It should not be any surprise the Transportation “Security” Administration is on my list of federal agencies that should be abolished.

While full body scans and groping had brought the more recent claims that the TSA should be reformed and made “Don’t touch my junk” the new “Don’t taze me, bro,” there are all sorts of other issues that show why the government should not be involved in airline security.

A 2007 report that was originally covered in USA Today showed private screeners were significantly more effective at detecting bombs and materials than federal screeners. This is even the case in busy airports — San Fransisco, which handles about 37 million passengers per year, is the busiest of the 16 airports that currently utilize private screeners.

The problem is privatization of screening would only go so far. Private screeners are still required to follow the regulations doled out by the TSA.

There is also the fact that the TSA regulates more than just screening requirements: they regulate things such as the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, which allows select commercial pilots to carry firearms.

Also, passengers are not the only ones that suffer from the government’s incompetence when it comes to airline security. Airline ground crews and air crews are considerably affected as well.

For example, when I worked for Air Wisconsin (we handled United Express), I could badge through side-doors to the ramp to work a flight. No checks. The airline does their own background check of employees beforehand.

However, if I wanted to get to the gate area by going through the checkpoint area, or was flying myself, I had to get screened.

Same thing with the actual flight crews. Even though they are in control of the aircraft (just push down on the yoke to crash the plane), they still have to get screened. Unless they are an FFDO of course.

So you have one group of people that are trusted with unrestricted access to the aircraft and another group that are entrusted to fly it. Yet they still have to go through security? Brilliant!

I cannot address every single shortcoming with government involvement in airline security, but I think the examples I gave above are a good indicator that security measures both created and enforced by the airlines would be much preferable, and effective.

Republicans received this nice little get-out-of-jail-free card as a result of the Obama administration and a Democratic congress butchering things over the past two years.

While time will determine if the elected Republicans will actually live up to at least restraining the size of government, I believe the primaries did a pretty decent job of filtering the wheat from the chaff. I would say this applies not only to the national or state races, but the local races as well.

Of course, I might be biased. My dad beat the incumbent Republican county commissioner in his district; going on to beat the Democrat candidate with almost a 2 to 1 vote ratio. But I digress.

As I mentioned in a previous column, Republican candidates should actually be, well, conservative, even if it means they lose in the general. This is crucial to not blowing what we won on Tuesday.

I’ll use Mike Castle as an example. While Castle may have been able to beat Chris Coons in the Delaware senate race, he would have been more of a liability than an asset. Government expansions through things such as the passage of the Troubled Asset Relief Program are exactly the reasons that lead to Republicans cleaning house. Yes, there are those such as John McCain who voted for TARP but still got elected. I think they realize the writing that is on the wall — they will have a second chance.

Assuming the Republicans are able to mitigate government expansion, I hope that the next step would be to actually reduce its size. I am not talking just a few tax cuts here and there or slight loosening of regulations. I’m talking about significant changes, such as entitlement program reduction or elimination.

It will be hard to show that programs such as social security need to be eliminated. With the showing on Tuesday, however, I think people may be more receptive to hearing the arguments. After all, people got upset over the federal government jamming itself into health care — I can only imagine what they would think once they realize that their social security “contributions” lose value and that they have no option to opt out.

The Republicans have this one chance and hopefully they don’t blow it. Assuming they can do that, the next step is to reverse the ridiculous government expansion that has gone on over the course of both Democrat and Republican administrations for the last couple of decades.

Regardless of the form these subsidies take — state-owned banks, targeted tax credits, or direct monetary contributions, just to name a few examples — or the type of business receiving the subsidy, the act of government attempting to pick winners and losers is destined to fail.

Not only that, but the taxpayer bears all the risk and little to no chance of a direct return.

Consider if Lansing’s very own union stooge Virg Bernero gets his way and the state now has its own bank to provide expanded credit to “small businesses.” The first thing that needs to be considered is that a state-owned bank differs from a privately-owned bank only in regard to its source of capital — the tax money of Michigan residents and businesses.

