“Secure Flight” now part of the Bush Administrations Legacy

We welcome the Bush administration’s continuing dedication to excellence and security in developing clear and appropriate rules to prevent terrorists from flying:

In this respect, there are major discrepancies between the (nonbinding) description at the start of the regulatory notice issued today, and the actual regulations that follow it (the last 20 pages of the notice).

The essence of the Secure Flight final rule would be to (1) impose a new, two-stage, requirement for all would-be air travelers to obtain government permisison to fly, first in the form of a discretionary government decision to issue an acceptable form of identification credential and second in the form of a discretionary decision to send the airline a “cleared” message authorizing a specific person to board a specific flight, and (2) require all would-be air travelers to provide identifying information to the airline and the government prior to each flight.

We applaud the government’s long-lasting impact on Americans. The Bush presidency, from the price of gasoline to the permission to fly system announced today, to license plate scanners on the Seattle ferries, has left a mark on the Republic like few presidencies in history.

5 thoughts on ““Secure Flight” now part of the Bush Administrations Legacy

  1. A much greater threat than surveillance is the government that will take what you have and give it to someone else for no better reason than the Emperor thinks you have too much. And that of the salient characteristics of Obamaland. I don’t fear the Bush legacy near as much as that of Obama. His “spread it around” theory poses a much greater threat to liberty. Surveillance is a stepping stone to reduced liberty. Forcible income redistribution directly reduces liberty.

  2. Doug,
    When you say “take what you have and give it to someone else,” do you mean like the $700BN bank bailout, which took roughly $5,000 from every working American, or do you mean fighting two wars all on credit? Those both seem like borrowing from the future in a way that’s going to need to be paid back.
    I encourage intelligent comments, but not partisan bickering or fear-mongering. I think there’s little reason to believe that either party will be fiscally responsible in the way I would like.

  3. Adam — I appreciate that you encourage intelligent comments.
    My comment was directed at liberty, just the same as yours. My point was that it isn’t only one party or one politician that is a threat to liberty. As such, I was merely providing a counterpoint to your rather one sided view. That’s not “fear mongering” any more than your comment was fear mongering.
    I realize it’s your blog, but really, insinuating that my comment is political fear-mongering is just plain wrong.

  4. Doug — Last I saw, McCain wasn’t running on implementing a flat tax. That means he supports the same progressive, wealth-redistributing tax system Obama does. That system is pretty heavily ingrained in American society, and I don’t expect it to change anytime soon.

Comments are closed.