And in other news that's not health care related ...
The Wall Street Journal is running a little series about Congress ordering a bunch of executive jets for the Air Force - to travel around in themselves of course.
Congress gets an upgrade, Aug. 7. This first article had very interesting tidbits of information like, House members (not including the Senate) spent 3000 days overseas last year alone for a tab of $13 million. Travel is covered by an unlimited fund. Members of the military carry their luggage and bring them drinks. (Somehow I don't think people enlisted in the military to be a skycap.) One of the types of planes seats only 12 passengers and costs $3000 an hour to operate. Hmm ... I think you're going on a few too many overseas trips, House members!
Pentagon takes aim at jets for Congress, Aug. 8. The Pentagon is saying straight out that when money and attention are diverted for planes for Congress, it takes away from the soldiers on the ground. Nothing gets my nerve up faster than that. And here's a fun quote for you:
"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."
But I'll bet you that the Pentagon sure as heck does know that planes for Congress isn't their budget priority, when we've got military action getting worse in Afghanistan! Ahem ... Florida readers - get on that one, will ya? Tell Mr. Young what he can and CAN'T do with your money!
Opposition emerges to House's jet spree, Aug. 10. The House Appropriations is the committee that approved the money for the jets, but a number of Senators are starting to push back stating that this is one of the things that tends to demonstrate the typical accusation of members of Congress being "out of touch" with regular people. I'll second that.
The House committee spokesman said that it's not whether the planes will be bought, but when they will be bought because they're supposed to replace grounded planes and be more efficient to operate. That's fine. But the when should be NOT NOW. Not with people still losing jobs right and left ... overseas travel for Congress should have been canceled outright. Regardless of that, the budget request from the Administration was for 4 planes, not 8.
I need to check about the Mississippi delegation on this one, because I think both Senators are involved in military appropriations somehow. They will be hearing from me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 opinions:
Actually, our servicemen and women do sign up to be flight attendants, as the WSJ detailed a year and a half ago. And they bake homemade cookies as well in addition to taking drink orders.
3,000 days is certainly an increase from previous years, but break that out between 435 members and you're looking at just under seven days per person. One week.
Travel spiked after 2001, lending some credence to the claim that they're mostly visiting troops overseas. Certainly that doesn't explain it all, but if we didn't have soldiers fighting overseas, they wouldn't have that explanation. So lets forget about "Congress" in the aggregate because it has no constituency. If voters feel their local Representative is wasting too much time on frivolous trips overseas instead of representing the district, let them vote him/her out.
Post a Comment