Democrats Reprinied with pecrission tram. The Wall Srost journal © 2001 Dow Jones & Camper, Ine All nhs reserved. LLOF OUR LIBERAL friends — all five of them — have taken to crowing of late that wars are good for growing the government, And they're making us believers, Witness their frantic effort to insist that all of America’s 25,000 airline baggage screeners absolutely, positively must pecome fexteral employees. Funny, we thought what mattered was improving the quality 0! tg notwhich union the acreohers might belong to. But Democrats are insisting that as part of airline-security jegislation all baggage screeners must work for the feds. President Bush, on the’ sther hand, wants to let a new federal ygency set standards for hiring and screening that private or public entities. “ould then implement. The latter is the ystem that works well throughout europe. ‘This dispute is really more about practical. politics and power than philosophy. Even those of us who tilt ibertarian understand the need for jederalizing air ‘The airlines hemselves — whi tracted the. job out under the supervision of the spically inept Aviation. Administration — had a conflict of interest. Yet federal employees are hardly a nagic solution. The federal workers at. he FAA twice ignored congressional nandates (first passed in 1996) to set. carrying union baggage Guest editorial uniform certification requirements for screening companies to follow. So there were no federal directives against box utters on Sept. 11, and equipment that cauld have detected plastic or ceramic knives hadn't been deployed. “THE LAST THING you need is anew federal work force,” says GOP Rep, John Mica, who chairs the House subcam- mitee on aviation. “Ithas taken the FAA an average of 28 years to adopt new rales.” ‘The biggest security problem has been that responsibility is fragmented, especially among airlines at individual airports, Better to put responsibility ina single entity, such as an airport, and then have the feds enforce tougii standards by, for example, secretly testing whether inspections ‘truly are thorough and effective. Such a system could deploy high-tech screeners and biometric systems to identify airline personnel ‘Airports that failed to pass such federal tests could lose their operating authority. ‘Such procedures are already in place at European airports, which have dealt successfully with terror for much longer than we have, At London's Heathrow, every bagis X-rayed and matched with a passenger on a plane. Screeners are privately employed but decently paid — and turnover is a fraction of what itis at U.S. airports. Other European airports that have adopted Heathrow’s model include Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Rome, Athens, Vienna and Zurich. All have much tougher security regimes than U: airports, but passengers aren't unduly delayed. ‘THE POLITICAL elephantin this US. debate is of course unionization. Democrats, bless their hearts, see an army of potential new reeruits for the public-employee unions that are part of their base. Democratic Congresstnan Jim Oberstar of Minnesota says, "We wouldn't think of contracting out for an army to protect us against a foreign invasion.” But. airline safety isn't the military, which has code of conduct that includes following orders and punishment for mistakes or insubor- dination. Government unions don't work that way. Their history has been to resist. change, especially efficiencies that might allow fewer employees. “A federal work force would resist the use of labor- saving technology, object to being reassigned freely and almost certainly become unionized,” says Robert the director of transportation studies a the Reason Foundation, ‘The most accurate analogy here isn't the Army; it's the U.S, Postal Service! ‘Mz, Bush's management model. for airport security is more like Federal Express, albeit with strict federal standards and enforcement, We know which model would make us feel safex, a