Beyond the Cusp

June 8, 2016

Dreading Being TSA’ed to Death


Well, agreed, the TSA is not likely to take our lives but they may very well squelch the spirit out of our upcoming trip. It is expected but still haunting how when you start approaching a planned trip you start noticing every TSA horror story and the nerves start to fray. Add to it that at this moment there is a brouhaha at the TSA over the intolerable lines and longer than believable wait times. The TSA has even just fired Kelly Hoggan, their security chief with the TSA Chief Administrator Neffenger told USA TODAY, “I felt it was important to have a different approach going forward than we’ve had in the past.” This may be a slight improvement over claiming that the lines at TSA checkpoints were really not all that much different than those at the Disney theme parks. Thinking back to the last time we went through TSA checkpoints, let’s face it, they are more like military checkpoints as far as their stringent rules and a lot like Keystone Cops when it comes to organization and efficiency but with much less and slower movement. Then when you read that they fail to catch planted dummy explosives and firearms when tested by random testing at virtually every airport; well, the last report on this I read did point out there were four or five airports which had passed over fifty percent of their tests, which makes the rest even worse. What was sad is the airports listed I had never and likely never will fly in or out of and one of them was in a city I had not realized actually had an airport. The one thing these airports all had in common was they had chosen to hire their own TSA employees rather than relying on the government screening and hiring systems. Fortunately, we will be flying with an airline which takes their own security very seriously and have a top notch screening system consisting of various levels and well trained interviewers and techniques used at every contact point including their own boarding security check in addition to the TSA.


That got us to thinking that perhaps security and safety would be better served by having each airline provide whatever level of checkpoints they felt was necessary with a set minimum level required and everything beyond something similar in coverage and efficiency of the best TSA working system. The advantages are obvious and legion. First every airline would have their business on the line and airline advertisements would boast of their efficient and layered security checks and their luggage screening systems. Who knows, some might even choose to use an automated computerized system where each individual is asked a set of questions taking under thirty seconds and using advanced software, facial recognition and monitoring facial movements is capable of determining who requires more close scrutiny and who passes from the start. Such systems would speed checks and remove the human fallibility factor and have been proven to be close to ninety percent accurate. The efficiency includes false positives as well as missed problem persons. We would trust such a system and understand that these systems will only improve and eventually be all but foolproof. Of course, anybody who has ever been a repair technician or engineer can tell you, nothing can be made completely foolproof because fools can be so ingenious. Still, with the automation of security screening there is no reason to continue with a bureaucratic behemoth which has become nothing much more than another government jobs program and union run system where incompetence runs amuck and lives are placed in danger with government job security placed as a higher priority than passenger safety.


TSA Lines Waiting to Miss Their Flight

TSA Lines Waiting to Miss Their Flight


With the current missteps being front and foremost in the public’s eyes at the moment, perhaps this would be a great opportunity for the airlines to take over their own security and demand an end to the TSA boondoggle. The first complaint is that having the airlines handle their own security is it will raise the price of tickets. Actually it would likely only slightly raise the price but the level of actual security would be improved by a large factor and worth the difference. Further, currently everybody whether they fly or not are paying for the TSA and it is providing employment, government union jobs and providing a veneer of an appearance of security while doing very little to make air travel any safer. Would it not be better for those who benefit most by the added security to pay for the security? Airlines could choose what level they desired to put in place and advertise any advantage their systems provide. With each airline responsible for their own security the government would possibly still be tasked with security of the airways themselves. The argument against having the airlines take care of their own security is that each airline will use their own system and there will be little government assurance of the level of security each provides and how will anyone be assured that the airlines will actually perform a competent level of security coverage. The assurance is that the airlines will take whatever precaution they feel will provide best for their customers and will all compete for the same travel dollars and thus the ones which provide the best security and have the best record and stellar recommendations will know they will gain the extra flying public who are safety conscious. No airline will take any chance of an incident as just one faltering could mean millions of dollars in lost revenue while whenever the TSA fails to take sufficient levels for security it does not cost the government a single penny in lost taxes. The only reason that the airlines rely on the government is because there is no competition. If one of the major airlines were to suddenly provide additional security checks, we would soon see every other airline follow suit as whoever provided the additional layer, even if it was just as cosmetic as the TSA checkpoints, they would receive additional passenger demand and get this additional demand even if their prices were a few dollars more than their main competitors. Once the airlines get into the security business we would see the requirement for the TSA disappear and a call would come from the general public for the elimination of the TSA as an unnecessary and time wasting inconvenience that it is, but that is easy for us to say as we are flying the most secure airlines in the world today.


