If it's about decreasing the chances of dying because of the actions of someone else at all costs (economic, personal, etc) - then the first thing the government should do is ban cars for the vast swathes of the population that don't strictly require a car (i.e. live next to a big city). That's 40'000 easily avoidable deaths each year - all they take is some inconvenience from everyone and a bit of investment in public transport infrastructure, in exchange for a dozen 9/11's worth of terrorism avoided every single year. As a bonus, the US's oil consumption would plummet and it would almost instantly achieve any environmental targets it can dream of.

What's that - you still want the freedom to drive? Even though it involves a fairly significant (0.01%) risk of dying because of things not under your control? Well, some people want the freedom to not be monitored all the time, even though it involves a much smaller than 0.01% risk of dying because of a terrorist attack. And all people should, and would, if terrorism didn't capture the imagination so vividly.