Yet another reason to by cynical of our politicians

[albionmoonlight]

The following article discusses misuse of taxpayer money by both Bush and Clinton--so hopefully this will not be read as an anti-Bush post. It's not. It's an anti both parties post. Not really much to add to it, other than to comment that the current political parties are making it harder and harder for me to feel inspired to go out and support either of them.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/31/bush.travelcosts.ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush is using Air Force One for re-election travel more heavily than any predecessor, wringing maximum political mileage from a perk of office paid for by taxpayers.

While Democratic rival John Kerry (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/candidates/kerry.new.html) digs into his campaign bank account to charter a plane to roam the country, Bush (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/candidates/bush.new.html) often travels at no cost to his campaign simply by declaring a trip "official" travel rather than "political."

Even when the White House deems a trip as political, the cost to Bush's campaign is minimal. In such instances, the campaign must only pay the government the equivalent of a comparable first-class fare for each political traveler on each leg, Federal Election Commission guidelines say.

Usually, that means paying a few hundred or a few thousand dollars for the president and a handful of aides. It's a minuscule sum, compared to the $56,800-per-hour the Air Force estimates it costs to run Air Force One.

GOP criticized Clinton

It is an advantage that Bush and other presidents before him have enjoyed. President Clinton frequently was criticized by Republicans for his record-setting use of Air Force One in the campaign season, and Bush is exceeding Clinton's pace.

"It's really something that's abused," said Bill Allison, managing editor of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, government watchdog group.

"On the one hand, the president can't fly coach," Allison said. "But on the other hand, taxpayers are in essence subsidizing campaign trips, something that goes against the grain of how the political system is supposed to operate."

The White House says it is following both the law and tradition in deciding which events are official, and thus paid for by taxpayers.

"Federal election laws set forth clear guidelines as to how costs should be incurred, and consistent with decades of past practices, we strictly adhere to those guidelines," said White House spokeswoman Erin Healy.

Selected states

Bush has logged more than 68,000 miles this year on Air Force One, all within the continental United States except for a quick run to Mexico in January. With rare exceptions, he confines his travels to the more than a dozen states he and Kerry are fighting hardest for, and to places where he is raising campaign money.

Of those states, Bush has made five trips to Pennsylvania, four each to Missouri, Florida and Ohio, and three to Wisconsin. He also has flown to 24 fund-raisers for himself and the Republican Party.

The White House labeled travel to fund-raisers "political." Likewise, it deemed as "political" a thank-you mixer with big donors in Georgia, his first campaign rally in Orlando, Florida, and bus tours through Michigan, Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, meaning his campaign paid a share of the costs.

But of the more than $203 million Bush has raised for his re-election, less than 1 percent has gone to reimbursing the government for travel costs this year.

The campaign repaid White House Airlift Operations at least $512,000 from May 2003 through April 2004, including reimbursements for political travel by Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, first lady Laura Bush and political aides.

The reimbursements do not cover the cargo planes that shuttle the president's limousines and helicopters to every event, or travel expenses of White House advance workers who lay the groundwork for the trips.

White House silence

It is difficult to say precisely what the Bush campaign is repaying the government per trip. The White House refuses to:



<LI>Provide lists of political aides who travel with Bush and whose travels are financed by the re-election campaign; or say how many political aides go on any given trip, or even offer a range.



<LI>Provide dollar figures on reimbursements for specific trips. Bush's re-election campaign periodically reports to the FEC lump reimbursement sums for unspecified travel.



<LI>Say how it decides which trips are official rather than political.

An Associated Press tally of Bush's travels shows he has made at least 114 trips in the 17 months since January 2003.

Clinton flew Air Force One on 123 domestic trips between January 1995 and mid-October 1996, a period of 22 months. It was a record for re-election-related travel aboard the presidential aircraft, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

[sachmo71]

I think Bush should have CNN put to death. It's in the consitution that he can.

[rkmsuf]

I think Bush should have CNN put to death. It's in the consitution that he can.

But Paula Zahn is "just a little sexy."

[timmynausea]

It's an Associated Press article. CNN merely has it on their site. It is probably all over news websites and newspapers accross the country.

