Congress Increases Funding for Unprofitable Airline Routes

Congress can't even make obvious spending cuts:

A much-criticized subsidy for rural air travel would get a budget increase of more than 40 percent under a spending bill unveiled in the House on Monday.

The legislation approved by a House Appropriations subcommittee would give $173 million in the upcoming budget year to the Essential Air Service, which provides subsidies to small airlines to fly unprofitable routes. That’s a $53 million increase.

In many cases the flights are nearly empty. In other instances, such as flights between Buffalo Niagara International Airport and Jamestown, N.Y., just 76 miles away, it’s quicker to drive than fly.

The Bush administration sought unsuccessfully to cut the subsidies, which keeps flights going to 107 communities spread across 31 states in the continental U.S. and 45 tiny towns in Alaska. But the Essential Air Services program enjoys strong support among lawmakers; in April, 22 senators wrote White House budget director Peter Orszag to demand more money for it.

“Simply put, the Essential Air Service program was a promise made to rural America, and a promise that must be kept,” the senators wrote.

What about the promise Congress made to America that it would manage the country's economy in a responsible manner? How come that promise doesn't have to be kept?

And let's not forget John Murtha's Airport to Nowhere in Pennsylvania. Millions of dollars for empty terminals and a couple of flights a day to Washington.