The Flap Over Private Jets

Bozo | Sep 29, 2017 | 1,375 posts since 2011

Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned, but I think this flap over using private jets is a bit over-blown. The concept of a Secretary of the Treasury (or any other cabinet member) waiting in line, taking off his shoes, then flying "economy", well, it boggles the mind.

The fact that Tom Price flew on a private jet really, truly, doesn't get my juices flowing.

Theoretically, cabinet members are appointed because they have worthy skills. Well, maybe in the Trump era, that's debatable. But, still and all, do we really want them to wait in line, take off their shoes, and fly coach?

Post a comment

me1004 | Sep 29, 2017 | 1,381 posts since 2010

Yes, I want the government officials to wait in line, take off their shoes, have their luggage opened and gone through, and have them exposed to radiation or groped in their private areas -- just like the government imposes on me.

If Price thinks he is too much of a princess to have to be subjected to such irritations and indignities, then I should not be either.

But the point of the news about this isn't the line -- which any frequent flyer can pay fee to avoid -- it is the unconscionably huge cost of flying private as compared to flying mere First Class, not economy. The Trump administration wants to cut back on a lot of expenses aimed for the American public, even pull the rug out from under our health care, but then flagrantly, lavishly and wastefully spends on themselves as if money grows on trees rather than comes from the wallets of the American public. And that spending on private planes by Price in violation of policy about when private planes can be used at public expense -- he thinks the laws, the rules don't apply to him, that's for the little people, kind of like Leona Helmsley said about taxes, he is above them.

If Price thinks he is too good to have to suffer a very high priced First Class seat, then he should have plenty enough of his own money to pay for that private plane -- he sure should not be spending MY money to fly private, and that is what he is doing when he bills it to the taxpayers -- unless you prefer to call it embezzlement, since he was not allowed to do that.

And note, this cost of private planes isn't Price only. Trump flies all over constantly, and not necessarily for needs for the job, and he brings not just Secret Service and a few key people with him, he brings his entire extended family from all over, not just the First Lady, and each of them is flying a private, government jet from a different location than all the others and accompanied by Secret Service protection and various others. Every weekend Trump skips town to go to the Hamptons, I mean Mar a Lago, the transportation alone for all those people is costing taxpayers most of a half million dollars -- and he goes there almost every weekend, and if not there, then he goes somewhere else. He's not one to stick around the office very much, doesn't even go into the Oval Office until about 10:30 a.m. on weekdays only, he's too busy tweeting in the morning to go to work.

me1004 | Sep 29, 2017 | 1,381 posts since 2010

Trump said today he is unhappy about Price taking the private jet. And now Price has just "resigned."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/29/trump-to-decide-friday-night-whether-to-fire-hhs-secretary-price/?utm_term=.406124aa1160

Ginzy | Oct 1, 2017 | 24 posts since 2017

Me1004, while I couldn' t agree more with you regarding your earlier comment on Price and his usage of a private jet, I wonder if your criticism regarding President Trump is justified. Were you as bothered when the Obamas were off jetsetting around the world, I distinctly remember when Michelle would fly herself and her thirty or so best friends around Europe, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. I believe President Obama was also a late arrival to the Oval office and spent many a day on a golf course.

Ally6770 | Oct 1, 2017 | 4,307 posts since 2010

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/michelles-european-vacation/

Ally6770 | Oct 1, 2017 | 4,307 posts since 2010

Although rules required her to reimburse the equivalent of first-class airfare, and her friends flew separately and paid for their own hotel rooms, taxpayers spent $467,585 on costs such as Mrs. Obama's jet, Secret Service protection, and food and lodging for accompanying staff, according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch, a conservative public integrity group.

me1004 | Oct 1, 2017 | 1,381 posts since 2010

Ginzy, Obama was on business trips as president, and he worked at the office on weekends too. Trump takes off every weekend for a getaway, and doesn't even go into the Oval Office until 10:30 the five weekdays, whereas I've never heard of any other president getting there later than 7 a.m. every day and staying late -- it's a huge job if you're actually going to do your job.

