"Jets for Jerks" May Be Gone But "Perks for Jerks" Continues

The Wall Street Journal has been hot after Congress on the "Jets for Jerks" program to buy fancy new bizjets for members of congress to zip around the world in. Thanks to the public outcry that program may be gone, but as the WSJ reports there is still big money to be made on congressional junkets:

The total cost for congressional overseas travel is never made public because the price tag for State Department advance teams and military planes used by lawmakers are folded into much larger budgets. Members of Congress must only report the total per diem reimbursements they receive in cash for hotels, meals and local transport.

They don’t have to itemize expenses—a convenient arrangement since most costs are covered by the government or local hosts. Some trips subtract some hotel and meal costs from the per diems, others do not. “The policy is completely inconsistent,” one House member told me. Total per diem allowances (per person, including staff) can top $3,000 for a single trip. Unused funds are supposed to be given back to the government, but congressional records show that rarely happens.

It’s all part of the “arrogance of D.C.,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) told me Monday. “These are lucrative payments since many members have zero expenses overseas.” After his last government-sponsored trip to Iraq, Mr. Coburn wrote the U.S. Treasury a check for his unused per diem. Not wanting to be dependent on government handlers, he paid for his own trip to the Middle East a couple of years ago. “I learned a lot more on my own than on the government trips I’ve been on,” he says.

The House’s official handbook requires that lawmakers use regular U.S. airlines “whenever possible, unless such service is not reasonably available.” But congressional records show members routinely take military planes to London, Paris and other well-served locales. Members can fly for free with their spouses on military aircraft.

You’d think House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be wise to the poor symbolism of a jet-setting Congress. But she’s part of the problem. No one objects to her ability to fly on a government jet from time to time. But last March the watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained embarrassing internal Pentagon correspondence: “Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi’s team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?” one such email read. “[T]here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case.’”

Other emails show intermediaries for Mrs. Pelosi frustrated when told transportation demands couldn’t be met. “It is my understanding there are no [Gulfstream] 5’s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable . . . The speaker will want to know where the planes are,” wrote aide Kay King. In a separate email, when told a certain type of aircraft wouldn’t be available, Ms. King wrote, “This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset Speaker.” A Pelosi spokesman said the Judicial Watch report seemed to be based on “a few emails.”

I don't know about you, but I like to have a Gulfstream G5 reserved for me each weekend. And I get very cranky if it's not available. I'm a regular person just like Nancy.

Public Outcry Kills "Jets for Jerks"

Looks like the outcry from the public over the profligate spending on jets the military didn't want or need has had some results:

House Democratic leaders said Monday that they will not force the Pentagon to buy four new passenger jets used to ferry senior government officials.

Democrats have been criticized for adding $330 million to the Air Force's 2010 budget to buy the jets even though the Pentagon didn't request the money.

Two of the planes would be the C-37 -- the military equivalent to the fancy Gulfstream 550 -- and cost taxpayers $130 million at a time when lawmakers have made villains of bailed-out auto executives who rely on corporate jets to travel.

"If the Department of Defense does not want these aircraft, they will be eliminated from the bill," said Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who chairs the panel that approved the additional spending.

A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she supported the decision, which was expected to face resistance in the Senate.

The House was incredibly tone deaf to approve this expenditure in the first place, and it's nice to see Congress forced to bend to the will of the people. Making noise works and we need to do more of it.

It's the Senate Versus the House on the "Jets for Jerks" Program

Thank goodness there are at least a few sane legislators in Washington, and some of them are even Democrats (I'll bet you didn't see that coming):

Bipartisan opposition is emerging in the Senate to a plan by House lawmakers to spend $550 million for additional passenger jets for senior government officials.

The resistance to buying eight Gulfstream and Boeing planes comes as members of both chambers of Congress embark on the busiest month of the year for official overseas travel. The plan to upgrade the fleet of government jets, which was included in a broader defense-funding bill, has also sparked criticism from the Pentagon, which has said it doesn't need half of the new jets.

"The whole thing kind of makes me sick to my stomach," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) in an interview Sunday. "It is evidence that some of the cynicism about Washington is well placed -- that people get out of touch and they spend money like it's Monopoly money."

Several other senators said they share the concerns and will work to oppose the funding for the jets when the legislation is taken up by the Senate in September, including Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.,) Jack Reed (D., R.I.), Richard Burr (R., N.C.), Christopher Bond (R., Mo.) and John Thune (R., S.D.).

The funding for new planes is "a classic example of Congress being out of touch with the realities of deficit spending," said Mr. Thune.

