|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
jimhanson 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Jan. 03 2004,1:51 pm |
|
   |
We should have some fun with this thread--everybody knows a story about government goof-ups, snafu's, outrageous overcharges, waste, general inefficiency, or unintended consequences.
The thought was prompted by an airline pilot friend of mine. He is running for president of the Air Line Pilots Assn.--the major union for airline pilots in the U.S. He is also a national champion marksman, placing well in the Camp Perry championships every year. He was an early advocate of arming pilots, and one of the first to qualify as an armed pilot, so I asked how the program was going. I received this E-mail:| Quote | "Hi Jim:
As long as the TSA is involved I will NOT apply to carry a gun. I assume you
know this acronym? Thousands Standing Around!
Here is the current rule if I am qualified to carry in the cockpit. If I am
armed and ready in the cockpit in flight I am required to unload the gun and
lock it in the gov't approved and supplied hard case if the copilot has to
leave the cockpit. Yep, you read that right. When I am most vulnerable with the
cockpit door open I gotta unload and lock up the gun. You gotta just love these
government morons! I am sick of standing in line to have my civil rights
violated and I'm not about to be further made a fool of by doing this bullcrap.
Later on I'll tell you how I REALLY feel!! Happy new year,
Bob |
The TSA is NOT regarded well in the airline industry--one of the many industries it is supposed to protect. Despite the mandate by Congress, the TSA has licensed only about 1,000 pilots--and with actions like the one stated, effectively gutted the program. TSA has spent billions of dollars on ineffective programs--most of which are simply "eyewash". They replaced private airport screeners with TWICE as many new government employees, paid TWICE as much--after asserting that "some of the airport screeners are not even high school graduates!". After the government took over the program, the first requirement to fall was the requirement to be a high school graduate. The next was the requirement to speak English! Now, our airport screeners need not even be U.S. citizens!
Following 9/11, thousands of airline pilots volunteered for the armed pilot program. Several of the companies that train armed security guards volunteered to do the training at no cost. The pilots would do the training on their own time. Other than additional background checks (airline pilots have FAA background checks, anyway), there was no cost to the government. The TSA has managed to screw up the program yet again--mandating GOVERNMENT training, mandating AIRLINES pay the pilot during training, and TWO MONTHS backlog to do "background checks". In the 28 months since 9/11, the government hasn't been able to train more than 40 pilots a month, resulting in a backlog of nearly 2 years for pilots seeking training. Instead of the low-cost, volunteer program, the TSA has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the program.
Not content with screwing up security, the TSA has effectively eliminated service to many small communities. I watched an incoming flight at Rochester--there were 14 security agents meeting the flight of a commuter jet--and 14 passengers deplaned. Hibbing and International Falls used to have as many as 8 flights a day--now, they are down to 4, and the airlines are looking to pull out. The TSA mandates 4 screeners ($60,000 per year) plus a head of Airport Security ($105,000 per year starting). Even though these small communities have the demonstrated NEED for air service, it is uneconomical to provide the service when carrying this kind of burden.
Citation to read as follows: For gross inefficiency, government waste, top-heavy regulation, becoming a burden on those it seeks to "protect", economic disaster, and unintended consequences, I nominate the TSA to be the first recipient of the "Government Goof-up" award!
Where's former Sen. William Proxmire's "Golden Fleece" award when you really need it?  Anybody else have a good "Government Goof-up" story?
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 03 2004,2:09 pm |
|
 |
Well, what happened is what I've said from the beginning.
We overreacted and let the terrorists win by beating ourselves up.
One can never eliminate all risk in anything and often the cure is worse than the disease.
In many ways I feel I've outgrown my country. I used to look up to America, now I just look down and smirk.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 03 2004,2:18 pm |
|
|
Freeborn County Goverment
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 03 2004,3:17 pm |
|
|
Here's another good one--there's an unending supply 
Homeland Security and TSA have established 30 mile--"no fly zones" from wherever the President happens to be. This is up from the former 10 mile radius.
The Secret Service is tasked with protecting the President. They have anti-aircraft missles, and sometimes military jets at their disposal. Incursion into this "no-fly-zone lands an aircrew in hot water--plus the real possibility of being shot down.
The FAA is tasked with safety of air travel--separating aircraft in flight is a GOOD THING!
The problem--the Secret Service won't tell Homeland Security or TSA exactly where the President is at any given time. When Homeland Security DOES get the information, they put it out to the FAA (part of the Department of Transportation)for dissemination to pilots and air traffic controllers--but this information is usually 1 to 2 hours old--the President is usually no longer in the designated place--he's moved on. Pilots and controllers have no idea of the areas they are supposed to avoid--and if they get a briefing BEFORE departure, the information may not be correct. Pilots and controllers organizations have had to resort to starting their own briefing website to find which areas to avoid--the information usually comes from the NEWS MEDIA covering the event. The FAA responded by passing a law exempting FAA controllers or pilot briefers for culpability in ommitting this information when briefing pilots--but not the pilots.