As for Michelle taking a vacation trip, I'm not complaining about an annual vacation, I'm talking about every single weekend, and half a day on weekdays. And she didn't take 30 friends, she took the kids and she has no choice but for all the security people to tag along and hound her everywhere she goes, never having any privacy.

But even if the Obamas did the same thing as Trump -- and they did not -- that doesn't justify it.

Bozo | Sep 29, 2017 | 1,375 posts since 2011

Me1004, ouch! Next time, tell us what you really think. Obviously, your reaction was closer to the pulse of America than mine. While hardly a Trump fan, I just thought there might be bigger issues to discuss. You nailed it, I didn't.

me1004 | Sep 30, 2017 | 1,381 posts since 2010

Oh, how convenient a story to run now -- Puerto Rico suffering dearly with little help because Trump was off on another four-day weekend at his golf resort -- did I say anything about him not spending a lot of time working at his job?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lost-weekend-how-trumps-time-at-his-golf-club-hurt-the-response-to-maria/2017/09/29/ce92ed0a-a522-11e7-8c37-e1d99ad6aa22_story.html?utm_term=.f6e11f6b5bec

Ally6770 | Sep 30, 2017 | 4,307 posts since 2010

Now no one can use a private or military yet without going through Kelly.

Bozo | Oct 1, 2017 | 1,375 posts since 2011

Ally6770, despite Me1004's cogent rebuttal, I still have lingering doubts about the cost-efficiency of commercial travel for high-level government officials. Despite Ryan Zinke's rather mangled press conference, it is hard for an Interior Secretary to get to many parts of "the interior". I suspect John Kelly will tighten up the process. And that is good.

me1004 | Oct 1, 2017 | 1,381 posts since 2010

Bozo, the policy is that they CAN take a private jet IF NO COMMERCIAL JET FLIGHT IS AVAILABLE to the location. That is not what Price did, nor what we're talking about. Price simply snubbed an expensive first class seat because he felt it was beneath him.

Kaight | Oct 1, 2017 | 1,192 posts since 2011

I'm not completely panicked yet, though Tom Price was a pivotal guy warts and all. But if Trump and the liberal NY City people unfortunately around him manage to eject Scott Pruitt or AG Sessions, I'll be about ready to throw in the towel.

I also find most concerning the eagerness of Trump to fire Price and, very nearly it appears, a couple of others. Now more than eight months into his first term, Trump continues to operate his administration with fewer than HALF of its pivotal positions manned by his own appointees. This means all those hundreds of spots continue to be occupied by Obama holdovers, with whom Trump appears MUCH too comfortable. Had I wanted a continuation of the Obama presidency I would have voted for Mrs. Clinton. Trump needs to get his act, and his administration, together pronto. And encouraging loss of absolutely KEY players does not contribute to getting that job done.

Bozo | Oct 2, 2017 | 1,375 posts since 2011

Kaight, agree in part, disagree in part. In my humble opinion, Pruitt is a disaster. Sessions as well. That said, I agree totally that the abject failure by the Trump administration to fill higher-, mid- and lower-level appointments is telling. But, then, maybe it's "telling" us something. Who, in their right mind, would want to go to work in a Trump administration? When the litmus test is climate change and evolution denial, you're not going to get any folks with an IQ over 75 to qualify.

Smart folks tend to have other options. The Mnuchins and Cohns of this cabinet have their own agendas.

Bozo | Oct 2, 2017 | 1,375 posts since 2011

As to Pruitt, we here in California see him as but an irrelevance. California has ample safeguards for its clean air and water. But, frankly, do the folks in states like West Virginia realize they voted for a doofus (Trump) who appointed another doofus (Pruitt), who will literally poison their wells, streams, and rivers? As I mentioned to my wife, I don't really give a rodent's butt at this point. They got what they voted for.

Ginzy | Oct 2, 2017 | 24 posts since 2017

What is telling is the obstruction by the Dems for all things Trump including any nominees for cabinet positions. Had Hillary won the election you would not have seen such disruption for her cabinet positions by Republicans. As far as your comment below on climate change, perhaps you should avail yourself of the internet and do some research on the other side, there is plenty there. Think of it as Moot Court where you have to advocate for the deniers. Climate change seems to be more about redistribution of wealth more than anything else.

