While we are on the subject,

Shall we discuss Air Force One also?

Comments

[Joe Mama]

Why?

[dcl]

Any issues that would be present in your annoyance with congress having a jet or jets should also be present win discussing the existence of Air Force One. personally, I think the president should have to fly coach, but that's just me. And he should have to take the middle seat in between the two biggest secret service agents on the force.

[dcl]

when not win, obviously, that's what I get for trying to do six things at the same time.

[Josh]

Wait. What??

[Joe Mama]

Any issues that would be present in your annoyance with congress having a jet or jets should also be present w[he]n discussing the existence of Air Force One.

If the needs and responsibilities of members of Congress were the same as those of the president, then you might have a point.

[dcl]

Please read the constitution again Joe. And explain to me how one tenth of what the President uses Air Force One for is necessary vis-a-vi his job description? Given that Congress, en bloc, is given quite a bit more responsibly for the operation of the government I would say their real need for travel is MORE than that of the President. Also consider that, if I recall correctly, the first president EVER to leave the United States while serving as president was FDR... I fail to see how Air Force One is actually needed.

[Andrew]

Full disclosure: I am a Boeing IDS employee. But this complaint is lame. Are the critics here seriously suggesting that Members of Congress have no business going on official trips around the world, whether visiting Iraq and Afghanistan or meeting representatives of other nation-states? Do the critics honestly expect Congress to charter commercial flights to military air fields? These kinds of criticisms are just silly. These C-40s are equipped with key defensive technologies and don't cost much more than the list price of a 737, the cattle-call jet we're all used to flying on Southwest. As far as Air Force One goes, those 747s are almost two decades old, and if being the second-most powerful man in the universe (after Ben Bernanke) doesn't qualify you to fly a private jet, what does?

I should also point out that Boeing Business Jets is doing so well that it is currently turning down customers who want private, customized 787s and 747s, so the market for customized transport fleets is hardly lethargic or inconspicuous by any means.

[dcl]

I actually agree with Andrew. My point was more in terms of if you going to be a prat and pick on congress you best pick on the president for the same behavior. Otherwise you are just being foolish. My effort to take an ironical swipe at Brendan's friend Glen has failed. But I do find Glen's response to this, well, dumb.

[Joe Mama]

Please read the constitution again Joe. And explain to me how one tenth of what the President uses Air Force One for is necessary vis-a-vi his job description?

Um, yeah, just flipped through it . . . doesn't say boo about POTUS needing an airplane, so you must be right. Besides, why would the Commander in Chief need a big, fancy communications platform nowadays anyway?

[dcl]

Big fancy Jets are not generally required by Generals.

[Joe Mama]

Actually, the Constitution doesn't say anything about POTUS needing to live in the White House (or any house, for that matter), needing a press secretary, or any number of other things that now come with the office. POTUS doesn't really need a place to have state dinners - (s)he could just take visiting dignitaries to McDonalds.

[Joe Mama]

Also consider that, if I recall correctly, the first president EVER to leave the United States while serving as president was FDR... I fail to see how Air Force One is actually needed.

Figures. The first president EVER to have a press secretary was Herbert Hoover, so I'm sure you likewise fail to see how a press secretary is actually needed.

[Derek]

I think AF1 makes sense, given the various tasks the President must perform, how the plane can be equipped for his office-related use in his 16-hour days, how security features exist, etc. And I think AF2 makes sense, and I think a private jet for the Speaker of the House makes sense. Beyond that, it's really difficult to justify private jets for the average Joe in Congress.

[Joe Mama]

Derek, you make far too much sense.

I think the only way to make sense of what dcl is saying is to assume he meant that this president should have to fly coach and take the middle seat in between the two biggest secret service agents on the force.

[David K.]

I think this is one of the first times I agree 100% with Joe Mama. The need of the President (a single point of failure with some backups) to have a secure, private jet, as opposed to any of the hundreds of members of congress, who can in fact function quite well without an individual member being present, alone is worth the justification of the expense for the Presidents (and VP's) air travel needs. I'd rather have the Pres be able to fly whenever and wherever he needs unhindered than to have to fly through normal means because when he flys through normal means he can't do his job, which is much more day to day hands on than congresses.

