Much Ado About ... Planes
Official Washington -- at least on the House side -- spent much of Thursday focused on the size plane that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) should be allowed to use when she flies home when Congress isn't in session.
This "controversy du jour" reflects why the average person finds national "politics" irrelevant, uninteresting or just plain idiotic. It's also a story that reflects much of what is wrong with what passes for inside-the-Beltway journalism: it's more like a whispering campaign from high school writ large in the capitol's daily paper(s) than the sourced and verified reporting that I learned in J-school.
Here we go with some facts and data, and occasional aside, in somewhat chronological order:
Since 9-11, the Speaker of the House -- who is second in line in Presidential succession (following the VP) -- has used a military jet for travel because of security issues. To whit: "Former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert used a military 12-seat jet to carry him mainly from Washington's Andrews Air Force Base to airports near his home district in Chicago's suburbs."
The distance from Chicago to DC? About 700 miles by auto.
The distance from San Francisco (Speaker Pelosi's home territory) to DC? About 3,000 miles by auto. Both somewhat less than that, one assumes, in the air.
Whisper Campaign Begins
On 1 February, The Washington Times kicked off the whisper campaign with a story asserting that Speaker Pelosi was demanding "carte blanche for an aircraft any time" and that she wanted to carry family members as well as staff. [This eventually grew to accusations of parties at 30,000 feet.]
Rowan Scarborough, the reporter, continues: "Sources said Mrs. Pelosi's request goes beyond what Mr. Hastert received." The source(s)? All accusers are unnamed, of course ... their affiliation is masked as well. The one "defender" is IDed as being an aide from the Speaker's office who "asked not to be named." Does this mean that the other unnamed sources didn't ask not to be named?
And the headline writer (Speaker Persues Military Flights) makes it sound like Pelosi is asking for something special, something out of the ordinary.
Flash forward a week.
On Thursday, House Republicans spent two hours "[criticizing] the request for a larger plane than Hastert used for travel."
What were they supposed to be doing? Debating an alternative energy bill, one where the Speaker was present to support climate change initiatives. Part of Republican criticism was that Pelosi would be wasting gas and polluting the environment more in the larger plane.
All the more reason to have additional people -- family and staff -- fly with her. Kinda like the difference in car pools and single-occupancy vehicles.
About The Request
Why was there a request for a larger plane? First, as I've shown, the distance travelled by the new speaker is about three times greater than the old one. If the Speaker is to travel non-stop -- which would seem prudent for security reasons -- then the plane is gonna have to be bigger. Unless Hastert was flying in an over-sized jet, relative to his needs.
And just who made the request? Not Pelosi.
AP has the text of a statement made by Bill Livingood, the House sergeant-at-arms appointed to his job in 1995 by former Speaker Hastert:
The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making nonstop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable," Livingood said in a statement. "I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue."
Did anyone in the press corps ask Livingood about his role before now? Did those "unnamed sources" not know that Livingood made the request? You know the answer to that.
As someone who lives on the left coast, I can assure you that there is a signficant difference in flying coast-to-coast non-stop and flying with a layover somewhere in the middle (Denver, Salt Lake, Chicago, Nashville -- I've done them all). It's significant in time, in wear-and-tear on body and mind. The older I get, the more significant it feels.
I don't normally reach for this analogy, but here goes: would the number three officer of a major US corporation not fly non-stop when going coast-to-coast? I think you know the answer to that, too.
There are three US Air Force planes at Andrews Air Force Base (outskirts of DC) that could fly coast-to-coast non-stop, 365 days a year: the C-32 (Boeing 757 built for the military, 45 passengers), C-40B (Boeing 737 built for the military, 26 to 32 passengers) and C-37 (Gulfstream business jet, 12 passengers).
Who's Saying What?
On the Republican side, the critics being named are Republican Conference Chairman Rep. Adam Putnam (R-F-12), Minority Whip Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO-7), Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC-10 and the youngest House member),
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-46) and
Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ-3).
Will Livingood's statement silence the whisperers? Here are some more -- tell me what you think:
An unnamed defense source claims that the planes capable of flying non-stop are in high demand by Congress. "Congress looks at that Andrews fleet as their Hertz rent-a-car."
An unnamed congressional source claims Pelosi asked for military transport to a Democratic event in Williamsburg but that the Pentagon did not honor the request. If, indeed, she asked for this -- I agree it seems inappropriate. Of course, I think it's inappropriate when the President and Vice President use Air Force One for such things, but that doesn't stop them.
Finally, belatedly, White House spokesman Tony Snow: "This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker."
Silly, yes. Sadly, typical, too.
