Those luxurious private jets currently sitting in the Congressional fleet simply aren’t luxurious enough, simply aren’t fast enough, simply aren’t friggin’ imperial enough.
So Congress took a look at its Cash-for-Clunkers program and introduced a related program called More Debt-for-New Jets.
Let’s just compare and contrast the Cash-for-Clunkers congress passed for you and the More Debt-for-New Jets program they passed for itself.
With Cash-for-Clunkers, you have to turn in an older car that gets lower gas mileage. With More Debt-for-New Jets, congress simply adds to the number of luxurious, fuel-sucking private jets in its fleet while giving up nothing.
With Cash-for-Clunkers, the government pays $4500 toward the purchase of your new car but you have to make the monthly payments yourself. With More Debt-for-New Jets, congress laughs at the $80 million price tag on a new jet and sticks you with the monthly payments.
With Cash-for-Clunkers, the trade-ins are immediately destroyed. With More Debt-for-New Jets, there are no trade-ins. The older, less luxurious “slow boats” are simply made available to members of congress with less seniority. The only thing destroyed is the last remaining shred of congressional honesty.
Under the provisions of this More Debt-for-New Jets, American royalty will spend $550 million (give or take a few million. Who’s counting?) to buy eight luxurious new jets to upgrade its already-large fleet of luxury aircraft. After all, we can’t expect Queen Nancy and her retinue to make do with those old, slow boats in which they’re currently forced to jet around the world.
The fancy schmancy new jets will augment a fleet containing dozens of passenger jets reserved for senators, representatives other assorted officials to fly in the lap of luxury on boondoggles vital government fact-finding missions.
Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesman, noted that the Department of Defense didn’t ask for the additional planes and doesn’t need them. “We ask for what we need and only what we need,” he said. “We’ve always frowned upon earmarks and additives that are above and beyond what we ask for.”
Yeah, congress frowns on those earmarks, too. Especially when the TV cameras are on. Otherwise, not so much.
Source: Wall Street Journal
