Congressional jets may be scrapped

[kpete]

Source: Politico

Congressional jets may be scrapped

The new congressional jets may be getting scrapped.


After an uproar over a proposed $550 million purchase of a new fleet of Gulfstream jets for congressional use, the top Defense appropriator in the House has offered to eliminate funding for the planes – but only if the Pentagon, which operates the jets, agrees.

“If the Department of Defense does not want these aircraft, they will be eliminated from the bill,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommitee said Monday evening.

Murtha was quick to point out that these jets were not additions to the fleet, and were being purchased to replace older ones that have maintenance and safety issues. And in his statement, he basically puts the blame on the Pentagon, whose spokesman has been quoted saying they did not request the $550 million in Gulfstream jets for congressional use.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26000.html

[kelly1mm]

1. Good. nt

[bbinacan]

2. Why does Congress need

Gulfstream jets? Especially at 65 million per jet.

[roseBudd]

3. Murtha's piggishness makes dems look bad, we need to be the frugal cheapskate party

[exboyfil]

4. It don't matter if it is a R or a D when it comes to

living the high life in Washington. I next Orwell's Animal Farm summarizes it better than any other book ever has. The promises are being whitewashed and changed, and the pigs have become to resemble the former masters. The old horse is going to the glue factory, and the dogs are out savaging dissenters.

I remember hearing President Obama saying that we will all get the same health care as the Senators. I asked will they get to stand in the queue with us - guess not - Some animals are more equal than other animals.

[Psephos]

10. Absolutely. The R and the D mean nothing; the individual record and attitude mean everything. n/t

[exboyfil]

13. That is why I miss Wellstone so much I think he really got it

[Psephos]

16. Amen!

[Auggie]

5. Congress should be required to fly commercial coach once in a while.

Maybe one of those assholes would get stuck on a tarmac for nine hours.

[donheld]

22. With their corporate sponsors on their clothes.

[Psephos]

24. donheld, you are onto something!

We have Comerica Park and the Blockbuster Bowl and a hundred decals on every NASCAR entrant and logos a poppin' on every golfer, hooper, and Olympic medal winner.

How about a logosuit for each Rep or Senator? Sounds like an exceptional Photoshop opportunity. ;)

[Lagomorph]

36. Hey....not a bad idea...nt

[wordpix]

26. once in awhile? how about all the time?

[MineralMan]

6. Good. Let them fly coach, unless they have the miles for an

upgrade.

[Lagomorph]

37. I'll bet the seats...

would be wider and there would be a couple less rows to deal with if they did.

[twitomy]

7. They need those jets!

God forbid they have to mingle with us "little people"

And these are the same asshats who yelped when the auto CEO's came to DC in jets.

And while we are at it, lets put an amendment to the public pay option law that this is the only

health insurance to be offered by the govt to the congressmen/woman. We can then be assured we

will get a good plan.

[Orsino]

35. How else are they going to get to their doctor's appointments? n/t

[Strong Atheist]

8. ... and what did congress have to say about the

automakers?


http://blogs.wsj.com/autoshow/2008/11/19/congress-members-criticize-auto-executives-corporate-jet-travel/


<snip>

The symbolism of the perk was potent to several congressmen, who said their constituents would be aghast at the privilege in such troubled economic times.

Nope, no hypocrisy there...


:eyes:

[Psephos]

12. wow n/t

[Blue_Tires]

33. +1

[high density]

9. Why not buy $550 million in jets?

We're putting $3 billion toward cars.

[Psephos]

11. AND - it's the same plan: tax little guys to subsidize big guys.

Hand cash from wage earners to people already flush enough to buy a car...and even worse, six out of ten of them end up buying a non-US car.

Hand cash from wage earners to the ruling class so they can fly on free vacations and trips home...oops, I mean official business...and never have to enter an airport to understand what effect their effin' "security" laws have had.

[high density]

14. Well somebody has to employ workers to build jets

Boeing and Gulfstream jets are assembled in the USA as far as I know. Beats giving people $4500 to buy a car made in South Korea.

[prostomulgus]

15. It was the DOD that requested these jets.

They need to be able to get their generals from point A to point B as quickly as possible. After all, it IS a time of war (thanks to bush and the repukes). The House Dems are simply trying to accommodate the military's needs.

When you think about it, it's really hypocritical of the repukes to cry about this now. They started the wars and now they don't want to give the military what they need!

[chicago legal pro]

20. The DOD did not request the jets

Congress doubled the request on their own.

[GodlyDemocrat]

17. That's 11,000 jobs at $50,000 a year ... Murtha is a disgrace to the Democratic Party

n/t

[high density]

18. Well, Boeing and Gulfstream Aerospace do employ people...

And I think they'll be around for a lot more than a year.

[Psephos]

23. So do Delta and UAL...so let our public "servants" fly commercial and stimulate the airline industry

Btw, Boeing is the single largest military contractor, and Gulfstream feeds lustily at the trough, as well.

[GodlyDemocrat]

30. How much of the $550 million is allocated to capital costs and how much to labor costs?

Methinks most of that money will go to capital costs.

[momrois]

19. Just a little fact check

...

It’s reminiscent of the paper’s weak A1 pieces trying to create a congressional-expenses scandal like one that rocked the UK earlier this year—something I said had “more than a whiff of Rupert on” them.

First of all, the headline splashed across four columns at the top of page one: “Congress Gets an Upgrade: $500 Million Slated for Purchase of Eight More Planes as Lawmakers’ Travel Soars.”

But wait a second. These planes are for an Air Force fleet that’s barely used by Congress—at least compared to the others who also use it. Over the last five years, 86 percent of the use of the private-plane fleet has been by the White House and the military. Just 14.5 percent has been congressional use.

...

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/journal_misleads_congress_jets.php


http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/hype_machine_jets_wsj.php

[mahatmakanejeeves]

21. I hope you mean ...

that the program is being scrapped, and not that the jets are being scrapped.

[proteus_lives]

25. Sounds good to me.

Get them a bodyguard and they can fly coach.

[wordpix]

27. I just read John Adams by McCullough - he barely had enough to get by on

just some land he inherited, and his wife had to work the farm while Adams was away for years and years fighting the British and founding a nation.

There wasn't all this me, me, me, gimme a jet, gimme parking at the airport, gimme health care but we can't afford it for you.

[midnight]

28. While reading this I wondered how much medical treatment those

of us who are underinsured or without could purchase with that money for this coming year?

[Vidar]

29. I hope so.

[tomhayes]

31. Give them the jets

What's with all the Pay congress nothing / and make them rent a commercial mule to get around crap around here??

Why not make congress work for free - or better yet - pay money to hold the job??

Make them fly coach, on standby, and then sit them next to a fat guy who has gas and make them wait on the tarmac for 40 hours!!!

Or we could pay for transportation of our congress members. Why is that bad again??

[Zavulon]

32. When all of them start looking out for their constituents instead of their careers, then maybe.

Until then, screw them. Their pay should be limited to the average salary in the districts they represent, and they should get no health care benefits until all of their constituents have it. New private jets? Not now.

[Igel]

34. They can have their jets.

When there's a profit--taken here to mean "budget surplus"--to purchase them from.

Same for staff Congressional staff bonuses.