How Obama could move himself 3% closer to re-election in 2012:

Cancel invasive TSA screening, effective immediately. Do it in a presser or televised speech, where he can address Americans directly.

As insignificant as it is, no issue during his presidency has unified the country more.

cancel invasive TSA screening via the implementation of the use of superior explosives-sniffing dogs. Improvement in safety + removing hated current process = double win.

And much cheaper to boot. :thumbsup:

Also, the trained dogs, and their trainers, are very expensive. And there aren't nearly enough of them to serve all the airports for 2 or 3 hours at a time.

:eyes:

Care to share your CBA on this? Since you've obviously done one already...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9633197

One thing to note is that the cost of training the dog, $15,000, is ONLY the cost of training the dog. The salary of the special handler is the largest annual cost (besides the cost of maintaining the dog.) And that dog is only going to be able to work for how many years?

It would be a massive program to get that many dogs trained for 24 hour coverage of multiple lines in all the airports across the country.

So, fail then. Nice try with a slanted DU OP, though, especially with THAT source. Jesus.

different articles to which the DUer linked. Why not address the specifics in them, rather than make a slap at "that" DUer?

Thanks for that.

I believe he is trying to get a Cost Benefit Analysis. Training dogs and paying high wages is probably still cheaper than the multi million dollar machines and dozens of high school dropouts at every airport. Dogs could also be much more versatile than x-ray machines or groping. Experts agree that the greatest risk to airports come not from passengers, but from cargo and from trucking in supplies and workers through freight entrances. These trucks are usually NOT thoroughly inspected. Dogs could easily sniff out bombs at these checkpoints. Also, if we believe our lying politicians, cost should be secondary to effective security and protection of our rights.

Dog training could be a green/high tech industry with leading wages. Also, why not have a dog training center in every slightly major metropolitan center? Bomb sniffing dogs at trains, ferries, shipyards, courthouses you name it. So we could boost EVERY local economy, not just Chertoff's fat cat x-ray machine manufacturer.

Most everyone loves dogs. Not to many people like getting their junk groped just because the man wants them to be afraid.

These are just a few factors that should be thought about in a CBA.

is already in the process of acquiring more sniffing dogs -- in addition to the other steps they are taking. The cost to train and deploy 275 canine teams? More than $250 thousand per team -- $71 million.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleyindependent/news/s_689988.html


The Transportation Security Administration wants to increase the role dogs play in sniffing out terror threats at U.S. airports and other mass transit systems.

The TSA requested $71 million from Congress to train and deploy 275 explosives detection canine teams -- bomb dogs and their handlers -- at transportation facilities. The agency has 700 teams, including five at Pittsburgh International Airport.

"The teams have proven to be a very reliable, effective and flexible layer of security," said TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis.

Davis could not say whether Pittsburgh International would be in line for more dogs if the agency gets the money.

Allegheny County police have maintained airport bomb dogs since 1973. Since 9/11, however, the TSA has supplied them and covered many related expenses, providing as much as $50,000 a year per dog to county police, Davis said.

so you make a good point - it wouldn't save money.

There are a lot of things that are cheaper, yet not desirable. Effectiveness should be the primary argument. Protecting peoples rights a close second. Finally, total economic benefit, including costs vs. employment and economic multiplier benefits.

This is how issues should be presented to the American public. Instead, all we get are secret backroom deals designed to reward a few well connected cronies with fat contracts.

costly than other methods that have been proposed, including a heavier reliance on dogs and/or Israeli-style profiling and interviewing by multi-lingual, college educated screeners.

From a PR standpoint it's a disaster. I agree that if dogs are close in effectiveness and price we're better off.

An added benefit of dogs is the very reason they're probably being excluded from the argument: there is an element of unpredictability. Terrorists could test access to backscatter before actually carrying out an attack; it's impossible to predict how a specific dog would react.

That is a very good point! Terrorists would have a much harder time in countering dogs. Technology always spawns counter technology and the technology is only as good as the people manning the scanners. TSA has an abysmal record of failing when tested by people smuggling in weapons and fake bombs. I go through airports security between three and five times a week, and the amount of brain dead, clueless TSA people I see is infuriating. I'd much rather trust a highly trained dog/human team.

..forget Obama.. and start to figure out what Democrats can do for damage control.. and ultimately.. the freedom of the US.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That is what is needed.

They're not just screening independents, ya know.
At least a third of the people being screened aren't Democrats.
So, the actual figure is only about 60% of those being screened (60% of that 3%) that might vote for Obama if screening were stopped -- yet they may or may not even be rgistered voters who are likely to vote.

I'm been reading a lot of stuff by that one pollster lately, by the way.

They're even angrier about ogling and groping than we are.

The 3%? 5% seemed like too much, and 1% not enough. So I pulled it out of my backside, so to speak. :D

In what will be another hotly contested and partisan election, any chance to grab votes - including moderate Republicans - can't be passed up. Very little downside risk.