To equate the needs of the President and Congress with a wave of the hand, ignoring the immense difference in their makeup and responsibilities is simple folly.

[Derek]

Pop quiz: how many members of Congress have died this year?

As far as I know, Juanita Millender-McDonald (CA-37), Charlie Norwood (GA-10), Paul Gillmor (OH-5), and Craig Thomas (WY-SEN). Not only did Congress not miss a step, I doubt anyone really knew about any of them, except Thomas as a Senator in a closely-divided chamber.

[Alasdair]

Hey - the D-List BDS folk need to complain about *something*, to take the people's mind off the fact that, by current polling, our current President's positive approval rating is 50% or so higher than that of our current Democratic Party controlled Congress ... (grin) ...

[David K.]

Thanks Alasdair for proving yet again how pointless you are. First, if you'll notice I DISAGREED with Dane and agreed with Joe Mama, this despite your constantly parading me as the "BDS" poster child. As if that weren't enough to discredit you, Congresses approval rating was just as low (if not lower) when it was GOP controlled up until the recent elections, so its hardly a partisan problem in that area. But nice try trying to deflect from Bush's lower than any other President approval rating.

[Alasdair]

David K - you get full credit for being on the correct side, for once ... (grin) ... at least, until "As if that weren't enough to discredit you, Congresses approval rating was just as low (if not lower) when it was GOP controlled up until the recent elections, ", that is ...

We must give the Reid/Pelosi Congress their full credit for taking Congressional Approval ratings to all-time-ever lows ...

Back to 1993, here ... and, for the all-time-low, here ...

Still, we should publicly give you credit for trying to NOT be the D-List poster chilD ...

(encouraging grin)

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Speaking of Bush Derangement Syndrome, look who has it now...

WASHINGTON — Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan is lashing out at the Bush administration, claiming in his new book that the White House intentionally misled him concerning the CIA leak case and that President Bush was involved in his passing along "false information" to the press.

...Seems to me the only people suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome are those deranged individuals who keep defending him.

[Andrew]

Scott McClellan was such a tool, I can't figure out how that stammering fool ever got that position. Snow and Fleischer knew how to be a press secretary. I'm not surprised if the Bush administration didn't trust McClellan with inside details, he couldn't explain himself out of a paper bag.

[Andrew]

David, so you don't think these 737s make sense? First consider that these smaller jets cost $70M a piece; Air Force One cost $325M a piece (in 1990 dollars). 737s are fairly cheap to operate; 747s, not so much. Now, a group of congressman and staff need to be flown to Seoul or Jakarta for a codel (congressional delegation); how should we as a country get them there? Buying a small handful of these jets makes eminent sense to me.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

McClellan may be a tool, but his family has close ties with the Bushies. His brother is/was a Bush appointee at the FDA and CMS.

[Brendan]

You mean Bush sometimes appoints people who aren't qualified for their jobs because of family ties and personal loyalty?

I am SHOCKED.

[Andrew]

Yeah, because prior to Dubya, no president had ever used his position as a license to grant spoils or grant favors to friends

[Brendan]

Ah yes, the old "Clinton did it too" defense.

I wonder if Bill ever told Monica she was going a heckuva job?

[David K.]

To be honest Andrew I was only responding to what i thought was Dane's ridiculous assertions about Air Force one, i didn't get a chance to read the link about the jets yet so I don't really have an opinion on it.

[Andrew]

It ain't a "Clinton did it too" defense. I only went back to Clinton because that was an easy research job. I am damn sure H.W., Reagan, and right on back to GW did the same thing. Patronage is part of politics. Deal.

[David K.]

Ah, even better! The "its done that way now so its stupid to think its wrong or try to change it" argument.

[Brian Foster]

No, David, it's the "It's always been done this way going back for generations, so even if you think it's a bad system, it's intellectually bankrupt to act like the current perpetrator is unique" argument.

