Author Archives: SEH

Airline security: Are the sheep rebelling?

(I wrote this at the end of August. I may have posted it temporarily. Given the new controversy, I decided to repost.)

When it comes to airline security, we’re like sheep led to the slaughter. I was recently lucky enough to catch an early return flight to Philadelphia from Chicago’s O’Hare airport, getting the last seat, five hours before the next open flight. I was also directed to a priority security line, with about 20 people ahead of me, instead of a snakelike line of several hundred mid-afternoon travelers.

After a few minutes, I noticed that my line was barely moving. I soon realized the cause: security was using a full body scanner, taking 40 to 45 seconds or more per passenger. According to the TSA, the scanners have been installed at 43 airports, with more to come.

Although full body scanning should quicken some with experience, anyone who pondered their purchase following the failed “underwear bomber” attempt understood that delays would be problematic, and that their acquisition would not pass any reasonable cost benefit test. Ten to twenty or more extra seconds per passenger will require a lot of time and misery for millions of passengers.

I commiserated with a few people in line, but otherwise held my tongue, not wanting to provoke security. We know that any TSA employee has the power to ruin one’s day, even if one of the many who don’t relish the power to harass and humiliate weary business travelers, senior citizens, or, at one time, my 12 year old daughter (those early-pubescent backpacks accompanying a vacationing family are a serious threat).

When I finally arrived at the front, one of at least five TSA employees working the line directed me to a traditional scanner, apparently because the “priority line” had become a bit of a joke, or perhaps because I had already stripped to my underwear. (OK — not really.) Let’s pray that such wisdom – by TSA employees – becomes common.

The adoption of full body scanning technology makes a dysfunctional system of airline security worse. While some infrequent flyers probably feel safer and are willing to suffer accordingly, the rest of us take the abuse out of fear of reprisal, inherent docility in the face of bureaucratic oppression, and inability to organize. If we could organize to stop flying, or at least cut back significantly, until sensible policies were adopted, we could quickly reform the TSA. But that won’t happen. Baaahh.

August 24, 2010

GAO concludes that Andy Griffith Medicare ads are not propoganda

A followup to my Sept. 23 post on the Department of Health and Human Services television spots with Andy Griffith touting Medicare and health reform:

Under federal law (Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-117, § 720, 123 Stat. 3034, 3159, 3210), federal agencies may not use funds for publicity or propaganda. In response to a query from Republican House members Darrell Issa and Dave Camp, the U.S. Government Accountability Office rendered a legal opinion on October 19 concluding that:

“The television advertisements did not violate the prohibition because they clearly identified their source, were not self-aggrandizing, and were not a purely partisan activity. We note, however, that two of the advertisements overstate one of PPACA’s benefits when they state that beneficiaries will “have [their] guaranteed benefits.” Although beneficiaries who participate in Medicare Advantage are guaranteed original Medicare benefits, the other benefits offered by Medicare Advantage plans could change at a plan’s discretion.”

The benefits of many Medicare Advantage plans will be reduced as a result of reimbursement cuts under the health reform law.  The ads are deceptive on that and other dimensions.

Based on prior cases, the GAO noted that agency communications “are considered purely partisan in nature if they are completely devoid of any connection with official functions and completely political in nature.”  Thus, it apparently is legal for government agencies to propagandize politically at taxpayer expense as long as the communication includes some information that is not political and bears some connection to official functions.

Andy Griffith and taxpayer funding of partisan political ads

Despite protests in August by a number of GOP senators, the television commercial with Andy Griffith touting how great the healthcare reform law is for Medicare enrollees is being run with increasing frequency as the November elections approach, including on the Fox New Network.   Mr. Griffith smiles a lot while describing some new Medicare goodies.  He does not mention the half billion dollars of projected cuts in Medicare spending over 10 years under the new law, including the reimbursement squeeze on private Medicare Advantage plans, which are disproportionately purchased by seniors of relatively modest means.  He also is silent about the Independent Payment Advisory Commission empowered to promulgate additional cuts in spending, the ability of enrollees in traditional Medicare to be assigned to physican/hospital Accountable Care Organizations, or Medicare’s continuing (albeit lower) $25 trillion unfunded liability.

This political ad is funded by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (in the Department of Health and Human Services).  Thus, a massive federal agency overseen by the President and his controversial and unconfirmed appointee, Donald Berwick, is using taxpayer dollars to sell healthcare reform to seniors before the November election.  While this might be unsurprising in this administration and legal, it’s poor form if not an outright abuse of power.  The creators also assume that seniors are a pretty dull lot.