I'd love to see that.

I won't fly until the TSA is gone. Or reformed back to the security before 9/11.

There's no more perfect example for the Beyonce Knowles' and the Sean Penns' of this world or for progressives in general - the only people who escape the costs of financial and physical freedoms under statism are the wealthy and politically connected.

I am all in favor of air passengers paying for things that they have control over, but the TSA bloated budget, and operation inefficiencies are not one of those things.
In order for the passengers to be charged appropriately and fairly, the whole mess needs to be turned back over to the airlines, and the gubmint needs to get out of it

I met the qualification for the pre check line on my last trip. Instead of making myself a spectacle, I chose to just go through the regular line. I was in plenty of time for my flight, and going through pre check would have just left me with more time to kill at the gate.

"I am all in favor of air passengers paying for things that they have control over, but the TSA bloated budget, and operation inefficiencies are not one of those things."

For tactical reasons, I favor the sort-of opposite. I'd like to make the costs of operating the TSA as directly visible as possible, so that everyone understands the monetary costs of operating the whole overgrown windbag. People who may ignore more subtle issues will pay attention when they get hit in the pocketbook. (As for the FAA, I'm fairly sure that its operations are already paid for by license fees, fuel taxes, and landing fees.)

The thing about pre-check is that, in theory, it should cost less per pax than normal screening. A big part of the problem is that it's actually not avaialble to a lot of pax (most of the airports I fly into and out of do not have pre-check services), so there isn't the broad base of customers to spread the fixed costs across. If, say, 50% of all pax boardings were handled through pre-check, then it would pay for itself.

"Progressive libertarianism" is an oxymoron, and will be until the word "progressive" is recaptured from those of the left who have made it mean just the opposite.

I'd love to see passengers get billed for the cost of their scope 'n' grope. Combine that with a policy that forces members of Congress to stand in the same lines and be strip-searched with the rest of us, and those pointless rules would be gone faster than Nancy Pelosi could say, "Hands off the hoohoo, peasant!"

Before anyone starts frothing, what follows has nothing to do with the TSA, but rather Glasser's sloppy and ignorant reporting.

[Amy summarizes: ]... a proposal to finance the FAA and the security puppet show people (aka the TSA) -- through the fees paid by those traveling. The cost would be $35 per travel segment for the TSA and FAA fees

Unfortunately, Glasser goons up both nominator and denominator.

He cites the number of passengers in 2012 as 640 million. In fact it was 830 million (he neglected foreign travel):

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) today reported that 815.3 million scheduled passengers traveled on U.S. airlines and on foreign airlines serving the United States in 2012. This is a 1.3 percent increase from 2011 (Table 1).

Then he compounds his errors by listing some of the fees passengers pay: ... including a 7.5 percent ticket sales levy, a 4.3 cent-per-gallon fuel tax and a passenger charge of $3.90 per flight. . Unfortunately, he neglected the landing fee (for a 767 sized airplane, varies by airport) -- $3,000. That, btw, amounts to about $15 per pax.

Regarding the FAA, he assumes, without discussion or examination, that all the FAAs spending goes towards supporting airline operations. It doesn't. I don't know what the exact proportion is, but approximately 70% rings a bell. Regardless of how good my guess is, the real number isn't 100%. He also makes the same mistake wrt the TSA -- I don't know what portion of the budget is not spent on airline security, but it sure as heck isn't 0%.

Finally, there is the question of liability for TSA funding, which he simply doesn't even consider. Presuming for the moment that Islamists are conducting war against the US via vulnerable infrastructure, is it fair that a particular industry should directly bear the entire cost of defending against an attack on the US as a whole?

So while I agree with his basic point -- in general, economic efficiency is best served where costs are explicit and paid by those incurring them -- Glasser's article (like too many I read at Bloomberg) is so plagued with errors and elisions as to be nearly worthless.