Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Desertdog on August 08, 2009, 02:59:26 PM
-
Luxery jets for the Congress Critters instead of planes for the Service Members. Not a good choice.
Pentagon Takes Aim at Jets for Congressional Travel
Appropriations for Weapons and Other Items Drain Resources Needed to Fight Wars, Says a Spokesman for Defense Secretary
By BRODY MULLINS and AUGUST COLE
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124969431303416161.html
WASHINGTON -- The House's bid to buy new executive jets on the Pentagon's budget has broadened a conflict between Congress and the administration over defense priorities.
"It forces us to take money from things we do need to fund and redirect it for things we don't need," Geoff Morrell, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said Friday. "And in a time of war, we just can't afford that."
Lawmakers' move to upgrade the fleet of government jets -- used for travel by lawmakers and other senior government officials -- is just one of more than 1,000 spending projects lawmakers added to the Pentagon's budget for next year that weren't requested by President Barack Obama.
The request for additional executive jets, which pales next to the multibillion-dollar weapons systems targeted for cuts by Mr. Gates, comes at a time when the Obama administration is trying to shake up Pentagon budgeting and contracting.
"The bottom line is, for everything that they appropriate for us above and beyond what we've asked for, it will, at some point require us to find money from programs we do need," Mr. Morrell said.
Some lawmakers say they often know more about what the military needs than the executive branch does.
"The Pentagon is not the fountain of all knowledge," said Rep. Bill Young, a Florida Republican who was senior appropriator on the House floor last month when the Pentagon spending bill was approved. "They don't have all of the knowledge, and they don't have all of the wisdom. Neither does the administration, neither does the Congress. That's why we work together."
Congress says the extra jets are needed to replace an aging fleet of planes that are more expensive to operate and maintain. Congressional representatives say the planes are used 44% of the time by members of the military and 14.5% of the time by lawmakers. Administration and Pentagon officials say all the extra aircraft aren't needed.
The dispute over the jets is one element of a struggle between powerful members of Congress and the Obama administration over how to trim the federal budget in the face of ballooning deficits.
Overall, the House trimmed Mr. Obama's budget request for the Pentagon to $636.3 billion, down slightly from the $640.1 billion he sought. But in so doing, House appropriators also rearranged spending priorities, cutting programs Mr. Obama favored and replacing them with items he wanted cut.
In all, the House included more than 1,000 additional spending provisions totaling more than $2.8 billion, according to an analysis of the legislation by the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Lawmakers set aside $485 million toward reviving a terminated Lockheed Martin Corp. contract to build new presidential helicopters, and added $674 million for three new C-17 Globemaster III cargo planes from Boeing Co. They also allocated $560 million to produce an additional engine design for the Lockheed-led F-35 Lightning II fighter jet after the Defense Department and White House said that one engine, made by United Technologies Corp.'s Pratt & Whitney unit, was sufficient. General Electric Co. and Rolls Royce PLC are producing the second engine.
The House's plan to spend $550 million to buy eight business-class passenger jets to ferry senior government and military officials around the globe represents more than double Mr. Obama's request for $220 million to buy a total of four passenger jets, including two that are currently being leased by the Air Force.
The House Appropriations Committee, which approved the order for additional passenger planes, has said the new planes were needed to replace aging ones.
Ellis Brachman, a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, the panel that approved the spending, declined Friday to discuss the planes.
The fight will continue when Congress returns from its recess. The administration persuaded lawmakers to kill plans to build more F-22 fighter jets. But a veto threat hangs over any added funding for the F-35's second engine, as well as for further money for new White House helicopters.
"We are very realistic, we know that you are only going to get a certain percentage of what you want," White House Office of Management and Budget spokesman Kenneth Baer said Friday. "Changing Washington isn't easy. You are not going to get 100% of the cuts that you propose."
—Jake Sherman contributed to this article.
Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com and August Cole at august.cole@dowjones.com
-
Your green and friendly congress chaps should really be limited to getting one standard class ticket booked on a train between DC and where they live.
-
Your green and friendly congress chaps should really be limited to getting one standard class ticket booked on a train between DC and where they live.
Tut tut tut! That only applies to the peons. Now go back to Tractor Factory #17.
-
Your green and friendly congress chaps should really be limited to getting one standard class ticket booked on a train between DC and where they live.
Nope. Bicycles.
-
Nope. Bicycles.
