Taxpayers Pay for Bush's Campaign Travel

Sean, I'm not trying to argue that this is really an appropriate use of any tax dollars, but if it stopped today you'd probably only have, at best, a few more cents a year to put towards your auto costs. We'd be lucky if we could buy a 20 oz soda between us.

I'm not really pleased that any of our elected officials do this, but there are legitimate arguments behind pairing up official and political trips. Obviously, some of these trips seem over the top. I would prefer some better guidelines set up that dictate that at least as much time is spent on official business as it is fund-raising (or the percentages of time spent reflect in the campaign reimbursements). I think some clearer rules will be the best we can hope for so long as any elected official is capable of running as an incumbent.

I understand that it's not costing me much; it's more the principal that bugs me. I mean we have a $200 billion deficit this year (Iraq not included). I really don't think it's appropriate for him to be spending money we don't have on things like campaigning.

I would only approve of this if he was on a legitimate trip (not organized simply to campaign) and it would not require him to stay in the city/town any longer. Otherwise it's spending money we don't have on something not even 50% of the population supports.

Perhaps we could just have another check box on our form 1040?

Either way, rest assured, it does bug me, too that our presidents (Bush, Clinton, etc.) do this on our dime. I would like to see some change to how it is done and your requirements for approval certainly don't seem unreasonable to me.

sounds like he never had a chance anyway :P

You're right, I think that he should be cast back in to the lake of fire that he came from.

..whats Jeb doing ...haven`t heard any reports lately...another Bush in 08...the irony..man you just got to love politics.....

My understanding is that Gov. Bush has expressed he has little interest in running for president, although apparently Pres. Bush (41 and 43) had hoped he'd run. As much as some folks around here desperately seem to want another Bush vs. Gore Supreme Court case campaign, I don't think that's ever going to happen.

I'm sure they'll shuffle in another PNAC shill.

So until this he might have gotten your vote.

I was being sarcastic. I've heard that he's not planning on running for a third term.

To obscure the real @!$%# that he's gettin away with.

Please name something that he's done that hasn't turned into a huge deal, because I don't think I've ever seen a president so scrutinized on a day to day basis.

I don't think I've ever seen a president so scrutinized on a day to day basis.

you mean since Clinton and his sex scandal. Because I do remember that guy being annoyed in that private matter on a daily basis as well. He wasn't ruining the country, maybe his marriage, but not the country. That's what the current Prez is doing.

Not be too critical, but how old were you when Clinton was in office? Remember the haircut thing?

What about Clinton? When I was 16 I met him, and wasn't allowed to stand next to him at a press conference because it would have "cast him in a bad light with constituents."

Miss Dev, you're my new hero. Any average person who can cast a president in a bad light by their mere presence must kick ass.

I'm assuming you weren't wearing a NAMBLA T-Shirt or something, right?

Please name something that he's done that hasn't turned into a huge deal

Rendition. He should be prosecuted as the war criminal that he is.

Something tells me that NAMBLA would be even less in the interests of a 16 year old girl than the rest of the population, so I'll guess no.

Why is it that every time Bush does something that most modern presidents have done in the past, it turns into such a big scandal?

First, I guess you wernt around when Clinton was President, this is not bigger a scandal than it was then. Republicans in particular were outraged.

Second, if its wrong, its wrong. The fact the other Presidents have done something bad in the past doesnt mean we should ignore it now.

Third, like many things the Bush administration has pushed such abuses to new heights although its difficult to say for sure because they wont realease detailed accountings to the public. Bush has raised far more money than any President in history and there is little doubt this bill is the biggest in history.

Fourth, what specifically do you have a problem with in this report?

Something tells me that NAMBLA would be even less in the interests of a 16 year old girl than the rest of the population, so I'll guess no.

Perhaps. Or perhaps that would be the most extreme example of the perfect "ironic t-shirt!"

catch22 is correct that the republicans were outraged about the Clinton haircut-on-the-tarmac incident. To me, this shows that this isn't about the governmental waste, it is about unfair politics, or the republicans would still be upset, but they aren't.

Miss Dev, you're my new hero. Any average person who can cast a president in a bad light by their mere presence must kick ass.

Maybe they were afraid that Bill would grope her. I'll bet that Miss Dev is hot.

George Bush says he is a "War President" Is this appropriate for a War President!?

I would like to add a fifth point to my prior comment:

Fifth, President Bush keeps referring to himself as a "war president" and his administration continues to make claims that this "war" is much like WWII and/or that this threat is the greatest threat ever posed by the nation. IF you accept this, then its perfectly appropriate to hold him to a higher standard than to other non-"war presidents". Conduct that was criticized in times of peace, become even more "scandalous" in times of war. If the administration wants to continue to use such heated rhetoric and Nazi appeasement language, then they should have the decency to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

@Prophet - aww... thanks for the confidence - actually, at the time I was pretty hot (it was July in DC - blech!). Actually, they let me (and the others I was travelling with) take photos with him (the White House photographer took them) and he was a perfect gentleman. All three times I've met him he's been just really great.