Airline security is just one additional example of the government demanding to repair something which was not really broken, would of or was already being done as part of business already, would have been provided at a higher level and less expensively than the government programs ended up costing and lastly would have never become as big a waste of time requiring the affected industry to provide their own layer in addition to the unacceptably poor level provided by government at ten times the cost taking many multiples of time and effort to accomplish next to nothing. The TSA and their flippant response to an inquiry to the wait times is another reminder as was the wait times costing veterans their lives because of protracted waits for treatment through the VA hospital systems. The government does perform some areas better than could be provided at a similar cost by private industry such as the military, but that is also an area where we would hope never to require the full use and further would probably not desire to trust a private provider to hold that kind of power at their disposal. Even the space program will soon be proven to be capable of being performed just as well and eventually with better and more advanced systems in quicker processions with numerous private providers in competition for the riches which will invariably be found beyond the horizons of mother earth. Where law enforcement has traditionally been the providence of government, we are seeing a transition to private security in more and more situations. Security, even armed security, in malls and public amusement parks and other venues has become something expected and accepted by the public and there are even places where the government has retreated from providing security and instead placed that requirement onto those who hold events. In area after area we find that private practice often outperforms government provided systems and does so for less cost than having government perform such functions. Think about testing products and ranking them as performing at a level of quality which is a measure of an acceptable level and within known safety standards. One would think that such a system would be a government agency and many people believe that the Underwriters Laboratories Underwriters Laboratories Logo is a government agency but is and always has been a private company which makes their profits by charging manufacturers for their testing and licensing programs which they run. Their testing is comprehensive and any manufacturer who sends their product for testing is not guaranteed to receive the Underwriters Laboratories Logo seal of approval and knows this going in and also understands that they need pay for the testing pass or fail. The advantage is if their product fails to attain approval they will receive documentation about their failures as well as where their product was sufficient and they can then reengineer and adjust the manufacturing and reapply, for a fee, of course. Even product quality is best tested, licensed and provided by a completely, for profit, private corporation whose name is as good as gold and their Underwriters Laboratories Logo label is sought by consumers and industries alike. Their service and so many other things are often, even surprisingly, are best provided by private companies and done so more efficiently with more competence and at a lower cost than anything the government could put together and if done privately and for profit, then all are guaranteed that all possible efficiencies and cost savings will be determined and implemented with an eye always seeking to maximize profit and quality knowing that they are closely related as people will not long pay for that which is ineffective unless forced to do so, which is why government can be so invariably inefficient and clumsily incompetent. Sad but true.


Beyond the Cusp


February 26, 2014

Who Are the True Beneficiaries of a Minimum Wage Increase?

The United States Congress and Administration are once again discussing the disparity of incomes and as a byproduct the need to raise the minimum wage. The lamenting over the rise in the disparity of wages will center on incomes, people will see most of the mainstream media and the Obama Administration referring to the large increase since the year 2000. Their tactical reason for choosing this date is that by including the entirety of President Bush’s terms in the White House they can infer that much if not all of the growth in the disparity occurred during his term and not during their times with control over the Congress and White House. This is pure obscuration of the true realities which the numbers actually prove, that the disparity of incomes between those at the top and the middle class and poor has widened at its fastest rate under President Obama, and worse yet, the fastest was during the first two years when the Democrats also held an unopposable majority in both houses of Congress. This disparity was part of the reasoning given by President Obama when he unilaterally raised the minimum wage for Federal Government contract employees and employees under government contracts to $10.10/hour. Along with this announcement was the call for Congress to pass legislation and send it to him to sign raising the national minimum wage to the same level and he claimed that it was their obligation to do so. The claim was that those families who depend on a minimum wage worker for their income deserved to at least make close to the poverty level in wages and not the paltry amount they currently make with such a low minimum wage. But was this the truth or was this a bald faced lie meant to conceal other motives?


