TSA: More than 8000 VIPR operations in the last 12 months
- Thread starter sba55
- Start date
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
ACLU seems to be paying a lot of attention to TSA, but I don't see anything on the TSA's non-aviation activities.
http://www.aclu.org/search/tsa?page=1&show_aff=1
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
How can you say that?
I heard a certain "political correspondant" on NPR this morning stating how the electorate ONLY wants folks that have been tested in the political battlefield (to include reporters playing the "gotcha" game). They're too busy fundraising to spend much time actually defending civil liberties. Ten years of sending "Final Notice - you will be dropped from our list if you don't contribute". Go ahead: drop us from your fundraising list & see if we care!
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Federal government employee numbers are relatively flat and actually trending slightly lower. Most states and local government have been cutting employment so that the group of government employees has actually been going down for the past several years. So that would seem to indicate that your observation is not true.
John Baker
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 7,471
- Location
- San Diego, California
- Display Name
Display name:
John Baker
Actually, that is not so true if you look at long term government growth. Overall, our government employs considerably more people than it did twenty years ago.
Government will always grow larger over the long haul simply because that is the culture of bureaucracies, they are set up so that they have to grow if they want their budgets to grow. They must use their entire allocated budget every year, or it will be reduced. They also must be able to demonstrate the need for a larger budget, or risk having their present budget reduced.
During tough economic times, bureaucracies might remain around the same size, or reduce mainly through attrition, but overall, they always grow in size. Bureaucratic managers are judged by their peers by the number of people working "for them", and the location and size of their office in the building.
Even in the case of one bureaucracy being forced to cut their staff, in most, if not all cases, the laid off staff will simply move to another government agency that is hiring. Just about all bureaucracies give precedence to government employees over hiring "civilians."
Another method of government growth is to set up private companies who's only customer is government. Reclassifying existing agencies into private entities is another method, as in the case of the U.S. Postal Service as just one example.
Government does not get smaller, ever.
John
PilotAlan
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,775
- Display Name
Display name:
PilotAlan
According to the Office of Personnel Management,
2000 2,639 Civilians 1,426 63 Military 4,129 Total
2001 2,640 Civilians 1,428 64 Military 4,132
2002 2,630 Civilians 1,456 66 Military 4,152
2003 2,666 Civilians 1,478 65 Military 4,210
2004 2,650 Civilians 1,473 64 Military 4,187
2005 2,636 Civilians 1,436 65 Military 4,138
2006 2,637 Civilians 1,432 63 Military 4,133
2007 2,636 Civilians 1,427 63 Military 4,127
2008 2,692 Civilians 1,450 64 Military 4,206
2009 2,774 Civilians 1,591 66 Military 4,430
2010 2,776 Civilians 1,602 64 Military 4,443
So, not trending downward. It also does not include the *millions* of contractors hired by all the various agencies in the last few years.
Here's federal spending over the last 60 years. Do you see a problem?
Here's just the last 10 years:
Federal government revenues are nearly back to their 2007 peak:
Yet federal government deficits are FIVE TIMES what they were in 2007:
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Let's try to stick to the original topic. If you care to discuss government employment or budget issues, please take it to Spin Zone.
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Well if you are saying something is untrue, you should at least provide some numbers and be consistent about our claims.
My claim:
Looking at the redline we can see that the number has stayed flat and has trended a little lower. The data comes from the US Census Bureau.
My next statement was
And the pink line shows that dramitcally as well. Which gives us a dip in the total government employees.
So tell me again why what I said was not true?
The data says you are wrong.
The data also shows that the original comment that the larger the government the smaller the person also does not hold true. I say that because the person has gotten smaller while at the same time the federal government has stayed the same size and the local governments have shrunk.
Data source: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=228
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
The data set I was looking at was up to 2006. And the data you posted does show that the number of employees is releatively flat and was trending down from 2003 to 2006 with a bump after that. So I still stand by the main point of my statement which is that the federal government employment stat is basically flat. That still contradicts the idea that the reason we have these major intrusions into our privacy is because the government has grown. The TSA was established in 2001. The data for that period of time does not show a major upward trend in federal employment at all.
Only problem I see is that the discussion on spending had nothing to do with what we were talking about.
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
We are sticking to the topic. Which is why is the government sticking its nose in everyone's business. This is dealing with the TSA. It originated with a discussion about TSA looking at non-aviation security. That was probably a border line SZ topic to begin with and maybe, to be fair, is where the conversation and thread should have been moved to a while ago. Since to intelligently discuss the issues surrounding TSA and their intrusions into people's privacy one has to touch upon factors that SZ material.