That said, I agree with you and Joe and Derek on the original topic -- the President, as the unitary embodiment of an entire branch of government, specifically the one that is both our executive and ceremonial executive head of state, charged formally with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed and informally with "representing the country," is in much greater need of private on-call air transportation than any Member of Congress (including the Speaker of the House, so I would disagree with Derek on that detail), each of whom's (is that a word?) duty pretty much begins and ends with sitting in a chair in Washington DC and casting votes.

Sure, Congresspeople like to have a lot of face time in their districts, but that's purely for purposes of securing re-election. It's not part of their official duties, no matter how much they like to pretend otherwise. Their official duties are to *represent* their states/districts in a *congress* assembled in Washington, not to cut ribbons at local construction projects and hold "coffee hours" at diners to meet "average Americans."

As for the factfinding junkets, those are most properly classified as the wasteful government spending Joe rightly criticizes in the earlier post. There is no fact so "lost" that it requires a delegation of Congresspeople to "find" it. Even if there were such difficult-to-find facts, there are plenty of professionals far more capable of finding them than our elected representatives in Congress. Congresspeople in general have no purpose to serve in Seoul or Jakarta or Iraq or anywhere else. If they want to go, fine; but it has nothing to do with their official job duties, and consequently they have no need of a private taxpayer-purchased jet for the purpose.

[Joe Mama]

Ah yes, the old "Clinton did it too" defense. I wonder if Bill ever told Monica she was [d]oing a heckuva job?

I don't know, but Bill himself sure wasn't shy about trotting out the "everyone else did it" defense when Monica's "job" became public. The Clintonistas went back all the way to Thomas Jefferson's indiscretions to justify Clinton's pecadillos.

[Derek]

For the record, I just think, pragmatically in a post-9/11 world, extending a private jet to the third in line for the White House (the Speaker of the House) makes sense. I don't think we need to extend it much beyond that for pragmatic reasons.

[Brian Foster]

And I'd just note for the record that a) the dual safeguards for Pres and VP virtually assure that even if the Speaker's commercial flight is taken out, one or the other of the Article II officials will survive, and b) even if all three of them *are* taken out, the Line of Succession Act has a total of sixteen contingency steps for a reason. If we're not going to give all sixteen (including #18 in line, the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs) their own private jets in addition to #1 (President) and #2 (VP), I don't see why it's "pragmatic" to give #3 (Speaker) a jet, but not #4 (Senate President pro tem) or #5 (Secretary of State) or #6 (Secretary of Treasury). The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I suggest the most pragmatic, not to mention legally defensible, line is the one that separates Article II from Article I.

[Derek]

First, Brian, Article II v. Article I is just as arbitrary a distinction, because the lineage switches back to Article II at #5 anyway.

Second, you seem to agree that the first in line to the presidency (i.e., generally the Vice President) deserves protection. What about, say, when President Bush had his surgery and handed over power to Cheney under Amendment XXV? Pelosi was first-in-line to the Presidency in that scenario. (Indeed, a contingency plan could exist in such situations, but having a regular and easy method of protecting the Speaker can alleviate such concerns.) Should any event occur, it makes sense to have a contingency plan in existence, not require the Speaker to scramble to safety.

[Brian Foster]

Well, yes and no. The specified officers beginning at #5 may be *located* in the executive branch, but they are *not* named Article II officials. The President and VP are mentioned in Article II; the Speaker and president pro tem are mentioned in Article I; and there the specific constitutional references end.

Thus, I suppose we might make a principled distinction between #4 and #5 on the basis of constitutional - non-constitutional, in which case both Speaker Pelosi and President Pro Tem Byrd get private jets. Or we can stick with the status quo, distinguishing between actors named in Article II v. others.

More to the point, though, I see the rationale for AF1 and AF2 as being grounded in *both* security concerns and official job duties. Only the President and VP have legitimate duties that take them all across the country and the globe as a matter of course. Congresspeople in general do not, nor does the Speaker or president pro tem in particular. And the mere fact that many congresspeople commute cross-country does not justify giving them a private jet, so Speaker Pelosi shouldn't be granted any special privileges simply because she's from CA.

