Why are Republicans working to make us less safe?

Our local political columnist, spurred by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s quasi-successful Christmas day terrorist attack on Northwest flight 253, relates how Republicans are working hard to make us less safe. “(Democrats)… point out that Republicans have blocked the appointment of the head of the Transportation Security Administration and fought against funding for screening machines at airports.” This theme is reverberating throughout the fever swamps of partisan liberal blogs (Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, etc.).

It is true that Republicans are opposed to the confirmation of Obama’s choice for TSA director, Erroll Southers. This is because Mr. Southers may not continue the current prohibition of TSA collective bargaining. Republicans fear that if TSA employees were to “work to rule”, we would be less able to respond quickly to changing terrorist tactics, hence making us less safe. Republican concern of this eventuality is warranted. On October 20, 2008, candidate Obama wrote to John Gage, President of the American Federation of Government Employees, with the following commitment: “If I am elected President, I will work to ensure that TSOs (Transportation Security Officers) have collective bargaining rights…” This, coupled with Mr. Southers' refusal to answer the collective bargaining question has raised alarms.

The charge that Republicans “fought against funding for screening machines” is misleading and borders on prevarication. How many Republicans -- all of them? A majority? Why are they fighting screening machines? The questions raised here beg for answers, but you will never see them in the liberal blogs or media.

The 110th congress passed H.R.1, “Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007(1)” by a bi-partisan majority on July 27, 2007. A majority of Republican senators (36) voted for the bill, and a small minority (8), against. The bill consists of 183 sections, only one of which relates to airport screening machines (section 1601). The Republicans who voted against the bill did not object to section 1601, but that the overall bill allocated funds based on political calculus (e.g., pork) rather than risk. They also did not feel that the mandate to inspect 100% of incoming ship cargo was feasible, and that it would disrupt the then-present practice of inspecting high-risk cargo, thereby making us less safe.

Now, you may well disagree with the Republicans’ reasoning. But is it possible that, in their best judgment, they are trying to make us more safe, not less so?

(1) This bill was known in the Senate version as Improving America's Security Act of 2007.