John Baker
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 7,471
- Location
- San Diego, California
- Display Name
Display name:
John Baker
Agreed. I don't have any graphs or charts anyway. What I do have is public perception.
John
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Just my personal $.02, if you are going to say someone is lying you should have something other than your personal perception to back it up.
PilotAlan
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,775
- Display Name
Display name:
PilotAlan
Scott,
You statement that federal government employment is trending downward or flat is simply incorrect. Going from 2.639 million non-military employees to nearly 2.776 million is a significant increase (about 10%).
My point was the federal budget has increased significantly, and the scope and reach of the federal government has grown even faster. To, to paraphrase myself:
The stronger the government, the weaker the citizen.
You statement that federal government employment is trending downward or flat is simply incorrect. Going from 2.639 million non-military employees to nearly 2.776 million is a significant increase (about 10%).
My point was the federal budget has increased significantly, and the scope and reach of the federal government has grown even faster. To, to paraphrase myself:
The stronger the government, the weaker the citizen.
John Baker
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 7,471
- Location
- San Diego, California
- Display Name
Display name:
John Baker
Scott, I am truly sorry, I did not think that I was calling you an out and out lier.
I wrote: "Actually, that is not so true if you look at long term government growth. Overall, our government employs considerably more people than it did twenty years ago."
I guess I should have phrased it not quit so strong. Something like, "I do not feel that is correct, or some such thing."
Again, I am sorry if I offended you.
John
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Your data and the data I was looking at did show a slight downward trend for the period ending in 2006. This was explained in my previous report, but you may have missed that. Now looking at the end points of your data in 2010 there was an over all increase. But I am not sure how you arrived at a 10% increase.
(2,776,000-2,639,000)/2,639,000 is 5.2%, which to me is not very significant consider all the crying, moaning and outrage about a government that is is out of control growth. So where is the huge expansion in government employees?
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Dr. O
Pattern Altitude
I do not agree with the actions of OWS...
I do agree they have the right to speak out in public (whether I agree with their speech or not)
I do not agree that they have the right to trash public or private property in the exercise of their rights...
I do not agree that they have the right to put businesses into bankruptcy by driving away that businesses' customers with their nasty and offensive behavior...
I do not agree that the elected officials of any town have the right to ignore blatant flouting of municipal laws just because they sympathize with the protestors...
I agree that VIPR is likely to become a Constitutional issue... I further predict that nothing will be done about limiting programs like VIPR until some sensational incident happens, then our representational form of government will be energized when Congress critters recognize that their voters are angry - which is how the framers envisioned the system to work... So no, I do not see my grandson living in the hills and coming to town at night to fight the government troops...
denny-o
I do agree they have the right to speak out in public (whether I agree with their speech or not)
I do not agree that they have the right to trash public or private property in the exercise of their rights...
I do not agree that they have the right to put businesses into bankruptcy by driving away that businesses' customers with their nasty and offensive behavior...
I do not agree that the elected officials of any town have the right to ignore blatant flouting of municipal laws just because they sympathize with the protestors...
I agree that VIPR is likely to become a Constitutional issue... I further predict that nothing will be done about limiting programs like VIPR until some sensational incident happens, then our representational form of government will be energized when Congress critters recognize that their voters are angry - which is how the framers envisioned the system to work... So no, I do not see my grandson living in the hills and coming to town at night to fight the government troops...
denny-o
denverpilot
Tied Down
Just like TSA at airports and warrantless wiretaps? Seen any mega-media coverage asking anyone any hard questions about VIPR on your TV?
You missed a step, the media has to report on the illegal events prior to the public outrage. They're too busy covering worthless political wrangling.
The Internet and brave souls willing to photograph authorities who'll tell them they're not allowed to do so, may be the only hope for your scenario in the long-term. Government wants (but currently doesn't have) the "Internet kill switch" for acts of "terrorism".
Amateur photographers were chased away from private property on the fence line of KAPA prior to the recent Presidential visit by unknown and unidentified "authorities". The local photography group has been discussing it.
Whether it was government personnel or private security hired by one of the $35,000 a plate political donors is unknown. The photographers didn't stick around to ask.
This same group of photographers is at that spot virtually every weekend, and regularly on weekdays. But during a "VIP visit", they're chased off.