Lest you think this is something that only affects private airplanes, consider the chaos that accompanied the last Presidential visit to Minneapolis--the airport was effectively shut down for all arrivals for 1 1/2 hours, some international flights were allowed to depart--some airlines were held at their point of departure for an indeterminate time, some airline pilots were heard on the frequency asking "when can we land?", some flights were diverted elsewhere. During the election season, the same rules will apply to any of the major candidates, or to other officials at the discretion of the Secret Service.
Pilots are also told to avoid nuclear power plants, chemical factories, and sports stadiums while games are in session. The problem--these areas aren't charted anywhere--that function is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (itself, a part of the Department of Commerce) Part of pre-flight briefing now must include reading the sports section to see if there is a game along your route of flight!
To the TSA, Homeland Security, NOAA, Department of Commerce, Dept. of Transportation, Secret Service, and the FAA--the Sheriff Buford T. Justice award for "what we have here is a failure to communicate!" From the movie "Animal House"--"Your'e on double-secret probation!"
Edited by jimhanson on Jan. 03 2004,3:25 pm
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 03 2004,3:42 pm |
|
|
A couple of secrets in government corruption. | Quote | Many police departments do NOT run criminal background checks on police applicants. In Tennessee, the legislature passed a law PROHIBITING criminal background checks on big-city police chiefs and sheriffs, perhaps to counter reports that the state led the nation with dozens of sheriffs convicted for drug dealing. If cops can't police themselves, and are impotent to even protect citizens under the strictest of "protection", why does society allow itself to be policed by criminals? Who's going to cop the cops?
|
| Quote | | New York City Detective Frank Serpico testified to the Knapp Commission, "10% of cops are honest, 10% are dishonest, and 80% wish they were honest." America's most-famous detective also noted that 30,000 New York City cops loved to say, "The public, what does the fcking public know?" By Detective Serpico's estimate, that means only 100,000 out of America's 1-million cops are "honest" |
For a corporate example of deviance | Quote | | in its greed to produce an economical car in the 1970s, Ford Motor Company produced 3-MILLION exploding Pintos and Mustangs. The professors explain: "Nobody at Ford, including [president Lee] Iacocca, ordered that a car with a serious design defect be built. Instead, Mr. Iaccoca perceived a problem, devised a solution, established a goal and operating rules, and delegated to others the day-to-day responsibility for design, building and testing. The unintended result of these routine procedures was an unsafe product." Today, traffic safety still suffers an abyssimal standard of engineering, as General Motors discovered when a jury spanked them with a $5-billion verdict in 1999. GM tried to blame its exploding vehicles on drunk drivers, but the jury didn't buy it. (Appellate judges were expected to show their contempt of the jury by nullifying the amount of punishment -- and thus nullifying GM's incentive to make its vehicles safer.) Every year, about 400,000 vehicles burn up, according to the Department of Transportation, killing about 3,000 people every year. Fire-proof rubber-bladder fuel cells, as used in aviation and auto racing, could be added to road vehicles at a cost of $5 each, according to Ford. The Pinto could have been fixed with a strip of plastic for ONE-DOLLAR each, saving thousands of lives and tens-of-thousands of burns, but Lee Iacocca alleged that "safety doesn't sell." So Ford felt a human life was worth less than 1-dollar. As an anonymous Ford engineer explained: "We don't talk about it much. It isn't a popular subject. I've never seen safety on the agenda.... I really don't think the company wants American consumers to start thinking too much about safety -- for fear they might demand it, I suppose." No criminal arrests were made in either of these murderous examples of corporate criminality, even though such laws exist. As Mark Dowie wrote in Mother Jones, "There probably isn't a car on the road without a safety defect known to its manufacturer.... One wonders how long the Ford Motor Company would continue to market lethal cars were Henry Ford II and Lee Iacocca serving 20-year terms in Leavenworth for consumer homicide." When Ford finally got the Pinto certified as "safe" in America, it installed the $1 plastic part, but had to use a Canadian Pinto for the crash test since Canada required "stricter" rear-end crash regulations. No recall was made of the millions of exploding cars already on the road. |
Edited by MADDOG on Jan. 03 2004,3:43 pm
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
cwolff
Group: Members
Posts: 265
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 04 2004,12:19 pm |
|
|
Jim, there is something more disturbing than turning the baggage screening business into a federal stand-around and collect twice the pay program. George W. Bush wants to privitize the Air Traffic Control system. Yes, he wants to put the flying public's safety in the hands of a for-profit private business. Bush has already started this process at the lowest level towers. The employees at these privatized towers have stated that staffing levels, which were suppose to stay at a certain level, have dropped below required levels. These under staffed towers have also cut benefits and pay by around 50 percent. I voted for Bush, I used to be a baggage screener supervisor at MSP, and I currently am a Federal Air Traffic Controller, but I think George W. Bush does not have a clue about what the privatization of the Air Traffic Control system will do to our currently safe Air Traffic Control system. Maybe we needed to upgrade our baggage screener positions to help keep the terrorists off of the planes! For what they are paying the baggage screeners, they better keep the terrorists off of the planes. Privization of Air Traffic Control is currently failing misserably in Canada, Germany, and else where.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 04 2004,1:13 pm |
|
|
Good points, CWolff--those new baggage screeners are probably making more than the "privatized" controllers!