The Obama administration had sought $220 million to buy four passenger jets, including two that are currently being leased by the Air Force, to replace a fleet of older planes. Before leaving town for the August break, House lawmakers doubled the aircraft order to eight, at a total cost of $550 million.

I think these Senators realize how bad the "Jets for Jerks" program makes all of Washington look, and they're scrambling to undo the damage before it gets out of hand.

San Fran Nan will not be happy if she doesn't get her luxury rides.

Military Balks at "Jets for Jerks" Program

The military doesn't want or need the jets Congress is appropriating themselves in the name of helping the military:

The House's bid to buy new executive jets on the Pentagon's budget has broadened a conflict between Congress and the administration over defense priorities.

"It forces us to take money from things we do need to fund and redirect it for things we don't need," Geoff Morrell, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said Friday. "And in a time of war, we just can't afford that."

Lawmakers' move to upgrade the fleet of government jets -- used for travel by lawmakers and other senior government officials -- is just one of more than 1,000 spending projects lawmakers added to the Pentagon's budget for next year that weren't requested by President Barack Obama.

The request for additional executive jets, which pales next to the multibillion-dollar weapons systems targeted for cuts by Mr. Gates, comes at a time when the Obama administration is trying to shake up Pentagon budgeting and contracting.

"The bottom line is, for everything that they appropriate for us above and beyond what we've asked for, it will, at some point require us to find money from programs we do need," Mr. Morrell said.

Some lawmakers say they often know more about what the military needs than the executive branch does.

"The Pentagon is not the fountain of all knowledge," said Rep. Bill Young, a Florida Republican who was senior appropriator on the House floor last month when the Pentagon spending bill was approved. "They don't have all of the knowledge, and they don't have all of the wisdom. Neither does the administration, neither does the Congress. That's why we work together."

Congress says the extra jets are needed to replace an aging fleet of planes that are more expensive to operate and maintain. Congressional representatives say the planes are used 44% of the time by members of the military and 14.5% of the time by lawmakers. Administration and Pentagon officials say all the extra aircraft aren't needed.

Believe me, if the folks at the Pentagon know what's good for them they'll bend over and say to San Fran Nan "thank you ma'am, may we have another". If they take her precious jets away their will be hell to pay until the Dems are voted out of power.

"Jets for Jerks" Program Update

I told you the other day that Congress was appropriating itself $200 million for fancy new bizjets to be used by members of Congress as they travel about wasting our tax money. Well, that $200 million figure was way, way too low:

Congress plans to spend $550 million to buy eight jets, a substantial upgrade to the fleet used by federal officials at a time when lawmakers have criticized the use of corporate jets by companies receiving taxpayer funds.

The purchases will help accommodate growing travel demand by congressional officials. The planes augment a fleet of about two dozen passenger jets maintained by the Air Force for lawmakers, administration officials and military chiefs to fly on government trips in the U.S. and abroad.

The congressional shopping list goes beyond what the Air Force had initially requested as part of its annual appropriations. The Pentagon sought to buy one Gulfstream V and one business-class equivalent of a Boeing 737 to replace aging planes. The Defense Department also asked to buy two additional 737s that were being leased.

Lawmakers in the House last week added funds to buy those planes, and plus funds to buy an additional two 737s and two Gulfstream V planes. The purchases must still be approved by the Senate. The Air Force version of the Gulfstream V each costs $66 million, according to the Department of Defense, and the 737s cost about $70 million.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said the Department of Defense didn't request the additional planes and doesn't need them. "We ask for what we need and only what we need," he told reporters Wednesday. "We've always frowned upon earmarks and additives that are above and beyond what we ask for."

Congress turned harshly critical of companies that fly executives on private jets in the weeks following the government bailout of banks and auto makers last year. General Motors, Chrysler LLC and Citigroup Inc. were among those caught in the cross hairs of angry lawmakers.

Didn't at least one of the automakers put their planes up for sale after that congressional hearing? Couldn't Congress have purchased some transportation on the used market?

Hypocrites. Jerks.

I guess after they saw that fancy ride that Bill Clinton came home from North Korea on they all got jealous.

Congress' "Jets for Jerks" Program

Maybe we should drive the Big 3 auto execs back to Washington and ask them what they think of this:

"Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies," Roll Call reports.

"But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress."

The Air Force had asked for one jet as part of an upgrade program, but the House Appropriations Committee added two more at its own discretion.

Of course, San Fran Nan will tell you that expensive private jets are vital to the smooth operation of congress, but not vital to the smooth operation of real companies that actually produce things.