Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Defund Air Force One
Ever since I was a child, I have wondered why the President of the United States gets to fly around on a modified 747 at everyone else’s expense. Now — thanks to the power of social media and, well, Ricochet — I get to try and do something about it. Below is my Change.org petition to be sent to Hal Rogers and Speaker Ryan. Let’s get some signatures.
The Congress of the United States should immediately cut funding to the Executive Branch for the purpose of operating Air Force One. The nation’s chief executive already occupies a home owned and paid for by the Nation’s taxpayers and has numerous perks that come as part and parcel of that position. Presidents also have access to various facilities not open to the public such as Camp David that are set aside for their recreational use. What presidents do not require is the world’s largest private jet, to be flown around the country on vacations or campaign and fundraising junkets at the cost of nearly a quarter million dollars per hour. The federal government would consider the use of such a convenience to be an in-kind contribution to a campaign if it were offered to a candidate from an outside source.
The total expenditure at taxpayer expense over the course of these jets’ existence is obscene, and an insult to the people who work and pay taxes.
If the president needs to travel the country, let him take AMTRAK or charter a plane with his own or his campaign’s funds – but not the taxpayers’. With a nation that is approaching $20 trillion in debt, Congress should make this change to let taxpayers know that they and other government officials are not above the law and understand the dire necessity of beginning to put the nation’s fiscal house in order.
Travel for the purpose of statecraft could similarly be accomplished more cheaply through military or domestic charter and should require that Congress pass legislation to authorize that expenditure upon request from the executive branch.
Published in General
You are completely correct. The current occupant’s excesses aside, the First Lady and the President’s family are guests in the peoples’ house and need to remember that fact.
Clearly this petition is racist.
You lost me when you suggested the President take Amtrak. Improve accountability, stricter terms of use, yes, do all that stuff. But as soon as you think the President should wait on a platform at Union Station to go up to New York to address the UN, well, that’s just not going to happen.
Is it necessary for such capacities to be built into the aircraft? I would imagine that some kind of portable server with satellite uplink would accomplish the same.
Happy to be corrected.
The President is, after all, just a citizen of this country. Why is it an unrealistic demand to expect that they might have to interact with the country’s citizens and use similar infrastructure?
EDIT: If you think I’m being tough on AF1, you have no idea what I want to do to the UN.
Tom, I think you’re right on this. All of that capability was built into the plane in an era where that was the only way to provide that kind of functionality. Now, any smart phone can do the kinds of things that used to require such extraordinary means. There are certainly ways to do it without an entire planeload of gear.
Anything short of barring the doors mid-session and burning the building to the ground will probably find broad approval.
Being a well known moderate on Ricochet I’d like to announce I’m willing to compromise with people who like the UN: I’d evacuate the building, expel all the bureaucrats and “UN diplomats” from the country and then burn the building to the ground.
And people wonder why we’re $20 trillion in the hole.
Let’s not ignore my “Presidential Limo in the back of a C-130” idea.
What do you mean “short of”?
On 9-11 This was a huge issue. they upgraded AF1 accordingly. I do not think this is an easy fix.
The President is Head of State. He is not, after all, just a citizen on this country.
I’m going to side with Maj on this one: he is, in fact, just a citizen of this country hired as a temp to keep a lid on the mess of government while the rest of us get on with the real business of the country.
We’ve certainly feted Presidents more than we should have and there’s something to be said of stripping them of the trappings of power to remind them that they work for us.
The President of the United States should not travel that way. That looks bad.
The regulatory state is out of control, but we are going to argue for this? Total waste of time and energy.
And he is the Head of State. Period. That is a fact, and just because you don’t like it, it is nontheless true.
Change.org petitions don’t actually change anything, everyone knows this. And I’m not arguing that he’s not Head of State®™©!!!!!1111!Eleventy! so cool your jets.
The fact that the president is the head of government and the chief public representative of the United States doesn’t mean we should act like they’re the Queen of England and entitled to a palace, limo and swanky private jet by birthright.
The president is a common citizen who is elected to temporarily work for the people of the United States; frankly I don’t think it’s outlandish for us to question the necessity of the private jet since it’s our money funding the thing.
I don’t dispute that.
Why, exactly, should we give the President a practically infinite expense budget though? So that we can look good?
In the condition we’re in, that’s the equivalent of a guy who’s mortgaged to the hilt driving around in a Mercedes S-Class. Sure, you look nice, but the bank owns you.
Believe me: cutting the funding for some of the President’s stuff would send the exact right message. Also, the President is essentially a constituency of one. How would it look politically if Congress sent a spending bill up to the President to fund the government which didn’t have funding for his plane and he vetoed it for that reason?
So what? It looks worse when broke people ostentatiously spend money they don’t have.
So you’re saying I don’t actually need this chinchilla coat? Can I keep the diamond pinky ring?
Did you at least eat the chinchillas?
How much meat is on a chinchilla?
You greatly misunderstand the symbolism of the projection of power around the world. Regular people around the world don’t look at the US and think “Gosh they are broke”.
I place far more value on the symbolism of things than you do. I think I am more aware of, and focused on symbolism than many on Ricochet. Comes with my training. I believe that symbolism is more powerful than any facts.
The irony is, that you are pursing a totally symbolic gesture, and arguing economic facts to back it up.
Stick with this: You want to hurt the President (no matter whom) and take him or her down a notch.
Some here say this is small ball and not worth the time and effort. (as if the time to sign your name was burdensom) Profligate spending, living like the Sun King actually matters a great deal, it sets the tone for the whole government. Standing in line to be part of the Presidents press corps or staff that gets to go with him is a prize that corrupts. Frivolous travel can damage diplomacy, the President’s image and seldom is necessary or helpful. Guiliani started with the small stuff. If we’re afraid or don’t understand the big stuff, start where it’s easy. What is so hard about that? People can understand 100 million dollar junkets.
Not half bad in a white truffle cream sauce. I’m saving my Chateau Petrus ’45 for a special occasion so I had to settle for a bottle of Romanee-Conti Grand Cru.
Congress would look petty and they would lose. Congress always loses on those fights. Haven’t you been paying attention?
To the extent that this is a serous proposal, it needs to be done when it’s “our guy” in the White House, so it doesn’t look punitive.
It is precisely that symbolism which I think needs to be punctured.
I don’t think that tens or hundreds of millions of dollars is “symbolic.” I think it’s real. I think about the tax bill that I paid this year and I think about the number of people just like me that were required to pay for this. It is a visible sign of the spendthrift nature of the Federal Government and it needs to go.
I don’t want to hurt the President. I want the President to live within the nation’s means and that means that they ought to lead a life which is at least slightly bounded by the reality in which the rest of this nation’s citizens exist.
I agree with this – but on the other hand, there’s no time like the present.
Considering the chances of one of “our guys” getting elected anytime soon I think it’s fine to do it now.
I have. They haven’t tried this. If not here Bryan, then where should we cut? Anywhere? Don’t want to look petty after all.
The idea is this: the people who work in the Government are going to need to take a haircut just as much as the people who benefit from it.