THIS IS AN OPEN LETTER TO CURRENT AND FUTURE U.S. PRESIDENTS:
It’s OK to campaign for yourself and your party’s candidates, BUT NOT ON MY DIME.
As Mr. Nixon would say, “Let Me be perfectly clear,” this is not directed solely at the incumbent.
I don’t care WHO is president – well, I do care, but this rant is non-political – and I understand you want to “pack the house” with people who believe as you believe – whatever that might be – BUT DON’T DO IT AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.
Leave the jumbo jet on the ground.
While I think you OUGHT to fly commercial to see how “the other half” lives, if you must fly in a private aircraft, either
- a. Get one of your wealthy supporters to foot the bill and use their corporate wings or
b. Use one of the government’s already owned C-37A (Gulfsteam G550) small (15-passenger) jets.
If you use a government jet of any size, pay for it out of your party’s budget, don’t expect me to foot the bill even if I support you and the party.
I know it has been Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the president to spend the taxpayers’ dollars for non-governmental purposes, and yes, I know about “RHIP” (rank has its privileges), but you and those who went before have burdened the taxpayer with debt so monstrous that even our great grandchildren won’t be able to pay it off.
I know that parking a jumbo jet on some foreign country’s landing patch might impress some folks, but as far as this taxpayer can see, it only shows financial stupidity on your part. (Excuse me, it’s the taxpayers’ stupidity for allowing this largesse.)
That applies to anyone who travels in a jumbo for “prestige.” Spare me, spare my wallet.
Don’t tell us you need the space to kick back and either do a little work or, more likely, nap. The already owned G550/C-34A can be configured to accommodate the most self-important executive.
There is sufficient room on the already owned aircraft for a small security detail as well as comfort staff (a/k/a “flight attendants”). The security detail can be supplemented at the destination. (A sad state of affairs when a president’s life is at risk from crazies from the other party.)
The already owned aircraft are so dependable they are used not only by the U.S. government, but as regional jets for commercial airlines, both U.S. (e.g., Delta) and foreign.
While no one railed about previous presidents’ misuse – at least in my opinion – of government jumbo jets (I won’t mention flying a spouse to China allegedly for government work for which she had no credentials, or family vacations to Hawaii), the issue has now risen to become a political issue.
- In Florida, a Democrat seeking the governorship is campaigning on keeping the incumbent from visiting his Florida home since his presence interrupts traffic flow and burdens police resources. Nothing ever was said when DC Democrats caused the same problems. What’s good for the goose, etc. apparently is not good when the traveler is of the opposing party. The gubernatorial candidate makes a lot of noise on a lot of issues over which a governor has zero control.
The bottom line: Given the state of the art of “small” corporate aircraft and the cost of maintaining and operating jumbo jets, no matter how “efficient” the aircraft may be, elected officials need to downsize their egos and, when hitting the campaign trail, for themselves or for other candidates, they should pay their own way.
If their party or their party’s Big Givers are willing to pay for a 7*7 jumbo with crew and all associated costs, well and good; THEN the politicians can fly around in a 7*7 (or equivalent European-made jumbo) to their hearts – and their budgets – content.
Just don’t burden me and my fellow taxpayers with the bill for private excursions.
Even on government business, opt for a more economical aircraft. It won’t damage America’s already tarnished image, indeed, it may enhance the image as people realize the U.S. government is thinking about the people who fund it.
Ecologists also will love the smaller, less harmful to the environment, planes.
PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.
Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.
BCPLANNER: Comments on Small jet
No comments:
Post a Comment