Other than that, both state- and privately-run banks are equally subject to risk … er, scratch that.

A state run bank would be subject to greater risk. Why? It’s simple. If the purpose of this state run bank is to open up credit because private banks are getting picky about borrowers, that inherently means riskier loans are made.

This means the taxpayer is on the hook when the loans fail.

The same theory also applies to any other method of corporate subsidization — a contribution is made for which taxpayers bear all of the risk, yet receive no direct return.

After all, do taxpayers get a check on interest attained from federal student loans? Not at all. I’m not interested in indirect benefits either — I cannot go to the store and spend them.

I am sure right now, the leftist readership wants to see empirical evidence that would dare put the deification of the government into question. How about Kmart going into bankruptcy, or Wonderstruck Studios not even opening its doors; both of which were recipients of assistance from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and Michigan Economic Growth Authority.

The worst part of all this is people who respond apathetically when the issue of being on the hook for a failure comes up.

The graduate student described how his wife, a faculty member here at CMU, received a grant to work with some outfit out of state to work on a project.

When we questioned what happens if the project flops, not only did we get a response of “so what,” we also got castigated for, heaven forbid, demanding our tax money not be used like a blank check.

While some people attempt to deify the government, it still canno0t pick winners and losers like a true god.

People see and hear them every day, without realizing what is happening.

To start getting an idea of what I’m talking about, it is best to use examples.

A Republican congressional candidate talks on the news about how social security needs to be “reformed,” although he may actually believe it should be eliminated outright.

Let me give you another example: A commenter on the website of a college newspaper questions Rand Paul’s abhorrence of racism because Paul believes that private property owners should have the ability to discriminate on their own property. Immediately after, said commenter changes the subject instead of arguing why he believes it impossible to abhor racism yet be a proponent of allowing private property owners to discriminate.

So, how are the politics of the lazy demonstrated in the first example? Think about what would most likely happen if our candidate outright called for the elimination of this entitlement program.

Despite the fact that social security fits the definition of a ponzi scheme, and there is no guarantee of people getting their forced “contribution” back (see Flemming vs. Nestor), the most likely reaction would be a pure emotionally driven claim that our candidate is trying to screw the elderly.

Rather than try to overcome the emotions of potential voters and argue how social security cannot legitimately be fixed, our candidate finds it easier to just toss out the fluff line that it needs to be “reformed.” Politics of the lazy.

The second example shows politics of the lazy in a slightly different form. In this case, the commenter either does not want to try backing up his premise, or cannot bear the emotional trauma of admitting he, in fact, cannot back it up. Rather, he relies on the reader to just agree with his premise.

Essentially, political laziness happens because an ignorant public reacts in an emotional manner.

In turn, politicians do not want to take the time to actually educate the public based on principal. Instead, they forgo principal to score the easy political points.

Well son, you just might have the backing of the GOP establishment!

The concept that the GOP should run and support Republicans In Name Only at election time is ridiculous. This of course is why those in support of the practice usually get the literary equivalent of a full-broadside from an Iowa Class battleship from real conservatives.

The “establishment” types like to defend the position by citing the Buckley Rule, which is essentially, “Always support the most conservative candidate who is electable.”

It basically states that someone who votes conservatively some ridiculously low percentage of the time is better than a “hardcore liberal.” This is so that “at least some of the liberal bills can be defeated.”

It has also been stated by our very own Nathan Inks that certain areas of the country require these “moderates” to be nominated in order to win one for the big ol’ R.

Certainly no candidate is going to hold 100 percentage of our views, but to support someone who is batting just over .500 is pathetic. Even more so when said candidate is horrendously wrong on issues that should be core to the philosophy of the party.

Mike Castle, RINO-of-choice in the Delaware senate Republican primary, voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, and the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This is who the GOP establishment wanted to win a United States Senate race?

Even if a legitimately conservative candidate gets nominated and ends up losing a race because a district might be “moderate,” it shouldn’t be considered a loss.