Technorati Profile
Comments
Why should it suprise anyone that this request was made. We as Americans let this happen… When is enough enough. Politicians aren’t above the people they work for the people. I drive a car I pay for myself. I would like a plane to where do I sign up. OH YEAH… I really do work not just pretend.
Hi, Sean:
The capitol is in DC … and Congressmen, the President and the Vice President are required to “live” in another state. Because Congressmen represent a geographically discrete area (a state or a district), they go home periodically. How do you propose they do this?
Are you suggesting that Congressional sessions are too long - that Congress should act more like some legislatures?
Or what?
Note that the only reason we’re talking about Pelosi in this manner is because she’s #2 in line for the Presidency (I don’t recall there being any hullabaloo about Hastert’s use of military transport) and because security people think there’s a security issue post 9-11.
It’s not a security issue - if Pelosi would become the vice president, then she can have a plane - until then, fly commercial like everyone like all congress should be doing — quit wasting our money. These people know how far it is to their home from DC when they take this job. I am so tired of congress taxing me to the max just to use my hard earned money flying someone home!
I wish Republicans would stop crying and pointing fingers over everything Democrats do- they are like overfed babies. Who cares about the Speaker of the House using a plane? Use away.
I think that someone needs to get a life! There are more important things than the continued mud slinging that goes on! If you are looking for securaty that is fine but don’t use it as an excuse. I live in MO. and we have an army base (Fort Lenard Wood) and an Air Force Base (Whiteman). And I am sure that other interer states have such bases! So if a Milatary plane must stop I am sure that it could FIND a base that is sacure. I also live in one town during the week to work and go home on the weekends. I drive but it is only 100 miles, and I know for a fact that other congressmen fly because I have flown with them on the occations that I went to D.C. The only difference is that they are not the 3rd in command so they are flying commercial. So get a life and get over it. Get on to what is important and quit being preschool about it!!!! (I’m telling on you.) And no I am not a Dem. if anything I am a Rep. So party lines have nothing to do with my feelings!
Give the Speaker of the House, the person who is just behind the VP, the biggest, baddest jet in the fleet for her flights to and from her district. It is her responsibility, and her right. If something happens to our country (God Forbid!) and we need her BACK in Washington DC, I know there would be a hue and cry if she didn’t have a secure plane, so it’s time to stop all the complaining and get back to business of the people of the United States.
Hi, Shirley:
Pelosi has said she will fly coach. Seh is not the person who said it is a security issue, and she is not the person who started this policy in 2001!
Hi, Lisa-Marie:
All Congresspeople have access to Air Force planes for some trips. For example, when the Administration takes small groups to Gitmo or Iraq on fact-finding trips…
Hi, Connie:
Thanks!
Hi, Terri …
Thanks.
So ladies, how much of this posturing (and that’s what it is, posturing) do you think is related to Pelosi’s being a woman — instead of it being normal partisan crapola?
Lets have a real discussion, we should bring the government to a standstill over this air plane issue, lets forget about the war in Iraq, bombs in Iran and Korea, to hell with the deficit this air plane thing is much more important than that. Why do we put up with this childish behaviour?
Kathy:the title of your article is: “Much ado about… The cost of a cross-country flight in a large military is in the neighborhood of $300,000. That is a lot of “ado.” The main question is: Who elevated the Speaker’s position to a level that justifies spending that much money transporting the Speaker anywhere? I saw Speaker Pelosi on the TV stating that she merely wants to make one or two trips per week between D.C. and San Francisco. Her job is in D.C. and when the Congress is in session, she should remain at her job in D.C. Secondly, can you tell me that last time that a Speaker of the House was elevated to the position of President? When JFK was assinated and Lyndon Johnson took over as president, did the Speaker of the House become Vice President? When Spiro Agnew resigned as VP did the Speaker of the House take over as VP or was one appointed? Our “IMPERIAL” Policitions in DC had better learn to realize that they cannot continue to foolishly spend TAXPAYER’s MONEY.None of them deserve “SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.” And if the news media would keep the people adequately informed of these abusive measures, then maybe we would not have gotten to the point where anyone can say that a $300,000 expenditure for a politician’s travel is MUCH ADO ABOUT….And Dennis Hassert should never have been given his own private airplane to travel home. And any US citizen who attempts to defend and justify this waste of taxes needs to have his/her head examined. I would love to know how much money is spent on these silly travel ventures every year.
As I sit here, after hours at work, reading through all of the comments that have been made, I can’t help but think about the countless hours I have spent commuting back and forth from my home. It’s about 70 miles per day. I don’t bring family members to work. I’m certain that many in congress have abused the privilege of taxpayer transportation. I would feel better about this if Mrs. Speaker only used a larger aircraft when necessary and left the family at home. That’s part of accepting the job.