I agree that a "contingency plan" is appropriate anytime the line of succession is implicated, such as the surgery scenario you described. I do not, however, think that a dedicated private jet is necessary for any such contingency plan. Should the need arise for someone in the line of succession to assume the office, the appropriate aircraft will be waiting for them. Should the need arise to whisk someone in the line of succession away to safety in an emergency, there are other more cost-efficient ways to do that than by having a private jet on standby 24-7.

In other words, it's not that the President needs a secure airplane, thus we have AF1. It's that the President needs an airplane, and because he's the President, it has to be secure. The Speaker doesn't need an airplane, so we don't ever reach the question of whether her airplane needs to be secure.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

"Patronage is part of politics. Deal."

Didn't Reese Witherspoon say that in Legally Blond II? C'mon Andrew. You can do better than that. Who writes your crappy dialogue for you? (Oh, I guess there is a writers' strike).

[Brendan]

Puh. Like Andrew would respect a picket line. ;)

[Derek]

"there are other more cost-efficient ways to do that than by having a private jet on standby 24-7."

You're proposing precisely that: a private jet sitting in whatever location the Speaker is, which she can't use, but which stands by idly until it's needed. It requires at least two jets, one in DC and one in CA, not to mention jets in locations where she'd otherwise be. And should something happen while she's in the air, heaven help us, your contingency plan fails miserably.

[Brian Foster]

That is emphatically *not* what I am proposing. There are plenty of other aircraft that could be put to perfectly good and valid taxpayer use from day to day that could, on a moment's notice, be diverted for the Speaker's emergency needs. Military craft, other government craft (like the planes used to take the SecState and her entourage to summits, for example), etc.

Moreover, "contingency plan" =/= "airplane." Military / FBI / CIA / National Guard / local police ground transportation and security is readily available as well.

That's why I said "I do not, however, think that a dedicated private jet is necessary for any such contingency plan." Because it's not. The Speaker's safety can be reasonably secured, wherever she may happen to be, without putting her on Air Force Three.

And moreover once again, the concept of a contingency plan came up in the context of routine situations where the President invokes 25A to turn things over to the VP while he goes under the knife. For those brief periods, a jet otherwise in general government use could be dedicated to the Speaker, until such time as the contingency passes and she is no longer (or permanently) #2.

[Andrew]

These new C-40 737s will not or should not be used for members to take trips around the country or to their home districts. Rather, they are primarily used for international travel and congressional delegations. Such trips might seem like junkets and unnecessary perks to some of you, but having worked for a congressman who sat (and still sits) on the House International Relations Committee, these trips make a lot of sense. Congress regularly debates trade policy and votes on appropriations tied to trade, economic development, military assistance, and so on. It's rather ludicrous to constitutionally give Congress power over the budget but then declare the kinds of trips necessary for them to make more informed decisions to be unnecessary perks. And as I tried to point out above, the economics make a lot of sense if you're flying 40 or so congressmen and their staff on a 737 to Seoul vs. arranging a private charter or buying a bunch of first-class tickets and then dealing with the logistical nightmare of making sure they all get to their hotels and events in good order. Again, people criticizing Congress, Boeing, or the Air Force here really are speaking out of a lot of ignorance here and expressing political angst. It kind of reminds me of how people get all riled up about Congress voting themselves a raise, when a senior engineer at Boeing can make as much as a Congressman does. Get a grip, people.

[Brian Foster]

"These new C-40 737s will not or should not be used for members to take trips around the country or to their home districts."

Fair enough, although it's much harder to abuse a government perk that *doesn't* exist than one that does.

"Rather, they are primarily used for international travel and congressional delegations."

Which, as I maintain above, contra you, are unrelated and unnecessary to a congressperson's official duties.