I've seen "privatized" air traffic control first hand--I've flown in or over 76 countries on 6 continents. There's nothing like coming back to the U.S.
Users pay the major portion of the cost of the FAA (the "enforcement section", as well the controllers) through aviation fuel taxes and passenger facility charges. A portion of the cost of the air traffic control system comes from the general fund--on the basis that there is a public good that comes from a well-run, safe, air traffic control system. The idea of making the air traffic control system into a quasi-public/private corporation (think "AMTRAK", with all the problems THEY have!) has been floating around for at least 20 years--it was proposed (and defeated) under the Clinton administration as well.
You are correct in stating that "privatized" air traffic control hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried. These "corporations" are never really private--you can't buy stock in the Canadian ATC system--but they are tasked with making money (another example--the U.S. Postal Service) Everywhere it has been tried, fees go up, service goes down, and administrative costs go out of hand. Example: when we fly to Canada in June, we will get a bill for "airway services"--SOMETIME AROUND THE END OF THE YEAR! We don't know how much to bill to our customer. For smaller airplanes, the Canadian model found it was spending something over $40 to collect a $4 fee--so they exempted small airplanes and increased the fees on the rest. Fees based on size of the airplane have nothing to do with costs incurred--it costs the same to talk to a jumbo jet as it does to talk to a small aircraft--but the airlines are easier to collect fees from. Who ends up paying those fees? The consumer. If the consumer balks at paying those fees and decides to drive instead, the flight is cancelled, and fewer and fewer aircraft end up paying for the system.
Lest anyone think that I'm picking on Canada--on a trip to Europe, it cost $660 to land in Berlin, plus $110 parking fee, $60 Customs inspection, $45 "noise tax" (even though our single-engine turboprop's noise signature is quieter than anything on their charts), $20 for a weather briefing, and $30 something to file a flight plan. Then, we were charged $4.40 per gallon of fuel for jet fuel (a petroleum distillate, equivalent to heating oil). Six months after returning home, we received a bill for over $150 for "airway services" for the 6 hours we were in German airspace. Though this is the most extreme example, all the European Union countries weren't far behind--only non-EU signatories Britain and Denmark had reasonable prices. The result--airports in Europe are uncrowded--Rome is like Rochester for air traffic--I would guess that Minneapolis Center probably handles the same volume (or more) traffic as the entire EU.
Another unintended consequence--government raised fees, cut service, and destroyed an industry. Over 2/3 of the civil flying in the world happen right here in the U.S. Other countries should be emulating US, for a safe air transport system. Don't let the "European model" happen here.
Edited by jimhanson on Jan. 04 2004,1:25 pm
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
cwolff
Group: Members
Posts: 265
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 04 2004,5:47 pm |
|
|
Jim, great examples! Some of the controllers that I work with have said that the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers, that they talk with on a daily basis, have constantly complained about their new conditions under privitization. The U.S. controllers have had to increase their distance between aircraft entering Canadian airspace from 5 miles in trail to 60 miles in trail. For example if you have 5 airplanes flying somewhat bunched up heading for Canadian airspace, we have to space them out 60 miles apart, and strung out 240 miles. Our sectors that we work with are only about 100-150 miles long, so aircraft get huge turns and turned repeatedly to get the miles in trail. The Canadian system not only hurts service in Canada, but it greatly affects air traffic outside of their boundries, because Canada puts huge restrictions on U.S. air traffic entering Canadian airspace. The reason for the extra spacing is that our Canadian counterparts are short staffed constantly for the all mighty dollar; in other words profit!!!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
guest
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 05 2004,7:59 am |
|
|
Here's a more local screw up. Anyone out there know the reason the City is not able to lana apply the sludge from the waste water treatment plant this year like normal and how much extra this is costing us? I hear it is costing about $300,000 more.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 05 2004,9:08 am |
|
|
| Quote |
But last year, Albert Lea's industries dumped a high level of molybdenum into the wastewater system. Molybdenum (pronounced mah-lib-dih-num), is a metallic element used by industries to prevent corrosion and to strengthen other metals.
Molybdenum is a naturally occurring element and is harmless at low concentrations. However, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has told the city that its level of molybdenum is too high, and the regular method of disposal is not an option
Albert Lea Tribune Oct 17, 2003
|
Shouldn't be hard to figure out who disposed of the molybdenum. How many industries in town would even use it?
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