[QuikSand]

Execute every last one of 'em.

[CamEdwards]

I thought we'd gotten rid of that pesky 1st Amendment.

damn.

[sachmo71]

I say good for him. He's working within the system, and people are impressed by Air Force 1. Maybe it will help him win.

[Bonegavel]

Execute every last one of 'em.
That's a good start...

[QuikSand]

There's always two sides to this issue, whatever form it takes.

Your congressman sends you a little newsletter, talking about all the important things that have been going on in Congress, all the important bills that are being contemplated, and all the important projects happening back in the district. Supporters say this is a reasonable effort to promote an "informed electorate" and is a proper use of tax payer funds. Detractors point out that these newletters only come out during the heat of the election, of course. The franking privilege is one of the many reasons incumbents run unopposed so frequently, and get re-elected with such alarming frequency (even as most Americans say they dislike Congress, yet vote for their own incumbent representative).

Much the same here -- a supporter will quickly find comfort in the fact that the President going out to meet with those teachers in Michigan or those steelworkers in Pennsylvania is an important executive duty, the detractors will cry foul and claim it's a taxpayer ripoff.

Other than the parties changing scripts every so often, this is the same old story.

[sabotai]

Other than the parties changing scripts every so often, this is the same old story.

Yup, and the funny part is, the supporters of both parties don't even realize this.

[Leonidas]

From another of the "Big Media wasting my time with irrelevant data" files. Right up there with the whole scare series ABC is doing on the war against obesity. (does anyone else out there feel like the media's use of the term "war against" anything is obscenely out of control?)

[BishopMVP]

From another of the "Big Media wasting my time with irrelevant data" files. Right up there with the whole scare series ABC is doing on the war against obesity. (does anyone else out there feel like the media's use of the term "war against" anything is obscenely out of control?)Well, the government also overuses 'War against" monikers - Drugs, Poverty, Terror. Anyone who declares war against a euphemism that cannot be defeated is an idiot in my book. As for the War on Obesity, it's just the natural extension after we allowed the social costs argument of the War on Drugs to win. Then came alcohol and tobacco, next food is up. Even if no one knows what precisely causes people to become obese or what will cure it, and its most of the time their own damn fault, we will see increasing demands for government regulation. Just look at TIME magazine this week.

[Buccaneer]

Yup, and the funny part is, the supporters of both parties don't even realize this.
Yep.

sab, think we can get more people to vote for libertarian-centric candidates?

[BishopMVP]

sab, think we can get more people to vote for libertarian-centric candidates?Not with the wacko moonbat the Libs just nominated.

[Dutch]

"On the one hand, the president can't fly coach," Allison said.

That is the entire story right there, in a nutshell. Sometimes, CNN and the AP slip up and tell the real story.

[sabotai]

Yep.

sab, think we can get more people to vote for libertarian-centric candidates?

No, not that I'll give up trying though. :)

[sabotai]

"On the one hand, the president can't fly coach," Allison said.

That is the entire story right there, in a nutshell. Sometimes, CNN and the AP slip up and tell the real story.

I don't think he shoudl fly coach, but if he's campaigning, he should not be using taxpayer money for it. I don't care who the president is, that's an abuse of power and a waste of taxpayer money. That's the real story...

[Buccaneer]

Not with the wacko moonbat the Libs just nominated.
It does not necessarily have to be from the Libertarian Party.

I am reminded of this when I read an article today on a proposal to reduce the taxpayer's burden in paying for the inefficient $10b TSA bureaucracy. Of course there was a congressman from a certain party that absolutely opposed this without discussion just on the basis that it's unthinkable not to have the govt use our money to "solve" every problem. That's the mindset we need to change.

[Buccaneer]

I don't think he shoudl fly coach, but if he's campaigning, he should not be using taxpayer money for it. I don't care who the president is, that's an abuse of power and a waste of taxpayer money. That's the real story...
Where do you think the funds for nearly every candidate's (presidential on down) federal matching funds and election support come from? The taxpayer's funding of various Senate re-election campaigns throughout the years are untold stories of incredible wastes, frauds, abuses and arrogance.

