I get a little nervous when government recognizes how ineffective it is. It's answer is always to try and be more effective. Consider what government considers effective, and how they reach this goal post. More tyranny, more taxes, more control. Government - city, state, or federal, produces nothing. They're stationary highwaymen, they understand two principles: Consumption, and force. They consume to enforce, and enforce to consume, and continue in this cycle perpetually. They produce nothing. They have no factories, no ability to innovate, no means to improve the human condition. When they have any of these things, they've taken from Person A to give to Person B - they rearrange the suffering and insist an imperfection has been eradicated. Once it's become clear that a problem either hasn't been solved, or has only grown worse, they vainly advocate more effective measures. These effective measures are typically an amplification of what they already do, the only measures they already have: Consume to enforce, enforce to consume.
In the wake of the Russian Jet crash, Representatives Adam Schiff , and Peter King do just this. With the infinite wisdom that comes from being an elected official, he recognizes that if someone wants avoid a hindrance to their goals, they utilize a method to get around it. Per Adam Schiff, when they test the TSA, they fail. Why wouldn't they? Allegations of a co-opted agent aside (hold your surprise at the revelation, and if true only helps to reach the conclusion of this writing), where is the incentive to do otherwise?
Imagine that for a moment. They've created a job position where someone with the mental capacity of a gold fish can draw a substantial salary paid by their victims, all the while they are free to grope, rob, and humiliate their customers - and have no shortage of tools or methods to do so. They're well insulated from repercussions (until their bosses are caught being caught in protecting their goons), being members of the AFGE. If anything, they have an invested interest in ensuring the lack of safety, and reveling in the failure that Adam Schiff points out. Simpletons they may be, but fools they are not. They can cite a lack of funding, whether true, false, or somewhere in between. Likely false. Here's why.
More funding means more employees, more equipment, more methods. More employees means more Union dues, and more votes to coerce. More equipment means that Michael Chertoff and his buddies still get a slice of the pie. More methods equates to a greater variety of ways to engage in otherwise antisocial behavior, domesticating individuals into submission. Everyone wins, except the individual.
Contrast all of this with a private sector incentivized to respond. One doesn't even need to look at a vast commercial enterprise, one needs to look no further than the individual.
Risky behavior and risky property comes with potential costs. Have dangerous animals or dilapidated property? The risk and responsibility is yours to shoulder, along with your insurance company. Provided they even choose to insure your risky behavior. The insured who have a dangerous situation within an acceptable threshold face higher premiums, and are encouraged to provide safety. Those who throw safety to the wind go uninsured, and may end up losing it all.
In a functioning market, airline safety would be provided as a means to mitigate costly catastrophe. Who would shoulder this burden? Provider of the service, whether the airlines, the security company, the airport, or another invested party such as an insurance company. It's hard to say who all of these parties are or could be, as there's no free market in airline security. Who knows what innovations in security could come about, all the while preserving a customers dignity. Whoever these stakeholders are, their service would be a safe airline experience. Contrast this with an apparatus that has an invested interest in preserving the opposite, which we have today.
As the creation of the TSA has ensured a non-functioning market where there is no market response , we're at further risk of airline catastrophe. Much to the great misfortune of us all, powerful parties are delighted by this, and are likely licking their chops at the most recent sum of their great failure.