The democrats are no better than the Republicans that we trhew out of Congress. We have the worlds worst political system, and congressmen and women not much better. I think we should give all the congress people a private jet. Think of the jobs it would create.
I overlooked the point trying to be made about Speaker Pelosi being treated “differently” because she was a woman (Kathy). The gender card is on the table. I’m sure some may feel some sense of smug satisfaction that this has come out during a female speaker occupying the seat. However, Bob made the point; we should be made aware when taxpayer funds are being spent needlessly. Let’s hope that true leadership prevails and the Speaker declines the offer, choosing rather to fly commercial. After all, what security concerns need to be met? Are you saying that our lives are somehow less secure?
Two hours wasted over this issue which was brought up by Bill Livingood, the House sergeant-at-arms appointed to his job in 1995 by former Speaker Hastert.
Grow up Republicans! Get over the fact that a woman democrat is now Speaker of the House. If a Republican from California was the Speaker of the House, would they wasting the same 2 hours criticizing this recommendation? I think not!
I take issue with one part of your story — that the President and Vice President use Air Force One to go from DC to Williamsburg. They would always use Marine helicopters to go that distance. And the VP never flies on Air Force One, because it’s only Air Force One if the President is on board.
That said, if the President took a military version of a Gulfstream jet to Williamsburg, it would be call-signed Air Force One. But I’m fairly certain that’s not what you meant.
In fact, I’m not certain that there’s an airport in Williamsburg with a runway long enough to accommodate a 747.
I don’t disagree with most of what you said in this piece, but when you misstate even an ancillary thing so obviously, it brings into question not just the rest of your facts but your entire argument.
WHY THE HELL DONT SHE JUST MOVE THEN SHE WOULD NOT HAVE TO FLY. pLEASE WHO PAYS FOR THIS LUXURY? GUESS
Queen Pelosi was hot and bothered about the ‘culture of corruption’ pre-election. Post-election, she presided over her coronation and flaunted her gavel. She’s ruthlessly trod on her own party and the bipartisanship never happened. Now, the Speaker of the House who knew when she ran for congress that she lived a continent apart from Washington and the White House assumes we will cheerfully fork over more taxes to fly her kids and grandkids and political supporters whenever the urge hits. She wants bedrooms, staterooms, conference rooms, recreation room (for the kids) - in short, the best of everything. Well, I don’t have nearly what I think I deserve either, but that’s because I have to pay for it, not tell others they must provide it. Congress has a place to meet (another lame excuse). It’s in Washington. We don’t need to provide the Dems a jumbo jet to carry on their partisanship. They’re doing a swell job right now on the ground. Pelosi has serious delusions about her place in the universe. Anyone who thinks she ought to get what she wants can pony up for it and there’ll be no conflict. When you categorize a huge plane as not a plane, but a ‘ride’, how absurd can you be? But that’s how Pelosi is phrasing it now. Also, weren’t at least two of the 9/11/01 jets non-stop to California from Boston? A crew of the necessary size could be infiltrated very easily.
Why don’t we just move the Capitol to Kansas?
Hi, Bob …
1. I’ve seen the number $300,000 tossed around quite a bit in blog comments … but no source. I’ve also seen guys whose opinions I respect (air force) say the figure is grossly inflated. So … source?
2. Who elevated the position? The Republican Congress in 2001. No one seems to have gotten their knickers in a knot about Hastert’s using a military jet to go home — one with a range of 2,000 miles when it’s something like 700 to _drive_.
3. I’d love to know where you saw that clip of Pelosi saying she wanted to go home twice a week. Again - source it for me, please. It doesn’t match anything that I’ve *read* but that doesn’t mean she didn’t say it.
4. The Speaker of the House is not elevated to VP if the VP is elevated to President. That’s not how succession works. Not relevant to this discussion, but I answered the question.
5. I agree that the media don’t report these sorts of details of how Congress works. I’d like to know more about the trans-oceanic junkets, myself. Murtha suggested he’ll be holding hearings to see how often Congress critters are using military aircraft to jet about. Press him on it.
Scott, I believe that the agreement is only her husband.
Please read my earlier note about the requirements that Congressman have a residence other than the Capitol — and going back to the district is still _work_ folks.
Scott - the speaker has already said that she would fly commercial non-stop rather than military puddle-jump.
The question on the table folks is this: do we trust the recommendations of the people who are charged with keeping the Prez, VP, Speaker *safe* or do we say “it costs too much.”