"Such trips might seem like junkets and unnecessary perks to some of you, but having worked for a congressman who sat (and still sits) on the House International Relations Committee, these trips make a lot of sense. "

Because your participle is dangling, I can't be 100% certain of your meaning, but I believe you are trying to invoke your resume as authority for your opinion that "these trips make a lot of sense." Respectfully, I disagree, in both respects. First, the fact that you may have worked for a Congressman who sits on a committee whose members are primary beneficiaries of this wasteful largesse does not in any way make the junkets more sensible or legitimate. Quite the contrary, it suggests quite the opposite: that your views on the subject have been colored by your vicarious benefit (or perhaps not so vicarious, if you actually got to accompany your boss on a trip or two). Moreover, I can play that game too: I've worked in Washington and on the Hill, including close association with a former Chief of Staff to a chair of a committee, and I agree with him that the trips (of which he personally took several) are a total waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

As to the substance of your argument, I find nothing at all "ludicrous" about expecting our Congress to "debate[] trade policy and vote[] on appropriations tied to trade, economic development, military assistance, and so on," while depriving them of "the kinds of trips [allegedly] necessary for them to make more informed decisions," because I categorically disagree with you that such trips are necessary. A Congressperson does not need to see a foreign market in order to determine whether to enter into a trade agreement. Nor does a Congressperson need to witness conditions on the battlefield in order to cast an intelligent vote about military appropriations. To say otherwise would be to say, for example, that a legislator cannot vote on funding for women's health without observing a Pap smear. It's just silly. We've never insisted on personal, first-hand empirical observation of a phenomenon to express an opinion or make a decision related to that phenomenon. Indeed, unless you're suggesting that all 535 members need to be flown to the site of any activity or event potentially to be affected by an upcoming vote in Congress, your position is logically untenable -- because any member who did *not* travel to the site must necessarily rely on the reports of those who did. And if any member can rely on such second-hand reports from (presumably) qualified observers, they *all* can. Thus Congress can sit tight in DC and rely on other federal, state, or local officials to provide accurate descriptions of the phenomena in question, so that Congress may vote accordingly.

"the economics make a lot of sense if you're flying 40 or so congressmen and their staff on a 737 to Seoul vs. arranging a private charter or buying a bunch of first-class tickets and then dealing with the logistical nightmare of making sure they all get to their hotels and events in good order. "

You must be joking. Charter flights exist precisely because it's significantly cheaper to use them than to maintain your own air fleet. And if we went the commerical route, why the hell would we be buying first-class tickets for the entire entourage? I'd argue that not even the members themselves have any claim to first class, but even conceding that, every staffer rides in the back, period. The "logistical nightmare" of getting grown adults to their hotels is a non sequitur -- high school marching bands appearing in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade seem to be handle getting from LaGuardia to Times Square without losing children, so I'm at least marginally confident in the ability of Congress to do the same in Seoul.

Of course, all of this is a gigantic red herring, because no one is challenging the idea that, *if* taxpayer money is going to be wasted on sending Congresspeople and their staffs overseas on junkets, they ought to be able to do so on government-owned planes. The *only* argument I see here is whethere such planes need to be dedicated *exclusively* to the use of Congress (or the Speaker of the House personally). That is nonsense. Even if I concede the necessity or wisdom of such trips, they don't occur so often and frequently and simultaneously that *Congress* needs its own air fleet. The goverment in general certainly requires its own planes, presumably under DOT control, which Congress or any other agency of government may utilize as required for such excursions. Congress simply has no need for its own planes, no matter who you worked for.

"Again, people criticizing Congress, Boeing, or the Air Force here really are speaking out of a lot of ignorance here and expressing political angst. "

Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall anyone criticizing Boeing or the Air Force. Of course Boeing can't be criticized for selling planes to the government -- that's their business, and it's obviously quite lucrative. I'm not even sure how the Air Force is supposed to figure into this. But Congress? Absolutely it's appropriate to direct much-deserved criticism their way, and it is by no means ignorant. An expression of political angst? Maybe, but what's wrong with that? For those who believe, as I do, that Congress almost daily violates the Constitution and has become completely unrepresentative of this country's citizens and unrecognizable as the institution contemplated by the Founders, the idea that Congress needs its own set of airplanes is preposterous and entirely deserving of all the scorn we can heap upon it. For those whose principles may not call for such originalist purity but nevertheless recognize something is awry with the size and expense of our central government, this particular expense and the purposes for which it is to be put is at least deserving of a much harder look and some level of criticism. The fact that you disagree doesn't deprive your opponents of legitimacy.

