Ryan-Murray budget deal would raise TSA fees

CloudsBy_Mattias mnsc
While half the country is up in arms over the Paul Ryan-Patty Murray budget deal in Congress — with both conservatives and liberals disliking it for their own reasons — I see a twinkling, nay glittering, silver lining.

Security fees for air travelers would jump by 124%, to $5.60 per one-way trip ($11.20 round-trip). Right now the fee is $2.50 for a non-stop flight and $5 for a leg of travel that includes connecting flights. The proposed $5.60 would cover both non-stops and connectings.

Why shouldn’t the people who fly pay for their own, cough cough, security?

I pay for my tickets when I go to the theater. Why shouldn’t air travelers do likewise? Airport theater is the most expensive show on earth.

I also find it telling that there’s so much shrieking and proverbial rending of garments in the blabbosphere over this. ‘Grand offense! They’re gouging us! First they take away our pretzels, then they take away our peanuts, then they take away our blankies, now this! What next?! O woe is me!’

I realize this is a radical idea, but maybe, just maybe, the fact that you’re allowing yourselves and your children to be bullied, harassed, robbed, and groped is kinda sorta more important than the fact that you’ll have to pay a few extra bucks to get on a plane. Maybe you should be up in arms over the fact that you’re treated like a criminal rather than the fact that you might have to forgo an overpriced coffee or junk food serving to pay that extra — gasp — five bucks.

But this is America, after all, where nothing is more important than money.

And hey, you can always do what war resisters have been doing for decades — withhold part of your income tax and tell the IRS it’s because you object to the security fees. Ya know, put your money where your mouth is.

(Photo: Mattias mnsc via Flickr Creative Commons)

Cross-posted at ABombazine.

  • RonBonner

    There are a few people out there than are against this bad budget deal.


    “Grover Norquist: ‘Deeply troubled’ by new
    airline fee, wants TSA killed”

    “The influential Americans for Tax Reform has come out strongly against the
    new airline security fee included in the House-Senate budget compromise,
    demanding instead that the TSA be farmed out to a private company, saving some
    of the $8 billion taxpayers spend to protect airports.

    “We are deeply troubled by both the increase in the TSA user fee and the
    temporary relaxing of the spending caps for 2014 and 2015,” said the group
    headed by Grover Norquist.’

    • Yeah, but Norquist doesn’t give a flying fig about civil liberties. As you know, he’s against taxes. Period. If the TSA were 100% funded by a fairy godmother, he’d be fine with the groping and assault.

    • enaylius

      Bring on the tax’s and any and all fees. Make air travel a financial arm and leg for people. Let the airlines hurt and shame ob the unions that are just as complicit

  • Pat Downe

    The rulers must consider the new air travel fees a “sin tax” like taxes on smoking and drinking. Politicians typically tax minorities (like air travelers) to upset a smaller group of voters.

  • Dolt

    While I agree 100% with the sentiments of this post, I disagree in the raising of any TSA fees. The reason is that even if only the supporters and sufferers bear this fee (this time), it wont reduce the other taxes and ways TSA gets money from me without ever flying. Not to mention any increase in the already outrageously bloated, misused and corrupt billions the TSA already has is not only a waste of money but it gives them the means to have more power and control over all of us…. airport or not.

  • enaylius

    Perhaps this hike in ticket prices will harm the airlines? I wish that is

  • Jack Stinglash

    I’m surprised this hasn’t sparked any comments. But maybe people are still wrapped up in the sock monkey incident. By the way, the Daily Mail has some great photos of that:


    • Jack, beats me. It’s a total mystery why some posts elicit comments and some don’t.