By the way I have been to West Virginia, those I have met and spoken to seem to be real nice people, I suppose wanting a job and the ability to put food on the table for their families just shouldn't be a real priority for those of you in the elitist class. As intelligent people we have the ability to find ways of providing people with jobs in a clean coal environment and still protect our natural resources, why is everything an either or situation with you liberals. An entire State had their industry pulled out from under them, people were put out of work and left to do what, suck on the Governments entitelments. How easy it is to sit in judgement. I happen to like Pruitt he seems to be fair in his assessment of things, but you know I probably only have an IQ of 74.

me1004 | Oct 2, 2017 | 1,381 posts since 2010

Ginzy, if it were as straight forward as you wrote, I could agree. However, the Clintons are the leaders of the moderate movement that ran out the liberals; the moderates took over the Democratic Party and still control it, they are very happy with the L word being a four-letter word. One of the more hated things about the Clintons is they straddle the fence, no real commitment to much of anything, they go right at least as much as they go left, and in both cases try to water it down. Bill Clinton spent much of his presidency trying to out-Republican the Republicans.

Obama was just another moderate, he was never a liberal, the liberals had been fooled, they realized the truth too late.

The Republicans for the entirety of Obama's time in office filibustered all Obama's moderate choices, even by the end of his first term he still had not been able to get a hearing on several of his high-level appointments; the Democrats now have approved any moderate choice of Trump's, they have targeted only extremists, and even let a number of them through. You are very wrong about what the Republicans would have done in Hillary had been president, they hated her even more than Bill.

As for the coal issue, I'm not sure clean coal is as clean as the name sounds, and its still carbon. But that aside, might another approach be to make a big effort to provide OTHER good jobs in West Virginia -- the jobs don't have to be coal?

I could support the idea of money to help accomplish that whenever new laws decimate an industry in which a locality was dependent. Why even argue about coal when there are other good options? Hey, right now Amazon is looking for some place to put in a new secondary headquarters that they say will bring 50,000 new jobs to the area -- and that they will give financial incentives from the areas a high consideration in making their choice. So, West Virginia gets enough money to be that choice -- and 50,000 jobs right there in one fell swoop (although I presume Amazon is lying about the number of jobs, its just a sales point, a negotiating stance).

Bottom line is that it doesn't have to be coal.

Bozo | Oct 2, 2017 | 1,375 posts since 2011

me1004 (re your post about coal), fracking and natural gas killed coal. Plain and simple. It's all about dollars per BTU. Power plant operators are not going to pay X+Y to generate a BTU when they can pay X. Coal is X+Y; natural gas is X; renewables (wind/solar) might soon be X-Y. Demand by China for coal is tanking (see the pictures of the smog in Beijing?). Granted, certain types of coal are still in demand for coke. That said, the concept of putting on a hard hat with an imaginary shovel (as Trump did in West Virginia) to gin up his base was classic Trump.

A recent article in the New York Times was interesting. In point of fact, the skills of coal miners could easily be put to use developing solar and wind energy, if only the labor could be relocated.

The whole conspiracy theory that "liberals killed coal" is ironic. One wing of the carbon-based (Republican) energy industry (frackers and gas-producers) killed off another, weaker, and less-efficient (Republican) wing of the carbon industry (coal). And it all was done with classic (Republican) capitalism.

As for the folks in coal country, it's time to emulate the Okies. Pull up stakes and follow the jobs. Classic capitalism.

The financial institution, product, and APY (Annual Percentage Yield) data displayed on this website is gathered from various sources and may not reflect all of the offers available in your region. Although we strive to provide the most accurate data possible, we cannot guarantee its accuracy. The content displayed is for general information purposes only; always verify account details and availability with the financial institution before opening an account. Contact [email protected] to report inaccurate info or to request offers be included in this website. We are not affiliated with the financial institutions included in this website.