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 projects our power in a way better than a military plane.
The President is Head of State, but not King. He steps down after 4 or 8 years.
Arguments have bounced back and forth. Mostly they concentrate on the costs, which are nothing compared to the Federal Budget, and on it not being seemly. It is very seemly. It is power. It is not about the man, it is about the office.
Yup.
He shouldn’t wait on a platform. He should do it this way:
I don’t know whether these
twothree railroads got the same level of subsidies that Amtrak gets.Being Commander and Chief of the US Military and is one of the most important functions required by the Constitution. AF1 is more than just an airplane. It is hardened against EMP (in the case of a major EMP event airliners will be lawn darting all over country not just “stacking up over Chicago”). It has ECM and missile defenses. It has all the secure communications needed to communicate with all of the Armed Forces (that can’t be done with your IPhone, by the way). It has the capability to aerially refuel and can stay in the air a LONG time. It has a doctor and small surgical center onboard for medical emergencies in places where the President might be but medical care might not (for geographical or foreign relations reasons). And “yes” the President needs to travel with advisers…unless you would like for him to operate in a vacuum should some unforeseen event occur.
At least on domestic trips they don’t. I’m a frequent guest at the hotel in L.A. used by most presidents visiting L.A., and as best I can tell they take over two floors for only somewhat longer than the duration of the president’s stay. Though the other guests have to pass through a TSA-style checkpoint (but not nearly as invasive as a TSA checkpoint and run by much nicer people) to get to their rooms.
Yeah, and in 1963 Presidents still rode in convertibles.
Any person in any job where there is travel and expense reporting involved will do other “non-business-essential” things on the road, since you are there anyway. It is also axiomatic that you may at times schedule trips to certain places where you can do “legitimate” business, but have other motives for selecting the location. Every trade show, and every conference, is located in some nice place where people might like to visit, as opposed to Fairbanks or Winnipeg. I don’t want some federal bureaucrat examining every trip report to decide in her majesterial judgement whether the trip was or was not “legit”. That mindset is how we got Lois Lerner.
The president of the United States needs to be constantly available via secured communications link and kept safe. You can argue the point whether the security issue- and a lot of other budget matters- applies to an imperious, entitled, and self-serving first lady or mother-in-law. But the answer is not to green-eyeshade the budget, it is to hire better leaders and expose classless conduct to ridicule and shame. Bill, Hillary, and Michelle have behaved like jerks. George and Laura have not.
The CEO of 300 million people should have an Air Force 1. Leave it alone.
And concentrate instead on getting Big Bird off of welfare.
This is a big bird I want off welfare now.
Excellent. Get two big birds off of welfare!
I honestly think this is much to due about nothing. I am pretty sure the cost of the planes when they are not operating is amortized over the hours they actual operate. My question is what is the actually additional cost to operate? I bet almost all the people flying and involved in the operations are already on the governments payroll. Airport fees, maintenance, and jet fuel are the only cost I can think of that actually should be included in operations of flying the jet. All the other cost are just a fixed cost. If someone has mulitple rolls in the government then I could see adding that but it should not be white house staffers you include in the number.
I actually think the cost is maybe an eighth of that. Fuel per hour on a Boeing 747 runs about 13k to 14k and hour right now. The additional parts and labor from the additional flying hours is what most of the cost is. Not sure how much that actually cost.
It is security when the president travels that is what is ridiculous.
Interesting, no one really answered the question. The answer is no. No democratic country has its head of state or chief of state travel the way our president does (in the case of the U.S. the two positions are combined).
The Queen of England doesn’t, or the prime minister. I watched the BBC one time when they were doing live aerial coverage of the British prime minister leaving an event. His entourage consisted of two SUV’s. One for him, with one other following him. There didn’t look to be a motorcade either. The vehicles the PM was traveling in looked to be following the same traffic laws as everyone else.
I’ve read that the Queen travels similarly. It’s similar in other democratic countries.
I’m not worried all that much about the cost of the plane ride either. It’s that the president is treated like royalty. There are other costs, though, that are paid by others. When the president travels to a big city, say Los Angeles, his motorcade disrupts traffic, thousands of people are affected, and that includes businesses making deliveries. Time is money.
When the plane itself, with the president or vice-president on board is flying domestically, there are flight restrictions placed around its flight path that disrupt or cancel civilian flights. Similarly, when the president lands at an airport, again there are restrictions and no-fly zones that cost others money, and but aren’t included in the cost of flying that plane.
I would rather see a federal law that restricts the president’s legal authority to cause these disruptions. I would also like to see cities and states refuse to provide any security to the president that includes disruptions of citizens going about their normal business.
You don’t want your President’s plane to be smaller than Leo DiCaprio’s, do you?
Maybe. Can we resurrect an old F-4 Phantom to ferry the President around? Those smoke trail’s would give ol’ Leo fits.
Leo pays for his own flights.