Airports are taking a stand against the TSA’s underperformance. The number of TSA screeners has dropped, leading to long wait times causing passengers to miss their flights. Heritage’s David Inserra explained:

“It’s gotten so bad that, earlier this month, the Port Authority (which operates Newark, JFK, and LaGuardia airports) notified the TSA that it was ‘exploring the merits of participating in the Screening Partnership Program to enhance flexibility in the assignments and operating hours of front line screening staff.’

The ‘Screening Partnership Program,’ or SPP, was included in the 2001 law that created the TSA as a way to test whether private security screeners, operating under TSA oversight, could provide the same level of service as the newly minted security agency. And there are good reasons to think they could.

Multiple studies have found that SPP screeners provide security at least as good as that provided by the TSA. They’ve also found that SPP screeners are cheaper and could save as much as $200 million a year if used at major airports across the U.S.”

And SPP screeners tend to outperform their TSA counterparts in terms of efficiency and customer satisfaction. One study found that private screeners at the San Francisco airport were 65 percent more efficient than their federal counterparts in Los Angeles.”

However if an airport wants to switch to SPP, then they will have to submit the request to the TSA to review. In addition, the TSA selects the company that will replace the screeners based on whichever contractor meets the basic performance standards and has the lowest cost. Therefore, Americans should not expect a quick change in the screening process at airports.

Do you believe the TSA should have the power to find new screening companies or should each airport have the freedom to make their own choice?

The Obama Administration has been openly trying to advance their radical agenda and completely blurred the gender lines.

The latest example of this came in the form of an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have coerced women into signing up for the Selective Service, making them eligible for the draft.

Writing on The Daily Signal, Heritage experts said the proposal “raises questions about whether social goals have taken precedence over military objectives in the march to put women in combat.” As Marine veteran Jude Eden put it on The Daily Signal, “drafting women is a bad idea because putting women into combat units is a bad idea.

After much work behind the scenes, Heritage’s sister organization, Heritage Action for America, was successful last week in ensuring the House struck the language from the bill.

Conservatives now must wage the same fight in the Senate.

Do you think women should be subject to the draft?

The United States Constitution created a republic, not a democracy, Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett explains in his new book, Our Republican Constitution.

“It all is based on two different readings of what ‘We the People’ means in the Constitution,” he told Heritage’s Rob Bluey last week in an interview for The Daily Signal.

If you take “We the People” to mean a group and you believe that the group must rule. The only way “We the People” rule is majority rule. Under that rubric we need a democratic constitution to empower the people, to voice their opinions, their will, through the representative bodies and that’s what makes law. The majority gets to put their opinions or preferences into law.

Barnett goes on to explain what the Constitution really means:

The alternative reading of “We the People” sees “We the People” as individuals, each of whom are endowed with the individual rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And then the next sentence of the declaration says, “to secure these rights — governments are instituted among men.” That established the principle that first comes rights, then comes governments, and government’s purpose is to secure the rights of the individual. And if you take this vision of government, then we need a republican Constitution to provide the law that governs those who govern us.

Do you think America is a republic or a democracy?

In March, Heritage legal scholar John Malcolm identified eight highly qualified candidates for the United States Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. These candidates all demonstrate a principled understanding of the Constitution and the role of the judiciary.

On Wednesday, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump identified his list of candidates for the high court–and five of them were drawn from Heritage’s list.

The five judges on both lists were federal Judges William Pryor, Diane Sykes, Steven Colloton, Raymond Gruender, and Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett.

Heritage has also recently briefed the Trump campaign on Heritage’s conservative solutions to poverty and national security. We will share our conservative policy solutions–including our comprehensive Solutions 2016 guide–with any candidate who asks.

Ever wonder how much of your tax dollars the federal government is wasting? In our latest Federal Budget in Pictures publication – one chart breaks down what the median family spends versus how the federal government spends. It also displays the growing debt crisis.

U.S. Budget vs. Family Budget


« Older Entries