The truth is that very few families depend on minimum wages for their income and that most minimum wage employees are either teen part time workers still attending school or people starting on their first employment. Either group finds themselves making minimum wage for an average of less than one year before they receive a raise placing them above minimum wage. Another unreported truth is that in the majority of major metropolitan areas the minimum offered wage is well above the minimum wage as the competition for responsible and sufficiently trainable and motivated employees demands salaries well above minimum wages. Another group left out in the discussion are those who have worked diligently and received one or maybe more raises who will now once again be making minimum wage as the minimum wage rate has been increased to the level they had worked hard to attain. Also left from the discourse is the fact that a significant group of those earning minimum wage are in reality earning above minimum wage as their actual salary is calculated under some formula of a base minimum wage salary either plus a percentage of sales in commission or a straight commission of their sales with a guarantee of minimum wage if their sales during a pay period fail to earn sufficient commission to receive greater than the minimum wage for their hours worked. Most people working on a commission against minimum wage will not keep their position for any length of time should they receive too many periods at minimum wage as that means they are not making sufficient sales to be profitable to their employer. Add the one massive drawback of raising the minimum wage which always results in some minimum wage employees being let go as the employer often cannot increase the total amount of dollars budgeted for salaries so they need to make do with less hours or fewer employees in order to keep their budget within their expense and outlay plans. Then there are those employees who are exempted from any minimum wage laws such as wait personnel as they receive tips and that is taken into consideration when they were exempted in most jurisdictions from minimum wage requirements. This begs the question as to what may have been a hidden purpose for increasing the minimum wage, a reason that has been omitted from the normal discourse.


One reason that many may be unfamiliar with the hidden reason which has always been behind the Democrat push to increase the minimum wage rate on an almost regular basis is due to not having ever belonged to a union or have any familiarity of how union wages are calculated. Many of the unionized position, especially many large union manufacturing positions, are based on a rate as a multiplier against the minimum wage. So, when the minimum wage is increased, many, many union wage positions receive an increase often considerably larger than the increase in the actual minimum wage as they are calculated by some formula which is often some form of multiplier. Thus, by pushing through increases in the minimum wage the Democrats are serving their union member base as they will also receive an increase along with those making a minimum wage, at least the minimum wage earners who are not among those who were let go due to budgetary restraints on their employer when having to pay an increased wage. But the benefits realized by those union workers who received an increase resulting from an increase in the minimum wage is insignificant than the ones who are the real beneficiaries in this chain reaction being revealed here. The ones who make the largest increase in their incomes are the union officers, also often called union bosses. The high officers within the union structures make salaries commensurate to CEOs of the companies who employ their union members and possibly even more. These are the real power brokers who have significant influence over the members of their respective unions and can often really influence the votes cast by union members, though that influence has come under some challenges of late. These union elitists are also the ones who decide where and to whom the largess of union monies will be allocated at campaign time. That cash flow into the Democrat coffers at election time is the true and honest target that raising the minimum wage is aiming to influence. The Democrats can plead to be helping the little guy who is raising a family on minimum wages, a group whose numbers are so negligible as to be statistically insignificant or even completely nonexistent at the given point in time, and as a result of playing the assist the most desperate among us facilitate increased salaries for thousands upon thousands of union employees and granting significantly greater largess upon the elite union officers who in turn deposit equally great amounts of largess into the Democrat coffers come election time. Putting it in the simplest language, the Democrats are raising their campaign slush funds that can be used generally, as these contributions go to the party to be distributed as seen necessary in order to get around campaign finance limitations on candidates, while pretending to care about those who are basically powerless when it comes to political clout. As it is with virtually everything done by every candidate, political party and anyone else in a position of power or influence, the Democrats raising the minimum wage is simply a back door way to deposit even more cash into their coffers allowing for electioneering in the foreseeable future.


Beyond the Cusp


Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: