidIf you want to quibble with the word "defund" fine. I didn't mean defund *entirely*, but if you'd like, I'll amend to "restrict" or "limit" or "rein in"
Democrats wanted to defund ICE? When did that happen?
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/us/politics/homeland-security-shutdown-republicans-congress.html
But anyway, I hope it's apparent why that sort of quibbling distracts from the main point I was making.
@sh76 saidBut the dysfunction has nothing to do with TSA itself. Nobody loves TSA, but TSA was running rather efficiently (not perfect) prior to the time where the other agency within Homeland Security (ICE) started acting like terrorists and doing things that were blatantly harmful to US citizens. The list of policy requests from Democrats seemed super reasonable, like don't conceal your identity or break into peoples homes without a warrant. They should have already been part of ICE policy.
If you want to quibble with the word "defund" fine. I didn't mean defund *entirely*, but if you'd like, I'll amend to "restrict" or "limit" or "rein in"
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/us/politics/homeland-security-shutdown-republicans-congress.html
But anyway, I hope it's apparent why that sort of quibbling distracts from the main point I was making.
Your point about efficiently run government organizations makes no sense outside the context of the political squabbling that happened behind the scenes. Using the word "defund" was a tell.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidTSA is a subdivision of the government. Saying "TSA is fine but the government sucks" is beside the point. I'm not criticizing the TSA workers at all. Any system being run by any government agency is subject to the vicissitudes that go along with that.
But the dysfunction has nothing to do with TSA itself. Nobody loves TSA, but TSA was running rather efficiently (not perfect) prior to the time where the other agency within Homeland Security (ICE) started acting like terrorists and doing things that were blatantly harmful to US citizens. The list of policy requests from Democrats seemed super reasonable, like don't conceal ...[text shortened]... ext of the political squabbling that happened behind the scenes. Using the word "defund" was a tell.
Political squabbling is in the nature of government, which is one reason (of many) government organizations are rarely efficient or well run.
That TSA can be half shut down because of political squabbling, causing immense inconvenience to many for almost no reason, is an excellent reason to ensure that as few systems are run by the government as possible.
2 edits
@sh76 saidOk you are suggesting pre-9/11 rules then? That each airport/airline picks their own way to run security separate from each other?
TSA is a subdivision of the government. Saying "TSA is fine but the government sucks" is beside the point. I'm not criticizing the TSA workers at all. Any system being run by any government agency is subject to the vicissitudes that go along with that.
Political squabbling is in the nature of government, which is one reason (of many) government organizations are rarely effic ...[text shortened]... reason, is an excellent reason to ensure that as few systems are run by the government as possible.
It really depends whether the intended output is security/safety, efficiency or cost? I am confident you would find a privately run security at airports to be more efficient and friendly, but it would not be safer or cheaper.
Prisons might be a good corollary, since we have both public and private in the USA. It is $15,000 cheaper per inmate to incarcerate someone in a publicly-run prison. However, they do run those private facilities efficiently and it is convenient.
https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2020/09/30/private-prisons-vs-public-prisons-and-its-application-in-networks/
@wildgrass saidThey government can pay for it and private companies can operate and bid on it. I never said it would be cheaper, but it would be a lot more efficient. As for safer, well, let's just say I'm not fully convinced of the necessity or efficacy of many of the current TSA procedures. The 20+ years of taking off your shoes because Richard Reid tried to hide a bomb in his shoe - well, let's just say it's a good thing Reid didn't hide the bomb in his underwear.
Ok you are suggesting pre-9/11 rules then? That each airport/airline picks their own way to run security separate from each other?
It really depends whether the intended output is security/safety, efficiency or cost? I am confident you would find a privately run security at airports to be more efficient and friendly, but it would not be safer or cheaper.
Prisons might ...[text shortened]... s.cornell.edu/info2040/2020/09/30/private-prisons-vs-public-prisons-and-its-application-in-networks/
I think government tends to do things and make policies because *something* needs to be done rather than because it makes sense. There's basically no consequences when government makes an overcautious decision that inconveniences thousands. Chris Christie can shut down the George Washington Bridge to spite the mayor of Fort Lee because there's no competition. Nobody who needs to cross the bridge can say "that's it! Next time I'm not using that bridge; I'll use another" But if a private company could lose its contract if X people complained or if someone else bid in terms that would allow the bridge to stay open 10% more of the time, now you're talking.
If my United Airlines flight is delayed for an hour due to a technical problem, I can complain and they'll send me a voucher or some miles with an apology. If the restaurant burns my steak, I can complain and they'll give me another one and maybe a free dessert for my trouble.
Now try complaining to the DMV that they made you wait 3 hours to renew your driver's license or the County because they ignored all the potholes for 3 months and you lost 2 tires and an axle because of it. Good luck.
If passport services were delegated to Amazon, you'd upload a picture and your license from your phone, fill in a few fields, and your passport would cost $29.99 and come the next day, instead of a field trip to the county clerk, a long form full of irrelevant questions, $210 in various fees and 6-12 weeks of waiting.
1 edit
@sh76 saidIn order to rein in what's become a de facto paramilitary police force for the personal use of a vile and unstable president, I think it wholly appropriate that Democrats hold the line and starve ICE of funds unless and until something is done to curtail its abuses of basic human rights. Inconveniences at the airport are a very small price to pay.
Just another example of the inherent inefficiency of government...
The shutdown isn't actually saving the government any money, since the TSA agents will get back pay once the shutdown ends (as they should, of course).
