The controversy over heightened airport security, including enhanced body scanners and aggressive pat-downs, came at a bad time — right before the Thanksgiving weekend, the busiest travel period of the year. And even though travel reportedly went smoothly over the weekend, the issue remains.

The new security procedures from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) were reportedly a response to the underwear bomber’s failed attempt at blowing up an airliner over Detroit about a year ago. But implementation of the new airline security measures has been questioned as well as criticized — and both TSA officials and the Obama administration seem surprised at the public’s reaction. They shouldn’t be.

Early news stories have focused on some passenger outrage over naked body images, fears of radiation exposure from scanners, overly aggressive pat-downs as well as senseless searches of small children, the elderly and people with physical handicaps. To the surprise, and relief, of many, flyers this weekend saw few problems.

For many, the concern over the new airport security might not be so much over privacy or pat-downs, but about effectiveness.

Does the new TSA security screening make the flying public safer? Most people don’t think so.

The first thought is that the TSA is only reactive — responding, and often overreacting, to the last threat, but not anticipating the next threat.

Ever since the shoe bomber’s failed attempt last Christmas, every passenger has had to remove his or her shoes. After a liquid explosives discovery in Europe, only small bottles of shampoo or water can be brought onto the plane. After the underwear bomber fizzled, the crotches of passengers are now targeted.

But beyond the reactive nature of the TSA’s responses, the bigger question seems to be, “Are these measures effective?”

New York Times writer Matt Bai put the TSA uproar in a larger context, suggesting Americans are losing faith in the effectiveness of the federal government.

Bai makes a good point in noting that most Americans were dismayed at the government’s ineffective response to the BP oil spill last summer, as well as the weak — and lobbyist-influenced — attempts at reforming health care and the financial industry.

Despite Obama’s aura of competency and his calm speeches reassuring us that past problems such as oil leaks and greed-fueled financial crises will not be repeated, Americans increasingly see government as ineffective — talking a good game, but failing to execute.

Bai summarizes the problem for the president, saying, “From stimulus spending and the health care law to the federal response to oil in the Gulf of Mexico, Mr. Obama has continually stumbled — blindly, it seems — into some version of the same debate, which is about whether we can trust federal bureaucracies to expand their reach without harming citizens or industry.”

Americans are asking if the federal government is capable, or if bureaucracy and politics have made it dysfunctional — as well as self-serving and expensive. As a candidate, Obama vowed to pore over the federal budget line-by-line to determine what worked and what didn’t — and to make improvements or end the programs. Has that happened? Does anyone in government care?

Bai writes, “The White House has only sporadically and in limited ways focused its attention on reforming bureaucracies.” The TSA might be a good place to start.

Bai also makes a point using the “Cash for Clunkers” program, which exceeded its $1 billion budget almost immediately and had a questionable long-term effect on both the economy and the environment. Bai writes, “To a lot of casual observers, it probably came across as a classic case of bureaucratic confusion involving a few billion dollars — at exactly the moment the administration was making its case for a $1 trillion overhaul of the health care system.”

The latest TSA actions just add to public concerns over the competency of the federal government.

It’s not just about scanner images and pat-downs, it’s about whether the government works.