WASHINGTON, June 18 (UPI) -- The UPI think tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering brief opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute
(The LVMI is a research and educational center devoted to classical liberalism -- often known as libertarianism -- and the Austrian School of economics. Grounded in the work of economists Ludwig von Mises, LVMI seeks to advance the Austrian School of economics and promote the market economy, private property, sound money and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive.)
AUBURN, Ala. -- Wait Until the Feds Take Over
by William L. Anderson
As others may also attest, I have never viewed flying as particularly pleasant, and a recent cross-country trip I took with my family did nothing to change my thinking. It is difficult enough to fly alone or with a spouse these days, but three small children -- and all our luggage -- tend to multiply that misery. Even in the best of times, flying with little ones is a challenge; in this day of increased airline "security," the task becomes one of endurance and misery.
For those who have not flown commercial aircraft since the Sept. 11 attacks, you are in for a rude awakening when you take to the skies again. You have not faced the insanity that passes for modern airport security, but when you do, remember that I have warned you. The procedures will surely inconvenience you at best and, at worst, leave you as vulnerable as those poor passengers and tenants of the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon were on that fateful day.
Moreover, if you believe things might improve, think again. The federal government has not yet fully taken over the airport security apparatus, and when it does, we will see the present calamities multiplied.
There is good reason for making this prediction, as I will point out. Furthermore, it is not a mystery as to why the federal government will make commercial flying worse than it is now. Instead, it is as simple as Ludwig von Mises's dictum that government intervention into peaceful, private activity will make things worse rather than better.
Congress began to insist shortly after the attacks that airport security workers be made federal government employees, even though there is no evidence that the attacks occurred because of breakdowns in the private security systems at the Boston, Newark, New Jersey, and Dulles airports where the hijacked planes originated. Fresh from being awarded his Nobel Prize in economics, Joseph Stiglitz even declared that federalizing the workers would thus serve as a "signaling" device to demonstrate that airport screeners would not be of "higher quality" than lower-paid private workers.
Congress and President George W. Bush apparently bought into Stiglitz's idea, and soon after the hijackings, the new security system was born. It now awaits being fully implemented, although airlines and airports have already told Congress that all of the multi-million-dollar luggage screening devices the government has mandated cannot possibly be put in place by the legal deadline.
As it does in so many other situations, Congress simply picked an arbitrary time limit. Furthermore, members of Congress acted without any regard for common sense, something that hardly is surprising. What should not surprise anyone is that when the government's system is fully implemented -- should that ever happen -- the situation in the nation's airports is likely to be so bad that the airline companies are likely to suffer the Vietnam Syndrome: in order to save the airline industry, we will have to destroy it.
There is, of course, one sure way to prevent airline hijackings; do not allow anyone to fly anything. Just like a zero mile per hour speed limit would eliminate all automobile accidents, keeping people out of the air is a guarantee of airline safety. While the feds are not likely to accomplish that feat, they certainly will be keeping large numbers of people from flying simply because the process will become far too cumbersome.
Economists, whether mainstream or of the Austrian School, know that incentives direct the choices individuals make, and people involved in airport security are no exception. When the incentives are political in nature, things take on a near-unreal air. For example, while people look on incredulously as airport workers nearly strip-search 80-year-old grandmothers and small children while permitting young men of Middle Eastern extraction to board aircraft unchallenged, we must remember that the workers are acting according to the rules and incentives laid down by their political bosses.
First, as the unfolding pre-Sept. 11 evidence has demonstrated, a few federal law enforcement officers suspected that some of the hijackers, who at that time were taking pilot lessons, might be planning to commandeer and fly passenger aircraft. However, because FBI officials feared being accused of "racial profiling," it is likely that they downplayed the officers' warnings.
(Attorney General John Ashcroft already had gone through a bruising confirmation in which he was all but accused of being a racist. One of the things Ashcroft said he would "not tolerate" was racial profiling, so his underlings certainly did not wish to do anything that would make their boss appear "racially insensitive." Ignoring potential Middle Eastern terrorists was one of those actions, apparently.)
