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
AF1 is not what is running out of money. Transfers of money are.
I like the symbolism of it. I don’t want it changed, and I would actively fight this if my Senator or Congressman was contemplating this.
The United States of America is the most powerful nation in the history of Mankind. Our Head of State should travel in a style to reflect this.
Good move. If you cancel the perks, Hillary Clinton will drop out of the race.
It won’t help. The only thing that will help is cutting entitlements. That is it. No other cuts will get the budget under control.
I thought the point of Air Force One was that the Presidency is a 24/7/365 job, that the Prez needs to have access to the full apparatus of the Federal government at all times in case of emergency, and so he takes the “flying White House” with him wherever he goes.
So, you’re saying that the prez should fly on military/commercial boneshakers, and in the event of an emergency the plane should land so he can transfer to the flying White House, which would presumably have to be scrambled to his location?
Is that practical?
If you want more accountability for the use of Air Force One, you could do what we do in the Great White North and force the president to pay commercial rates whenever he takes the plane for personal use.
We don’t let our Prime Minister fly commercial, for security reasons, but if he takes the government plane for non-government reasons he’s gotta reimburse the taxpayers for the equivalent of what First Class tickets would have cost.
Obviously, it’s a fig leaf of accountability. The amount he has to repay doesn’t come close to covering the actual cost of the flight, but it’s the principle of the thing, and IMHO a decent compromise.
We do this for the press and some hangers on and the President and First lady do it for personal travel. But this doesn’t touch the cost of the practice. Some here have said we just cut his travel budget a bunch so they have to set priorities. That can work and is appropriate.
This is the camel’s nose under the tent, Bryan. Once people see that nobody is immune from these cuts, the whole concept of reforming entitlements is going to become much more palatable.
Think about it this way: Based upon the tax bill my wife and I paid last year (just Federal Income Tax) AF1 was able to operate for 5 minutes.
Five. Damn. Minutes.
When you think about it like that and contemplate, say, President Obama’s Hawaiian vacation, where both AF1 planes flew from Washington, (12 hours flight time) that means you need an additional 143 couples just like my wife and I to pay for his plane ride… so he can go on vacation.
So, with a second plane, double that. Now it’s 288 couples just like us. An entire year’s worth of my tax dollars. Money that we worked for over an entire year that he spews out of a jet engine in 300 seconds.
And that’s just one trip. Well, I for one don’t think that an elected official should have the personal authority to spend that kind of money without check. I find it to be disgusting.
I hope it’s worth it for the sake of appearances.
Which fight was did they lose. I’ve seen premptive capitulation but no fights. They wont do it because they value their lucrative junkets and would have to cut their own travel budgets. It’s all part of the same rot. You fight rot and cut it where you can. If you won’t fight the little stuff you certainly wont fight the big stuff. This isn’t as little as some imply.
This doesn’t even qualify as a fig leaf, particularly when they fly separately because he can’t leave until 5 hours after Michelle and the kids are ready to leave. Not only a private jet (747!) from DC to Hawaii, but two of them.
Yeah, first class airfare should just about cover that.
Let’s be fair: it’s hard to fault the man for thinking any amount of money is reasonable to escape a 12 hour flight with Michelle.
Strong reasoning. But there is still a point here. Right now, they could also give the girls their own planes, and all four of them could take off one after the other, and it’s still just four first class seats.
I won’t sign any petitions. I don’t need to be audited/targeted as a right-wing nut job – I have to prioritize my risk-taking.
What makes you think you aren’t already?
I know W was on Air Force One at the time, but I’m still not sure why having secure communications would require a whole plane.
Before we decide to defund Air Force One, wouldn’t it be a good idea to talk about the needs of the President when traveling and whether or not other modes of transportation would work as well?
The President doesn’t just travel by himself. Air Force One typically carries about 80-100 people on every flight. For example, there is the White House press pool, the official photographer, presidential advisors, security staff, technical staff, flight attendants, military people, secondary aircrew (AF1 can stay in the air for a very long time), etc.
If the President was required to fly commercial, every trip he took would be a logistical nightmare. Ultimately what would likely happen is that paying passengers would get bumped from their flights every time the President needed to go somewhere.
Then there’s the capability that AF1 has. It can act as a mobile command center in times of crisis. It has 85 phones and multiple redundant digital data communications links. Its electronics are hardened against EMP and it has countermeasures against missiles.
In terms of security and defense, it’s critically important that every trip by the President not turn into a tactical advantage for an adversary. Do you really want a nuclear attack to happen while the President is stacked over Chicago in a commercial jet that now has dead electronics because of an EMP attack? Do you want the Presidential entourage spread out over multiple commercial flights, and the subsequent inefficiency and delay while they regroup at every destination? Do you want the President traveling without any press coverage?