The government has plenty of money to pay the TSA.
It's simply being wrecked and hundreds of thousands of people being subjected to significant inconveni ...[text shortened]... om all other inefficiencies inherent in operation by people with no financial stake in the outcomes.
Democrats are open to funding the TSA separately from the rest of the Department of Homeland Security (god what an Orwellian name!), but Republicans are having none of it.
I always knew it was a mistake to create the DHS in the first place. It should be broken apart.
2 edits
@sh76 saidI don't think privatization solves any of the problems you describe. The failure of payment to TSA employees is what is causing the problem, and if government is still paying for airport security services through a third party, and dictating the terms of safety that meet a certain low bar threshold, then the problems of government bureaucracy and ineffective policies will remain.
They government can pay for it and private companies can operate and bid on it. I never said it would be cheaper, but it would be a lot more efficient. As for safer, well, let's just say I'm not fully convinced of the necessity or efficacy of many of the current TSA procedures. The 20+ years of taking off your shoes because Richard Reid tried to hide a bomb in his shoe - well, l ...[text shortened]... nty clerk, a long form full of irrelevant questions, $210 in various fees and 6-12 weeks of waiting.
We've seen how bad the privatization movement has become. Prisons are a good example where Republicans thought they could cut costs through competitive markets but instead companies charged the government more, and then the government becomes inextricably linked to the company and whatever they want to charge. Lockheed Martin builds the F-35 and there's no company that could possibly compete with them in that market because no one else knows how to build that airplane. The CEO gets paid millions from our tax bills.
The same would happen here. Costs would go up for taxpayers, services would remain roughly the same, and would still be subject to insane government officials who think its ok for the government to continue paying masked, armed gunmen to roam the streets and kill civilians without consequence.
@Soothfast saidYes, DHS was a mistake. I remember at the time the discussion over redundancy with other government agencies and they were going to consolidate things like border patrol and ICE but then never got around to it.
In order to rein in what's become a de facto paramilitary police force for the personal use of a vile and unstable president, I think it wholly appropriate that Democrats hold the line and starve ICE of funds unless and until something is done to curtail its abuses of basic human rights. Inconveniences at the airport are a very small price to pay.
Democrats are op ...[text shortened]... .
I always knew it was a mistake to create the DHS in the first place. It should be broken apart.
@wildgrass saidRight, nothing of consequence was ever consolidated or streamlined with the creation of the DHS. Just another layer of bureaucracy was plastered over the tops of the existing bureaucracies.
Yes, DHS was a mistake. I remember at the time the discussion over redundancy with other government agencies and they were going to consolidate things like border patrol and ICE but then never got around to it.
@sh76 saidWhat I dont get is how the funding of an essential service gets caught up in a larger bill. Surely funding the TSA is a non controversial act. Why not separate it out to be something on its own?
Just another example of the inherent inefficiency of government...
The shutdown isn't actually saving the government any money, since the TSA agents will get back pay once the shutdown ends (as they should, of course).
It seems a bit odd!
1 edit
@kmax87 saidBecause our system is messed up. That's old news.
What I dont get is how the funding of an essential service gets caught up in a larger bill. Surely funding the TSA is a non controversial act. Why not separate it out to be something on its own?
It seems a bit odd!
The problem is that government managing anything is bound to run into senseless red tape like this.
It's not just the federal government. It happens everywhere, because bureaucrats don't really have an incentive to avoid inconveniencing people. New York City's snowplowing in the outer boroughs this winter was abysmal (I'm not blaming Mamdani, as it's been bad for decades) because the officials in charge don't really have an incentive to care whether some poor schlub in Forest Hills can get his car out of his side street just like nobody in Washington really has an incentive to care whether Jane Doe has to wait 3 hours and 26 minutes on a TSA line.
Again, I'm not saying these are bad people or bad managers. I'm sure they don't want to hurt people and if people were dying or getting seriously hurt, they'd probably try to help out of a sense of morality and sympathy. But there's just nothing incentivizing them to work hard to avoid inconveniencing people. And it's very often not up to them, as the people running the services are hostage to political maneuvering by people who have different priorities (which is why NYC manages to plow Manhattan).
If the company providing these services course be fired or could lose a big account for bad customer service, things would be quite different.
@wildgrass saidThen the remedy is to use antitrust laws and bidding processes to avoid single-company monopolies - not to have the government run everything itself.
I don't think privatization solves any of the problems you describe. The failure of payment to TSA employees is what is causing the problem, and if government is still paying for airport security services through a third party, and dictating the terms of safety that meet a certain low bar threshold, then the problems of government bureaucracy and ineffective policies will r ...[text shortened]... to continue paying masked, armed gunmen to roam the streets and kill civilians without consequence.
1 edit
@Soothfast saidI completely understand why you would say something like that. After all, you're not the one that was stuck on a TSA line for 4 hours.
In order to rein in what's become a de facto paramilitary police force for the personal use of a vile and unstable president, I think it wholly appropriate that Democrats hold the line and starve ICE of funds unless and until something is done to curtail its abuses of basic human rights. Inconveniences at the airport are a very small price to pay.
Democrats are op ...[text shortened]... .
I always knew it was a mistake to create the DHS in the first place. It should be broken apart.
That politicians can say something like that (i.e., "Susie Creamcheese can wait four hours on a TSA line at IAH and miss her flight because her sacrifice is a small price to pay for my achieving my political ends" ) is the best argument in the world that the government shouldn't run these things.