At least Kerry can campaign at any of his wife's multi-million dollars mansions and submit a bill to the taxpayers. That's in the constitution too, right?

[Dutch]

I don't think he shoudl fly coach, but if he's campaigning, he should not be using taxpayer money for it. I don't care who the president is, that's an abuse of power and a waste of taxpayer money. That's the real story...

So how does he campaign in California?

[sabotai]

Where do you think the funds for nearly every candidate's (presidential on down) federal matching funds and election support come from? The taxpayer's funding of various Senate re-election campaigns throughout the years are untold stories of incredible wastes, frauds, abuses and arrogance.

At least Kerry can campaign at any of his wife's multi-million dollars mansions and submit a bill to the taxpayers. That's in the constitution too, right?

I'm not saying the whole system isn't screwed up beyond reason for both sides, just saying this is another item on a list of a thousand (rough estimate) about campaigning that should not be done.

[sabotai]

So how does he campaign in California?

Pay for a private charter flight out of his campaign funds....just a thought.

[BishopMVP]

It does not necessarily have to be from the Libertarian Party.

I am reminded of this when I read an article today on a proposal to reduce the taxpayer's burden in paying for the inefficient $10b TSA bureaucracy. Of course there was a congressman from a certain party that absolutely opposed this without discussion just on the basis that it's unthinkable not to have the govt use our money to "solve" every problem. That's the mindset we need to change.The best way to change the mindset would be by the Libertarian Party siphoning off enough of the fiscal conservatives that have gotten annoyed by the Republican Party/President's high increases in spending to make the Republican Party sit up and decide they needed to appeal to this group instead of the Religious Right. Similar to how Perot's 1992 appeal affected Clinton and Congress. Now the Libertarians went and nominated a guy so doctrinaire (No Income Taxes at all, legalize all drugs, etc.) that I think I'll be voting for Bush even while knowing he has no chance to win my state.

[Dutch]

Sabotai - Now you are not thinking about security. What should be done about that?

[sabotai]

Sabotai - Now you are not thinking about security. What should be done about that?

It costs $56,800 and hour for Air Force One. If he's going to use it for campaign use, then that money should come out of his campaign funds.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yep.

sab, think we can get more people to vote for libertarian-centric candidates?
Not as long as they continue to advocate:

Open immigration
http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.html
Social Security dismantling
http://www.lp.org/issues/social-security.html
Ending all federal subsidies & tariffs
http://www.lp.org/issues/program/unemp.html
Legalization of various controlled substances
http://www.lp.org/issues/relegalize.html

For everything they get right, they're badly out of touch on an equal number of issues. And as long as they stick to their current positions on those, they're about as electable as Ralph Nader -- which is to say completely unelectable.

Besides, at the point they find a single issue that finally strikes a chord with any significant portion of the voting population, that issue will be co-opted by one of the two major parties ASAP. And that's the end of that particular light in their portion of the political tunnel.

[BishopMVP]

Repeal the 16th Amendment (I think that was the one that changed voting for Senators from state houses to the people.) IMO, that has contributed more to the expansion of federalism than anything else we could change.

[Buccaneer]

Jon, I said libertarian-minded candidates, not necessarily Libertarian Party candidates. Even though I am a libertarian, I have not and will not become a member of that party. I have been a registered independent for 26 years now and that will not change. I look for candidates that do not automatically assume the solution to everything is govt legislation, regulation, bureaucracy and use of taxpayer's monies. In the past 26 years, that has completely ruled out candidates from one political party and it looks like now it is ruling out the other one.

[Buccaneer]

dola: Jon here was something I said here a month ago


As far as the party itself, I certainly agree with their fundamental principles but in some of the platforms, their practicality is not right: like disbanding the military and having no immigration laws. Much like any candidate running on a party's platform, one does not always agree with everything. But at least they are consistent with the ideals of a very limited central govt (think Jefferson) - if you don't want the Feds to invade in one area of your life, it shouldn't be in any area of your life. I certainly don't go that far for practical reasons but at least I want to get others to start thinking in that direction instead of the usual bigger and bigger federal govt that the Republocrats believe.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon, I said libertarian-minded candidates, not necessarily Libertarian Party candidates.
I stand corrected on your position.