"It kind of reminds me of how people get all riled up about Congress voting themselves a raise, when a senior engineer at Boeing can make as much as a Congressman does. "

I can't imagine why it would, since the two situations are completely inapposite. One has to do with whether a certain government expense is necessary, wasteful, or somewhere in between; the other has to do with a comparative evaluation of market forces, collective job performance, and individual estimations of merit.

"Get a grip, people."

I might suggest you do the same -- in particular, it would seem you could use a "grip" on the reality that you do not have the market cornered on reason.

[Derek]

Isn't the whole point of the House that it's not supposed to deal with foreign affairs? Isn't that pretty explicitly preferably given to the Senate, vis a vis the power to ratify treaties, etc.? I suppose a "House International Relations Committee," whatever it does, could affect taxation, trade issues, war powers, etc. But I would actually find it less persuasive to use jets for international purposes for House members than for domestic purposes, given the preferred power balance of the two chambers.

[Andrew]

Holy cow, I thought this one was dead and buried. Are you serious, Brian? Yeah I used some poor grammar, but man you've got a poor argument dressed up in prettier grammar.

I'm not sure what committee your COS friend was taking trips to support, so maybe they were perks and unjustified, maybe they were not. I never went on such a trip, I was at the bottom rung of the ladder and in the district office. Still, the member I worked for was the chair of the Africa subcommittee and a ranking member and former chair of the Asia subcommittee. Trips to Africa, India, China, and South Korea made eminent sense, what with North Korea being in the Axis of Evil, India a burgeoning superpower locked into a nuclear showdown with Pakistan, and billions of dollars in aid being proposed for various initiatives in Africa. Given the huge issues and dollars at stake, it's simply ludicrous to get wrapped up around a few hundred thousand of dollars because of a few CODELs. With current circumstances, given the high political stakes in Congress on whether to continue funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, how can you possibly deny the benefits of congressional members seeing the reality on the ground to inform their votes? Not all CODELs are equally justifiable, but some certainly are very justifiable.

As for the economics of the Air Force operating the flights vs. a private service, you're not going to catch me, a libertarian-leaning Republican, arguing against as much privatization as possible. However, private charters are economically cheaper when you're only using them a few times a year, like football teams do. When you're going to be using them almost non-stop, it makes much more sense to own your own capital equipment and depreciate it, and hire your own operations and maintenance personnel. Add on to the fact that you're talking about government officials who are potential targets, and it makes a ton more sense to put the Air Force in charge of that mission rather than trying to schedule private charter after private charter all over the globe. As I said above, it'd be a logistical nightmare and the economics of private charters and first-class flights stop making sense on that scale.

As for the various parties receiving criticism for the C-40s, go back and read the original links. Congress is not the only target, though it may be your only target.

Finally, I repeat that it is ludicrous to be whining about congressional delegations making trips to other countries. It's not in the Constitution? Well gee, I guess the Founders didn't anticipate that travel would become so relatively inexpensive, shame on them. But the Founders did intend Congress to be the watchdog of the Executive, which is why it is appropriate for members travel on occasion to make better decisions. Congress set up the whole committee system in part so that certain members would become more "expert" in certain legislative fields and better inform the votes of the entire House, so it makes sense for members to travel on official business in support of their committee assignments, when potentially appropriate. Beyond that, if you have a problem with the size and unwieldiness of the central government, reducing the power and privilege of the legislative branch -- which is there to act as a check against the Executive -- by discouraging them from official travel and ceding all interaction with foreign governments, dignitaries, and economic interests to the executive branch is hardly a commonsensical approach.

Finally, your judgment of congressional pay and travel perks as being "completely inapposite". Aside from the fact that I used the phrase "kind of reminds me of" (gee, no qualifying, waffly language there!), travel benefits are often inextricably intertwined with merit and compensation, as anyone who works in the private sector for a major firm or company surely knows. The candidate's acceptance of an important position may very well hinge on something like what kind of travel perks he would receive, and market forces have every bit to do with that as with salary or bonuses, so the two are hardly "inapposite".

As it stands, I may not have the market cornered on reason, but it'd help your case quite a bit if you were actually offering the consumers anything more than snake oil and charm. You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.