They did ask the reason and were told, "We want to make sure you're not posting tail numbers of aircraft on the Internet." That smells to me like private security, since no identification was asked for, nor shown. Even Secret Service will show ID if asked.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
So why did they leave? Were they threatened?
In my dealings with the USSS, they may be very firm but they're also scrupulous about properly identifying themselves.
I've had "security" come by when I was photographing airplanes near BWI once. The discussion was mostly cordial, and when they tried to get firm with me about stopping I offered to call 911 and have a state/local officer come by and mediate. They left.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I guess they're going to search buildings near the airport to make sure no one has a telescope, a pencil, and a pad of paper. And no doubt they're going to search buildings in an even wider radius to make sure no one has a scanner that would let them hear tail numbers being mentioned on tower and ground frequencies.
What a bunch of bozos.
Last edited:
sba55
En-Route
That's the way to go! Private "security" has no powers whatsoever and I wish more people would understand that.
denverpilot
Tied Down
I think it fell under the, "Why shake the tree right now, I'm about to head home anyway" category. He could have pressed the issue, I'm sure... just chose not to a the time.
Same here. I had a USSS guy scare the bejeesus out of me in an empty firehouse once. Let's just say he was assigned to watch someone who didn't like having USSS around, and the USSS had made a deal for the door code to the firehouse so they could use the restroom facilities.
So here I am, walking through a bay, heading back to working on what I was doing, and a guy with a suit on and a really obvious shoulder-holster bulge is walking toward me in a "secured" building.
I was a bit nervous until he flashed his credentials and then took off for the men's room.
The correct choice. I do see where someone shy or unsure of themselves might just leave, though.
I guess they're going to search buildings near the airport to make sure no one has a telescope, a pencil, and a pad of paper. And no doubt they're going to search buildings in an even wider radius to make sure no one has a scanner that would let them hear tail numbers being mentioned on tower and ground frequencies.
What a bunch of bozos.
Hell, I run the LiveATC feed for KAPA from my house, a few miles away. Anyone who wants tail numbers can just listen to that.
That's the way to go! Private "security" has no powers whatsoever and I wish more people would understand that.
Very true. Very true. Since there was no ID shared, it's all speculation... I just hate that the assumption is that "shooting pictures is bad" near airports. And the whole idea that a tail number arriving should be kept a secret? Sorry, I'm not playing.
I was out there taking photos once and another pilot and his son were watching airplanes. He saw the long lens, and then struck up a conversation, starting with, "Hey! Now I know how those great photos of my airplane seem to keep ending up on the Internet!"
I said that I don't publish mine too often, but the photographers in the area do, at various places, and he thought it was cool... he owned part of a Cirrus on leaseback at the airport, if I remember correctly.
He asked "Why do you shoot the photos?", fair enough question... I answered, "I don't know, really. Right now I'm practicing for shooting at Oshkosh."
"Ahh! That makes sense," he replied.
I went on to explain that some might find our "addition" to flying our airplanes a little crazy... while some might find our local photography group and their thousands of dollars worth of gear, each... a bit nutty. It's all about enjoying whatever it is that you do.
He agreed.
Up until that chance encounter, he was truly puzzled about where all the photos of his bird were coming from, until he saw me standing at "his" favorite airplane watching spot with a long lens and a good camera. (And I'm just messing around... the pro photographers bring the really big iron.)
Next on the RFQ!!!!!
I'll just move to Indiana, where they don't have front license plates. Yeah. That'll do it.
I'll just move to Indiana, where they don't have front license plates. Yeah. That'll do it.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 15,622
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
John Baker
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 7,471
- Location
- San Diego, California
- Display Name
Display name:
John Baker
You can "disguise" your front plate by putting a coat of very high gloss lacquer on it. The reflections can render photos of it useless. It works especially well at photo controlled intersections that are equipped with flash. You just have to remember to keep it clean and shiny.
John
John
Skylane81E
Final Approach
I see all the "security" in the EU and it scares the hell outta me.
p1l0t
Line Up and Wait
I just can't believe that we stand by while trillions are spent trying to push our ideas of what a "free" society should be when America has become one of the biggest police states of them all. With all our civil rights out the window what then really are we fighting for except to imprison ourselves. (And we do have one of if not the highest incarceration percentages in the world) Maybe one day this government will just finally choke on its own debt go belly-up. Let's see who comes to bail us out...
<---<^>--->
<---<^>--->
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's baby stuff compared to what some systems will do.