Please regard my comments as observation about the situation of the
party alone.

[Dutch]

It costs $56,800 and hour for Air Force One. If he's going to use it for campaign use, then that money should come out of his campaign funds.

A good portion of those costs are for security and are built in costs that the taxpayer gives to our President. I, one American taxpayer, insist the President receive full security to travel and I insist my Presidential nominee gets to travel to as many places as the opposition's candidate.

I would insist the same for all previous and future Presidents, well, maybe I'd argue it if Kerry were elected...but you understand, it's just politcs. :)

[Fritz]

But of the more than $203 million Bush has raised for his re-election, less than 1 percent has gone to reimbursing the government for travel costs this year.

this line has me questioning the article. how is % relevant? I need something different here. "Less than 1%" could be fine, it could be a problem.

[Fritz]

dola,

the president has an obligation to use govt transportation. he cant go winging off somewhere where he cant be pulled back in. Since we are going to have to fly something out there for him, why not let him use the presidential aircraft?

[Buccaneer]

dola,

the president has an obligation to use govt transportation. he cant go winging off somewhere where he cant be pulled back in. Since we are going to have to fly something out there for him, why not let him use the presidential aircraft?
Because it wouldn't generate as much political hay and media hype.

[Flasch186]

i actually think Bush is fine on this note....does kinda piss me off that each party kills the other one on this each time and then does it anyways....but what's he supposed to do, not campaign and fly delta?


OMG< Flasch186 thinks Bush isnt doing something wrong? Imagine that....he must be <shocker> open minded.

[sabotai]

A good portion of those costs are for security and are built in costs that the taxpayer gives to our President. I, one American taxpayer, insist the President receive full security to travel and I insist my Presidential nominee gets to travel to as many places as the opposition's candidate.

I would insist the same for all previous and future Presidents, well, maybe I'd argue it if Kerry were elected...but you understand, it's just politcs. :)

I think you're splitting hairs. :)

I just read it from the article as that being just the cost of running Air Force One, as in the airplane and the pilots. Not all the extra stuff. Either way, he's using it fulling without specifiying it for campaign use when that's what it's being used for.

Like it matters anyway, just arguing principal. As far as this whole political system goes, is screwed up. All of it.

As far as the libertarians go, they do have some radical changes for the country in mind, but I think people look at their platform and say "Well if we did that in a day, everything would be chaos." Yes, it would. Obviously they couldn't do it in just one term. Gradual and long term reform would be needed to accomplish it all. I think, for the most part, the libertarians understand that. I don't think the libertarians who say "No immigration law, no income taxes, no military" don't mean "And if I'm elected, it'll be the first thing I do in a week."

Not saying ALL libertarians would think that way. I know a few wackos who do, just speaking generally.

[BishopMVP]

I don't think the libertarians who say "No immigration law, no income taxes, no military" don't mean "And if I'm elected, it'll be the first thing I do in a week."

Not saying ALL libertarians would think that way. I know a few wackos who do, just speaking generally.Unfortunately the man chosen to head the ticket is one of those wackos who said he'd disband numerous government agencies the first day and then start prosecuting high-level IRS employees for stealing from the taxpayers :rolleyes:. As much as people bitch about the two-party system, other than the Reform Party which was a hodgepodge of politicians with different ideologies there doesn't seem to be another party that tries to appeal to a centrist viewpoint. They all stick to their doctrinaire 100% ideals which only appeal to ~1% of Americans and kill any chance of ever appeaing to a broad range of Americans.

[Sharpieman]

I know I'm going to be attacked for this, but in my opinion, the problem is that taxpayers AREN'T paying for the elections. We already pay an enormous amount that the general public doesn't know about for elections. Why don't we make election bids shorter, and fully government financed? Then special interest groups power would be diminished and Presidential hopefuls would have to appeal to the public at-large, not just their party to garner funds. If we make the elections shorter, say like 2-3 months, then there would be less misinformation.

Of course, this is all impossible, but a nice dream. Its similar to how the UK holds their elections.