Remember, this recommendation is from the Sargeant at Arms, part of the secret service, IIRC. It’s their job to keep people safe.
The speaker walks around the capitol with two bodyguards. I’m 99% sure that was not her idea.
Hi, Andy - I guess I wasn’t clear.
The Prez and VP use Air Force one or other military (US) aircraft when they go on trips that are related to Republican party stuff, ie, campaign related.
Yeah, there’s supposed to be a charge-back … and I understand it’s not practical to put the Prez on a commercial flight. It’s still annoying to me… regardless of who is in office.
Barb, where would you like her to move? She was elected to represent a district in California - how can she live elsewhere and still represent her district?
A reminder that a trip to CA does not automatically or usually mean “rest” — it means consituent visits and work. It’s her district.
Pepper - thanks for playing but it helps if you have researched your facts before spewing.
The speaker can only take her husband and other government officials on the plane.
We don’t know if that was the rule for Hastert because the Democrats didn’t scream bloody murder about it for the five years that this policy has been in effect.
Andy, one more time.
I didn’t say the President used Air Force One to go to Williamsburg. I said he used it for such things (her case a Democratic event; in his case, Republican events).
I understand why, I just don’t have to like it.
Nancy Pelosi was interviewed by Greta S. on Fox News and Greta asked her point blank about the airplane controversy. Nancy did not directly talk about the controversy but said
“Look, I only want to make one or two trips per week” and she then said, I would be willing to fly commercial flights.
As to the cost of a flight across country, if a military plane flies her across the country that plane would have to return to DC (to be available for other use) then when it was time for Speaker Pelosi the plane would have to fly across country to pick her up and then return to DC. The airplane that would be used is a 737 but it only accomodates about 45 passengers. Commercial 737 carry more than 150 passengers. And according to the stories Speaker Pelosi asked for a 16 person flight crew. As citizens we have a perfect right to complain about this kind of waste of taxpayer’s money.
Hello, Bob.
I can’t find anything remotely close to that quote on the FoxNews site, nor have I seen anything like that quote in any news story I have read. A Google search turns up nothing.
Congressmen don’t go to their home district a couple of times a week!
AFA your assertion that the plane would make two round-trips … that is an assumption on your part. If you have a citation to back it up, please share.
:
“Speaking with reporters, Pelosi lamented the need for a military plane, bemoaning the fact that ‘when you become speaker … you give up movement’ because of security concerns.”
ABC news is reorting that the Defense Department has rejected Speaker Pelosi’s request for the high-priced airplane. Check it out at:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2858225&page=1&CMP=google_breakingnews_&partner=google&gclid=CO6nk_Sdo4oCFU9FGAodqmtjBg
The Fox News interview occurred on Thursday Feb 8th on the Greta S. show. Since I am will soon be 75 years old, my memory cells cannot retain all the details but I will swear on my Bible that I quoted Pelosi correctly.
uspolitics says: #
“Speaking with reporters, Pelosi lamented the need for a military plane, bemoaning the fact that ‘when you become speaker … you give up movement’ because of security concerns.”
Security concerns are equally onerous for all air travelers. Since Speaker Pelosi has all her political hacks with her and since she if flying military aircraft, I challenge any of her references for “Security Concerns.” She would not have the Security restrictions than any citizen has going through TSA at any commercial airport.
Bob - The speaker isn’t simply talking about flying — she is now shadowed by, reportedly, two bodyguards at all times.
The ABC article is from *Wednesday*.
I thought somewhere in the comments I’d pointed out that the USAF had said it would not commit to the non-stop plane.
Commenters keep perpetuating the lie that Pelosi asked for the high-priced plane, when it’s been pointed out several times that Pelosi asked only for a plane which would be able to fly her non-stop to California.
And where’s the outrage about the part of the article which says that the C-32 is “normally used by the first lady, the vice president, Cabinet officials and members of Congress upon request.”
Why does the First Lady get to use this plane? She’s not doing “the people’s business,” is more often than not involved in some PR work to boost her husband’s lousy poll numbers, she wasn’t elected, and has no official Constitutional role. If she’s gotta go somewhere, she should schedule her trips to coincide with the President’s trips or she should head down to the airport like the rest of us. (I’d love to see the uproar raised if Hillary becomes President and Bill wants to use the C-32 in his role as First Husband. I’m sure there would be no outrage about that.)
Cabinet members are not elected officials either, but merely government employees and should be subject to the same regulations on travel as anyone else in their departments. People should direct their outrage at those members of the government and at relatives of the President who think they are part of some royally privileged class, not at our elected officials who are trying to do their Constitutionally-mandated duty.