There should be a crack down on AF1 usage, but it should be focused on trivial uses for it. For example, in 2012 Obama used AF1 to fly himself and David Cameron to a baseball game in Iowa. That’s ridiculous. So let’s cut back on that kind of stuff.
But the fact is that the President is always on duty, and his duties require a large staff to be around him at all times. There’s no easier way to do that than to pile them all into the same airplane. You might be able to make the case that it’s too opulent and instead of a 747 AF1 could be downsized to a 767 or something similar. But having the President fly commercial is a complete non-starter. For many good reasons.
This Beast will work adequately.
Buy them a jar of peanut butter and a tin of sardines.
Why, exactly, is the President going around that much? His job is in Washington, DC. Stay there and do it.
Which are capabilities I am certain most large military aircraft share.
If the nation were under large scale nuclear attack, my concern is not necessarily for the President, to be honest. As if that one person is completely indispensable. That’s a lie that needs to be done away with.
Perhaps the President should only ever fly in and out of military bases in order to not inconvenience local air traffic patterns.
That sounds like a good start.
I don’t do the things that raise one’s profile. I keep my head down. If you google me, I look like a normal Blue City white Democrat.
Good luck supporting that assertion with the latest occupant of the White House. With his guy, I’m not even sure its a 40/hr per week job.
Yabbut, is it right to punish the office for the offenses of the man?
I think the idea that the President of the USA needs a sufficient “flying White House” is pretty sound.
Of course, that doesn’t mean one cannot argue whether the actual Air Force One is extravagant rather than merely sufficient.
Our government officials are living a little too much like royalty these days – Which is unseemly in a Republic that is almost $20 trillion in debt, and has make expansive promises to the people that will be unable to keep.
It is more than communications, as is show above.
I said something similar when I signed the petition. Either everyone goes together, or they stay home together.
Why are we flying around the press corps, an official photographer, etc.?
Why do advisors need to fly with the President?
Maj, this is a worthy effort. We need to restore some republican spirit to our government and people. Kevin Williamson wrote about this in the context of the SOTU.
Signed!
Here’s the problem with that argument: The President of the USA cannot fly commercial, for eminently practical reasons.
Therefore, if you’re saying the President cannot use AF1 for non-government business you are in effect saying that the President cannot travel for non-government business at all.
I’m not sure I’d agree with the position that the President should be prohibited from any personal travel while in office, cuz that would make him a virtual prisoner of the White House.
If the President can’t take AF1 to a ball game in Iowa it therefore means that the President can’t go to a ball game in Iowa at all. There really is no practical third alternative.
Here’s a compromise: Pass a law that says the Prez gets one round-trip on AF1 at First Class rates per year (for his regularly-scheduled vacation). Then, for any additional trips per year, charge the prez reimbursement fees equivalent to the chartering of a private jet.
That still wouldn’t cover the full cost of the plane, but it would be better than charging only the equivalent of First Class plane tickets.
Just signed #18. You’re doing the Lords work Maj.
Seems to be the manner in which Grand Poobahs are measured, No ?
Maybe there is an opening for one to apply toenail polish on the elephant prior to the parade. Just a thought.
Have you ever actually seen AF1? Takeoff? Might be helpful.
As is often (always) the case, someone said what I wanted to before I got to it. Dan Hanson, in my opinion, has it completely right.
A lot needs to be done to reduce our bloated government but I don’t think downsizing AF1 is the right place to start.
You bet. If it were just this, I would be willing to let it slide – but, for instance, when Pres. Obama came to Baton Rouge, Ryan Field cannot accommodate a 747 taking off or landing, so the President flew in on a Boeing 757. Two of them. I saw them on the tarmac when I was returning from some business travel.
The President has a fleet of planes. It’s unseemly.
There is the issue. The President has access to a fleet of planes and this current occupant’s time to play with them is soon to be up.
I’m assuming you know there are actually two identical 747’s that serve as AF1. But did you know that on many occasions they fly the second one as a “spare” to a nearby airfield, just in case?
Case in point, election 2012, Obama went to Chicago for the election night party. But parked at Mitchell field in Milwaukee was the alternate “Air Force One”. (I looked it up because I couldn’t figure out why the plane was in Milwaukee.)
It is a beautiful plane, though. I live about 3 miles from the airport in Milwaukee, more or less right off the approach line to the North/South runway. Back in summer of ’09 I was outside mowing lawn one day when I heard a plane coming from an unusual direction. Looked up, and only a couple hundred feet in the air and maybe 200 yards away from my lot, there was AF1 making a turn from the East to line up on the runway.
I flipped him off with both hands.