[Fritz]

how would you make 2-3 months long? What would stop a guy from starting early? There is a reason Christmas is starting in October now.

[Sharpieman]

Well since our constitution is much different for the "constitution" that the English have, our free speech laws wouldnt allow us to stop a canidate from putting out an ad or making a speech. Thats why I said its impossible. But I would like to see campaign financing move to the public sector rather than a few millionares and interest groups.

[JesterBlaze]

Couple notes from the new guy.....


1) I'll always be cynical of any human with power. "Republican", "Democrat", "Libertarian"...these are the equivilant of gang-tags. Every human is driven by greed (even altruistic gestures are prompted by some inner urge to do them - still self-fulfilling). Some are more self-disciplined but perspectives seem to change with opportunity.

2) As far as the president's (or anybody's) security goes there are two ways to look at it as I see. You can hide in Air Force One (like a child ducking under the covers - and the use the word "leader" rofl) or you can stop pissing people off. The president is like the drunk alpha-male at a bar who threatens everyone else implicitly (and drinks heavily on their tab) for so long that it's become the normal standard of life for him and he acts (or maybe legitimately is) confused when someone doesn't play the submissive role for him.

3) The current president shouldn't campaign. They should just do the job they have! How can you step away from being the president to tell me how you're an adequate leader? Once you get in office you should get to work and my everyday life will tell me if you're competent or not.

4) Elections costing so much $$$ but supposedly being open to anyone is similar to an open-domed football team saying "We kept the roof open so all the children in the area can watch the game. They just need to find a floatation device of some sort".

[Dutch]

Well, as a supporter of the current President, I want him to have as much security as possible to protect him from you! :)

[JesterBlaze]

Well, the government also overuses 'War against" monikers - Drugs, Poverty, Terror. Anyone who declares war against a euphemism that cannot be defeated is an idiot in my book.
Exactly!

*********************

War against drugs??? How about a Psychological view of humans and the rat race. Only those who feel they can get satisfactory results will participate. The rest will sometimes look for the nearest anti-negative feeling (and most drugs bring this within an hour, despite the long term effects). Wanna maintain a drug-free country? Provide a positive way of life for the one's who don't currently have one.

War against Poverty? Stop funneling money to the wealthier. It's a crime in the U.S. to pass an auto-accident w/out offering help. It's a crime to know CPR but not use it on someone who requires it. But it's not a crime for Bill Gates to sit on billions (and the most horrific part - make even more!) that he'll never use while others starve? Want to end poverty? Fork over some dough and stop racking up foreigns bills. Where's our "resolve" when it comes to a budget? lol

And the newest facade..the War on Terrorism. I won't even get into this one but in a separate question have you ever seen a pot and kettle argue over who's black?? :D

[Suicane75]

Exactly!

*********************

War against drugs??? How about a Psychological view of humans and the rat race. Only those who feel they can get satisfactory results will participate. The rest will sometimes look for the nearest anti-negative feeling (and most drugs bring this within an hour, despite the long term effects). Wanna maintain a drug-free country? Provide a positive way of life for the one's who don't currently have one.

War against Poverty? Stop funneling money to the wealthier. It's a crime in the U.S. to pass an auto-accident w/out offering help. It's a crime to know CPR but not use it on someone who requires it. But it's not a crime for Bill Gates to sit on billions (and the most horrific part - make even more!) that he'll never use while others starve? Want to end poverty? Fork over some dough and stop racking up foreigns bills. Where's our "resolve" when it comes to a budget? lol

And the newest facade..the War on Terrorism. I won't even get into this one but in a separate question have you ever seen a pot and kettle argue over who's black?? :D



Are you bizzaro Bubba Wheels?

[JesterBlaze]

Are you bizzaro Bubba Wheels?
I have no idea if this is an honest question refering to another forum's screen name, an insult, or a joke that I should have gotten, but I'm gonna go with "no". :)

[sabotai]

But it's not a crime for Bill Gates to sit on billions (and the most horrific part - make even more!) that he'll never use while others starve?

Why should acquiring wealth be a crime?

(And check for facts, Bill Gates has given billions to charity.)