Let's make 'em work for it. Unicycles.
-
Commercial coach.
Only between their home district's nearest airport, and DC.
No international flights unless you're on a foreign affairs committee.
No free flights unless it's frequent flier miles.
-
People conveniently forget that there's an entire USAF wing dedicated to hauling congresscritters and heads of state around.
The flight hours, O&M, etc, are apportioned and budgeted each year.
IOW, the Pentagon knows darned well that they're spending taxpayer dollars to haul these folks hither and yon.
When they go to Congress for the military budget, it's right there in plain sight.
The budgeted hours are flown and managed right up to the end of the fiscal year, regardless of which VIP is aboard.
It's no different than a bomb wing, fighter wing, tanker wing or recce wing. As such, I fail to see the indignation.
-
It's no different than a bomb wing, fighter wing, tanker wing or recce wing. As such, I fail to see the indignation.
The question really is, "Why do they need new planes for the congress critters?"
-
Congress critters should receive coach tickets for official travel. If they want to up it to first class, they pay the up charge on their own dime. If they need to move a large number of them, charter a plane as needed.
The Pres is one thing as he needs the work space, command capabilities, etc. Military of course is also one thing.
Congress critters? I fail to see any reason to justify private jets. If a state feels the need to provide a private jet for it's reps that is a bit more justifiable.
We can cut spending on top of the line fighters that expand our capability and keep us in the lead, but we can afford this *expletive deleted*it.
-
Never bite the hand that feeds you.
-
Congress critters should receive coach tickets for official travel. If they want to up it to first class, they pay the up charge on their own dime. If they need to move a large number of them, charter a plane as needed.
The Pres is one thing as he needs the work space, command capabilities, etc. Military of course is also one thing.
Congress critters? I fail to see any reason to justify private jets. If a state feels the need to provide a private jet for it's reps that is a bit more justifiable.
QFT
-
For once, I will (partly) side with Congress.
If the Congress member is traveling on official State business, then he should have the option to travel on the Air Force executive fleet. That doesn't mean one plane per person, or guarantee a non-stop flight whenever the official wants it, but that is why we have the aircraft. Is it time to buy new planes? Maybe, but not to save fuel. Business aircraft are very fuel ineffecient on a per person basis. But, they can be very time efficient if used correctly, although I can't think of many jobs that Congress has to do that are time critical.
The problem lies in defining "official state business." Traveling to one's home district for reelection pandering doesn't count, but the Congress will find a way to do it and have it count as "official travel."
So, let them fly on the biz jets, just make the rules for use very tight and have an outside watchdog agency overseeing everything.
-
It's no different than a bomb wing, fighter wing, tanker wing or recce wing. As such, I fail to see the indignation.
That may be the case currently, but is there really a need for members of congress to fly anything but commercial? It can't be a security issue, because those same legislators appear in public without Secret Service details.
If it's a question of time, what exactly is the pressing need to get from DC to San Francisco more quickly than can be done on a commercial flight? Is there a cocktail party that Pelosi might miss?
One aspect of tightening a budget in tough times is to look at the small things as well as the big things. A few small things can add up to as much as a car payment. In government, a few small things can add up to a fleet of F-22's.
-
The whole Military-Industrial-Congressional complex will be the downfall of America. The way our tax dollars disappear in that black hole is borderline criminal.
-
Never bite the hand that feeds you.
It'd be nice if we had the chance to quit handing food to them who are biting us. You'd think we'd learn...
-
+1 to Fly320s. There is a genuine use for the fleet, but I think it is well abused by some of the elected officials. Using it efficiently can make good business sense, but you would need the "watchdog agency" to kill the current abuse. As G98 pointed out, kinda hard for the military to do that since you know someone will be vengeful and take it out on their budget. Could you imagine what would happen if Pelosi or "call me Senator" Boxer had to ride in the back of a C-130?
As for flying commercial, many elected officials seem to be fine with it. Back when I used to go to DC a lot for work, I would often be on the same plane as both the Congressional Reps from the Districts where I live when flying home on Fridays. They fly enough so they always get First or Business class seats, so it's not like commercial is all that rough.
-
The watchdog agency is the GSA, and they do make their presence felt in no uncertain terms when it comes to fraud, waste, and abuse.