Because political correctness has reached epidemic stages in the United States, it is clear that the Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees airport security, fears offending certain ethnic groups as much or more than it fears more planes being hijacked. While numerous people have pointed out the folly of these random searches of people, it is also a given that they will continue, given the present political climate.
Second, while the FAA sets the rules for screeners, the screeners are still employees of firms hired by the airlines. Because of this, they do have an incentive to help passengers to make their flights on time.
Once screeners become full-fledged government employees, however, the incentive structure will change dramatically. The inspectors will be working for the federal government and will have no obligations at all toward passengers, except to treat all of them like criminals.
In this new atmosphere, one can expect a number of things. First, searches will be slower and more cumbersome, since the fewer people who actually get through, the lower the probability that a plane can be hijacked. Empty seats on flights will not matter to federal employees whose paychecks will come courtesy of the taxpayers.
Second, it is quite likely that screeners and other government security personnel will be ruder toward passengers than they are at present. While some of us who have suffered through some brutal searches, I fear the worst is to come. Again, airline employees, while they can be disagreeable, do have at least some incentive to treat their customers with some decency. Federal employees will have none.
When my family and I went through security lines, there was some grumbling, although I could tell that many of the screeners at least were trying to be as fair and helpful as possible. However, I suspect that when the government takes over all security, anyone who makes even the slightest complaint quickly will be banned from their flight. Look for airport workers to become more surly and less helpful, as their government status will give them power to harass people.
No doubt, we can look forward to congressional hearings where airline passengers will tell of airport horror stories perpetrated by federal security workers. Sympathetic members of Congress will listen attentively, just as they listened when citizens told of being harassed by Internal Revenue Service agents. Those same members will excoriate whoever is head of the security agency, just as they did the IRS administration, and then give the agency even more power to harass people.
The Reason Foundation
LOS ANGELES -- War: What it's Good For
by Jacob Sullum
David Gergen likes a good war more than the next guy, but so far he's disappointed by the war on terrorism. The main problem, as he explains in a New York Times op-ed piece, is that Americans are not suffering enough. There's been no draft, no tax increases, no rationing, no central economic planning.
"There is no call for common sacrifice from either the White House or Congress," Gergen complains. "While more than 3,000 Americans were killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, the rest of us now face little more than inconvenience when we travel."
Gergen -- adviser to four presidents, director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, and one of the nation's dullest political writers -- knows a thing or two about inflicting pain on the American people. Naturally, he has some suggestions for sacrifices they should be forced to make. For example, he wants President Bush to support "universal national service."
The universal part is a bit misleading. Gergen's vision of involuntary servitude would apply only to "eligible young people between 18 and 24;" the government would "ask" them to "spend at least a year in civilian or military service." Gergen worries that the president's USA Freedom Corps, a voluntary program, will "reach only a tiny fraction of the young." He yearns for "the level of participation that Americans would willingly support (for other Americans) if a bold (i.e., compulsory) program were in place."
If you're older than 24, you're probably wondering, "What can I do to help David Gergen feel better about America?" For starters, he wants you to give up the money you would otherwise get to keep under Bush's tax cuts.
He recommends that the "savings" from repealing the tax cuts be spent on "a broad social cause like improving the lives of our children" (presumably because Americans would never spend their own money for that purpose). That way Bush could "make the war about something positive," in much the same way as FDR took advantage of World War II to launch "an audacious economic plan."
Gergen does not make the case that the sacrifices he recommends are necessary. Rather, like other commentators who worry that the burden of fighting terrorism is too easy to bear, Gergen sees suffering in the service of the state as a good thing in itself. It creates "a sense of purpose in our national life," fostering "meaningful and lasting changes in our communities and culture."
The great thing about war, in other words, is that it brings Americans together in common worship of Leviathan.
(Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine.)