What would real Republicans rather have: An actual Democrat winning, only to screw things up and make their party look bad? Or would they prefer a Democrat-in-Republican-clothing like Castle to win and make the party smell like the Arlen Specter’s decomposing political career by doing the exact same thing?

If the point of a political party is to have members possessing roughly the same political principals, why would anyone think it’s a good idea to sacrifice those principals in order to get some perverted sense of a short term gain?

It’s time to pour the Democrat-lite down the drain.

While at Target the other day, my wife and I decided to look at TVs. We weren’t planning on getting one, however, one really stuck out at us.

The problem is that we just do not have the bank to pay for it outright at present.

As is the case with many other store cards, we would be able to get a discount (10 percent) if we signed up for a Target RED card. This gave me the idea to run the numbers and see if we would be able to come out ahead by having the interest paid be less than the amount of the discount – in this case $80.

In order to do this, I had to find out a couple of things. One of these things is how often interest is calculated, which for a credit card is going to be every day, and what the annual rate is, which for this card can run from 10 to 19.35 percent plus prime.

Since I’m trying to save money on interest, I want to limit the length of the outstanding balance to an arbitrary six months, as compared to paying the minimum. This allows me to calculate my payments using a simple time value of money calculator.

Assuming that I made payments to match the frequency in which interest is calculated, I would be paying $4.16 a day, for a total of $41.76 in interest paid at the end of the six months – and that’s assuming a 22.6 percent interest rate (19.35 percent + prime).

But even if I were to make weekly payments, the interest wouldn’t have as much time to compound as if I just waited for the end of each month to make a payment. Indeed, it turns out to be financially beneficial to get the card so I could get the discount if I stuck to my terms.

In comparison, that same $720 balance would take roughly 42 months to pay off, at a total of $327 in interest if I were to pay the minimum (the greater of 3 percent or $25). Moral of the story: use the ability to pay online to pay more frequently, and you too can beat the credit card companies at their game.

However, you aren’t relegated to beating the companies just by paying more often.

If you’re financially savvy enough, you can take advantage of the fact that most companies will eliminate interest if the entire balance is paid at the end of the month.

Instead of paying cash for an item, take the cash and invest it in an asset that is liquid enough so you can convert it back by the end of the month to cover the credit balance. If your investment strategy worked and you came out ahead, you essentially were able to margin trade with 100% leverage, and without interest.

However, I would like to ask for something in addition: If you’re going to start getting involved, do some research and educate yourself. I’m not just saying know who the candidates are, but actually be able to analyze the various other things involved as well.

As an example, I had an e-mail exchange with a reader last semester arguing Virg Bernero had a good record as Lansing’s mayor by citing that jobs were saved “through city projects like the Accident Fund and Lansing City Market”.

This was after he misinterpreted something I said in the column I had printed on April 7.

In it, I claimed that the ignorance (which itself is not stupidity) of the populace on different subjects, such as finance, is what allows for people like Bernero to take advantage of them. Clearly, you can’t make a good decision if you don’t have the information or can’t analyze it.

This reader, however, thought that I was calling him politically ignorant, and that he had a right to be offended, due to the fact he was a history and social studies double major.

Well, if that’s the case, then wouldn’t he know that Accident Fund is a workers comp insurance company that was originally run by the state? Wouldn’t he know it was later sold to Blue Cross circa 1993-1994 and was never a city project, much less one that was overseen by Bernero?

Needless to say, homeboy’s lack of research deep-sixed one of his arguments, as well as proved he is indeed ignorant on some things.

The example above should be evidence of what happens when you aren’t able to research or analyze what’s going on and then proceed to shoot your mouth. The problem is, things get even worse if you don’t do your research and then shoot off votes, because at that point, you’re doing harm for everyone else, not just yourself.

Get educated before you practice politics.

In general practice, I certainly don’t have a problem with the various religions out there. If someone wants to be a Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Catholic, or belong to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, good for them. However, the high volume of instances of violence or threats by particular Muslims make me view Islam slightly differently.