The Gulfstream bizjets are actually scheduled replacements of the fleet of larger, less efficient jets in the USAF 89th Airlift Wing executive fleet. They have intercontinental range without being huge fuel hogs.
As I said before, X-number of hours are budgeted and apportioned to the Air Force to fly congresscritters and heads of state hither and yon.
Gulfstream G550 vs. F-22 cost per plane? Not even close.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_19/news/37552-1.html
-
The watchdog agency is the GSA, and they do make their presence felt in no uncertain terms when it comes to fraud, waste, and abuse.
Seems more like it should be one of the IG offices. GSA falls into the same bind as other agencies -- you always run the risk of ticking off the wrong elected official, and risk a hit to your budget. The IG offices are a bit more immune to that (not that Obama didn't recently fire an IG counsel for poking his nose in the wrong place and ticking Obama off).
-
The whole Military-Industrial-Congressional complex will be the downfall of America. The way our tax dollars disappear in that black hole is borderline criminal.
That might be true, but it is not he biggest black hole in D.C. The War on Poverty among others has much less to show for itself.
That said, the military knows who they really work for.
-
Yup.
I'd love to have flown Pelosi to Kalifornia in a B-52 bomb bay, and unloaded her with a bunch of ordnance over Sacramento, but it wasn't in the cards.
Having said that, I'm somewhat glad she can only stage hissy fits on a USAF bizjet, vs. subjecting innocent people on a commercial airliner to such antics.
-
Having said that, I'm somewhat glad she can only stage hissy fits on a USAF bizjet, vs. subjecting innocent people on a commercial airliner to such antics.
If enough people got to see the real Pelosi, she might not be in congress much longer.
-
Yup.
I'd love to have flown Pelosi to Kalifornia in a B-52 bomb bay, and unloaded her with a bunch of ordnance over Sacramento, but it wasn't in the cards.
Having said that, I'm somewhat glad she can only stage hissy fits on a USAF bizjet, vs. subjecting innocent people on a commercial airliner to such antics.
it could be very interesting to start doing barrel rolls n such =D
-
$485 mil for restarting the VH-71 project? That'd buy you one Kestrel and a couple tanks of avgas. Bet Leatherneck is having fun these days...
On the other hand, I could get ya 24 utility helicopters for the sale price. Or 6-12 Presidential birds, give or take depending on optional packages. And unlike the Kestrel, we're already making them.
-
I was going to suggest sticking the c-crits in the bomb bay as a way of transporting them to their "final" destination, but Gew beat me to the punch. =D
-
They don't feed us, we feed them.
Lest we forget.
-
Yes, we (taxpayers) feed them.
They take care of bidness, then they apportion dollars for the non-VIP fleet, afterwards.
Trust me, I'm very much aware of the food chain there.
Keep the pretty blue and white executive planes flying at Andrews AFB, then you'll get your F-22, C-17, B-2, etc.
Not a minute sooner.
The fact that the DoD press secretary blabbed what he did comes as something of a shock to me.
-
I don't have any problem with the USAF flying members of Congress as long as it is not essentially a chartered flight. I don't believe spouses and family can fly for free either. The rules should be the same as for servicemen. I also believe that members of Congress are not common people in the sense of their job classification. However, they are not "Generals". They are elected officials who did not necessarily work for their position.
The pentagon should know if they need more planes based on their usage.
-
Today's Associated Press story on the American citizen being retrieved from Myanmar by a U.S. Senator. Note the jet he's getting out of... ;)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmauser98.com%2Fmyanmarmission.jpg&hash=af6e2f53e87f70c3fdd57be5013adabce6c69625)
-
$485 mil for restarting the VH-71 project? That'd buy you one Kestrel and a couple tanks of avgas. Bet Leatherneck is having fun these days...
On the other hand, I could get ya 24 utility helicopters for the sale price. Or 6-12 Presidential birds, give or take depending on optional packages. And unlike the Kestrel, we're already making them.
They're hiding behind tightly closed doors, Rev. Doing an "Analysis of Alternatives." Have no doubt though; after the embarrassment of the VH-71 cancellation dies down, they'll be back with a vengeance. And I predict we WILL spend every bit of the $13 Billion the canceled program had run up to, for a fleet of about two dozen helicopters.
And you know what's lurking in the wings? Replacement of Air Force One. I can't wait to see how much THAT fleet will cost.
Add to that the cost of these VIP transport planes and it's a staggering national cost hidden inside the Defense budget (or at least not prominently displayed) to move The People Who Are More Important Than You or Me about the world. I ask myself, "What does this program offer to national security?" and often I can't answer that...
TC
-
They're hiding behind tightly closed doors, Rev. Doing an "Analysis of Alternatives." Have no doubt though; after the embarrassment of the VH-71 cancellation dies down, they'll be back with a vengeance. And I predict we WILL spend every bit of the $13 Billion the canceled program had run up to, for a fleet of about two dozen helicopters.
And you know what's lurking in the wings? Replacement of Air Force One. I can't wait to see how much THAT fleet will cost.
Add to that the cost of these VIP transport planes and it's a staggering national cost hidden inside the Defense budget (or at least not prominently displayed) to move The People Who Are More Important Than You or Me about the world. I ask myself, "What does this program offer to national security?" and often I can't answer that...
TC
I swear, I'm not trolling. I'm honestly annoyed. I know we can provide a better, cheaper and more reliable product on time and relatively on budget. Because we have been doing so (with only a few minor bumps) for 52 years for Marine One and quite a few heads of states are flying on S92's. :mad:
Instead, we're going to get experimental half a billion per helicopters using odd-ball parts, most likely sole sourced from Augusta and incompatible with the rest of the inventory system. So expect similar elevated prices on operating costs.
-
Today's Associated Press story on the American citizen being retrieved from Myanmar by a U.S. Senator. Note the jet he's getting out of... ;)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmauser98.com%2Fmyanmarmission.jpg&hash=af6e2f53e87f70c3fdd57be5013adabce6c69625)
....and how much did he donate to the aforementioned senator's re-election fund?.... =|
-
Probably nothing.
Hell, he couldn't even swim across a pond in Burma without getting arrested. ;)
-
Probably nothing.
Hell, he couldn't even swim across a pond in Burma without getting arrested. ;)
Certainly you don't mean that a senator would delve into such a high-profile issue for popularity points, do you?..... ;/
-
Must be a junior Senator. ;). That's no jet, it is a Raytheon (Beech) King Air turboprop.
-
Sorry, I was focusing on the United States of America paint job, courtesy of the folks at Andrews AFB.
It ain't a jet to me unless it has either 4 or 8 TF-33s, truthfully... =D
-
TF-33s? OLD school. :)
-
TF-33s? OLD school. :)
Didn't have the extenders though, tended to shake a bit.
-
Old school?
Naw, this is (my kind of) old school: =D
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmauser98.com%2Fstaggerwing2009.jpg&hash=e6f89f9ceddccec06ed4f7e442efab9031f040ca)
-
Staggerwings are beautiful, but I've heard that they are difficult to fly.
-
Only on takeoffs and landings, Fly. Most of the time, they're a piece of cake.
TC
-
People conveniently forget that there's an entire USAF wing dedicated to hauling congresscritters and heads of state around.
The flight hours, O&M, etc, are apportioned and budgeted each year.
IOW, the Pentagon knows darned well that they're spending taxpayer dollars to haul these folks hither and yon.
When they go to Congress for the military budget, it's right there in plain sight.
The budgeted hours are flown and managed right up to the end of the fiscal year, regardless of which VIP is aboard.
It's no different than a bomb wing, fighter wing, tanker wing or recce wing. As such, I fail to see the indignation.
Dunno about anyone else's indignation, but MY indignation is that the congressional clowns get these junkets at MY expense at all. The military is the Department of Defense, which is part of the Executive Branch of the government. If the Congress wants a fleet of aircraft for the Legislative branch, they can buy a few planes, hire a few pilots, and operate the whole shebang out of a line item in their own budget. They might have to trim (pun intended) the subsidies for congressional haircuts a bit to help pay for it, but they shouldn't be using the military as a private taxi service.
-
Ah, but they do, and have, since Day One, or at least since FDR's Guess Where II & Sacred Cow, Truman's Independence, Eisenhower's Columbine, and so forth.
USAF for fixed wing.
USMC for rotary wing.
Presidents, Vice Presidents, Executive Branch, Heads of State, and senior military.
Lobby the congresscritters to remove such an expensive burden on the taxpayer, and then report back to us on how it went. ;)
-
Lobby the congresscritters to remove such an expensive burden on the taxpayer, and then report back to us on how it went. Wink
Yeah, good luck with that.
TC