Indeed, you’re going to have a crazy or three in any religion that will attack anyone that mocks or disapproves of their particular religion.

However, take a look at Theo van Gogh. He wrote some not-so-nice stuff about the religion, and what happens? A Muslim murders him.

Kurt Westergaard illustrated the Jyllands-Posten cartoon depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb in his turban. His reward? Nothing but an attempted murder by a Muslim.

Then of course there is Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who were “warned” by Abu al Amerikee that the airing of the episode of South Park depicting Muhammad wearing a bear suit could result in violence leveled against them, in fact referencing the murder of Theo van Gogh.

There are also cases where Islamic groups have filed civil suits or petitioned various governments to press charges under “hate crime” laws — a clear violation of the principals of free speech.

It would be incorrect for me to say that all Muslims are violent; I’ve had interactions with a few and lunch with one that have proven they are not. However, it seems that the ratio of violent vs. non-violent Islamic members is greater than for those of other religions.

Religious tolerance is a two-way street. Members of a religion should be tolerant of others in order to deserve tolerance. That applies for any religion.

If the suspect doesn’t provide documentation, they get turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In theory, I would say I support open borders.

However, the problem remains that there are many people that should not be admitted into the country.

So what should be done about the border problem?

My take on the issue somewhat correlates with my take on capital punishment.

Certain crimes deserve the punishment; yet, I also realize that any errors made are irreversible once the sentence is carried out.

That’s one reason why I’m a strong supporter of firearms ownership.

Not only does it mitigate the chances a violent crime is going to be carried out, it can help make sure the proper person (or people) get what they deserve as it would be used at the scene.

You’re probably wondering how the above example could possibly analogize to the border problem.

Having constant observation on the border is the best way to make sure that the real border hoppers are caught.

Although improperly detaining someone permitted to be here because they didn’t produce identification isn’t permanent as improperly convicting someone of a capital crime and carrying out the execution, it’s still something that should be avoided.

The implications of allowing such things to happen under the guise of “seurity” most likely won’t lead you down a slippery slope, but rather, off the face of a cliff in regards to civil liberties.

The truth of that statement is humorous — in a sick, sad way.

Let’s look at how SGA displays its accounting prowess to the world.

Its budget is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that makes my home bookkeeping methods look like they far exceed generally accepted accounting principle standards.

“Allocated” and “Adjusted Total” columns?

If it weren’t for the fact that it was using equations in the cells, I’d have even less of an idea what was going on.

The sad thing is that there has to be someone in the organization that knows how to at least make somewhat legitimate-looking financial reports, but they must not want to.

This, of course, parallels perfectly with something such as the Obama administration’s “jobs created or saved.”

They’re numbers that are ambiguous in their determination at best, fraudulent at worst, and fulfill the agenda of making the stimulus look like it actually helped the economy.

Then, of course, there’s the total and absolute defense of entitlements for those in the upper echelon of SGA.

Twelve free credits per semester for the president and vice president?

Stipends for others, such as the Membership Officer? Check.

Just like Congress, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a majority in SGA that would advocate eliminating these things, saving CMU students and the taxpayers money.

Then there are the people involved.

President Brittany Mouzourakis and vice president Dave Breed did a heck of a good job of acting the Dennis Lennox/professional politician bit during the WMHW debate.

For starters, Mouzourakis jumped out of the gate calling candidate Evan Agnello a liar.

I don’t seem to recall any evidence being offered to support that claim but, of course, that seems to be par for the course when dealing with U.S. politicians.

When I inquired about how many people (the inference should have been unique) go to events put on by the Program Board, Breed gave a reply of 30,000 people.

30,000 people?

Does CMU even have that many students and faculty?

I don’t think so.

Don’t feel bad though, Dave.

Michigan’s very own John Conyers had to resort to making up a “good and welfare” clause when questioned about the constitutionality of the ‘Obamacare’ bill.

Indeed, it appears as though SGA does give students a good idea of how US politics work.

Unfortunately, it just reminds me of the sad state of affairs we are in, and makes me want to drink.