It's all about perceptions. As they say in the film The American President: "being president is all about character."

The article's attempt to make it sound like Bush is the first guy to do this is pretty lame.

If you read the whole article you would see that it makes quite clear that Bush is not the first guy to do this. For example:

Ritsch said the system is likely to remain for the foreseeable future — mostly because both Democrats and Republicans have benefited, leaving little will on either side to change it.

Now the author should have done more research and told us whether or not Bush used this perk more than any other President. I would be willing to wager that along with the fact that Bush has raised a LOT more money for politics than any President in history, that his trips have also cost the taxpayers a LOT more money.

This isnt new, but like a lot of things Bush takes things that have been abused in the past and pushes them to new heights while preaching against such things.

The article's attempt to make it sound like Bush is the first guy to do this is pretty lame.

I was referring specially to the headline - sorry I wasn't clear.

You know, I honestly wouldn't put it past him.

I'm as anti-tax and government waste as anybody, but it is not like he can just go and buy his own first class ticket and go campaigning without the secret service and everything else which adds up to the giant cost.

I'd welcome a decent alternative.

Miss Dev, I completely agree with you. That is one of the things the government does that upsets me the most. Like how in order for the budget to get passed all the congressmen have to get their own stuff put in for their campaign financiers. There is so much waste in our government. I bet we could easily change our deficit into a surplus by reducing a lot of that waste. I hope to someday be in congress and try to help fix the problem but for now all I can do is complain.

I'm as anti-tax and government waste as anybody, but it is not like he can just go and buy his own first class ticket and go campaigning without the secret service and everything else which adds up to the giant cost

Why not? He's not doing his elected duty. He is campaigning for his party on his own time (he has lots of that since he's on vacation 50% of the time).

Why should we be paying for things we aren't paying him to do?

Let him drive for all I care.

gnoleb, the Secret Service protects the president whether he working or not, or would you rather the protection stop the moment the President goes "off the clock?

Having the President drive instead of fly would be a logistical nightmare. Imagine if the President wanted to travel from just Philly to NYC. He would have to take rt 95, accept that is a major major highway with traffic all the time. For safety it would have to be cleared so the President can go through. Do you think the residents and commuters of PA, NJ and NY would like that very much? I imagine that would cost quite a bit more when you add in lost opportunity costs and whatnot.

Adam, here's an alternative. Lay off the damn trips. He gets paid 400 grand a year to govern the friggin country, not politic for his party!

We are the proud owners of a political system that put party ahead of country. Since when has it been OK for a politician getting paid anywhere from 165 grand to over 400 grand, to spend half his time politicking for his or someone else's re-election? Is this what we pay them for?

The system is truly broke......

Adam, here's an alternative. Lay off the damn trips.

So your alternative is to remove the President's freedom of speech, association and travel?

@Adam - if you were in the employ of a company, and you wanted to go - say - help a friend build his house - would your company willing pay for your travel expenses for this clearly personal errand? No. So if the president wants to help his buddies by campaigning for them - he's more than welcome to do that - it's his right - but it's our right, as his employer, to say that we won't pay for it. I'm sure that there are less expensive ways for the president to travel safely - maybe a fighter jet? Or an Air Force cargo plane? Both can be secured by secret service in a way a private jet maybe could not - but they are smaller, and use less fuel, and require less staff - so would be less expensive. Since each Air Force One trip costs $60,000 an hour - and for these campaign trips they are only for one man's journey - I'm sure we can work out a cheaper way for him to do his personal business.

Of course, there are also the most obvious solutions - the GOP, the person who the President is campaigning for, or the President himself could foot the bill for his personal campaigning trips. I think that sounds more than fair.

Sorry - source.

But what if while the President is on board the cheaper fighter jet or cargo plane WWIII broke out when someone lobbed some nukes at someone else. The President can do very little from there. On Air Force One the President can basically conduct a war or any business that he could do while at the White House. Even though the President is on a personal trip, he is still "on call" for every minute of it.

The GOP or the person he is campaigning for does foot the cost of what the bill would be, if the President could practically take another transportation. They do pay for the cost of a first class ticket for any campaign personnel.

Federal Election Commission guidelines say the campaign must reimburse the government only the equivalent of a first-class fare for each political traveler on each leg of the trip.

Comparing the President's job to that of an average person is a bit of a stretch. The average person is under no threat of assassination, nor is the average person on call around the clock to react to whatever is going on in the world.

And again it is not like President Bush is the first President to do this, nor is he the only politician to travel to campaign functions on the government's dime. Senators and Representatives often travel on government money to locations and events that have nothing to do with their official position.

Senators and Representatives often travel on government money to locations and events that have nothing to do with their official position.

I call shenanigans on that, as well. In fact, in lew of the concession I'm about to make, that's even greater bull than the President doing personal errands on taxpayer dime.

But I do take your point about being "on-call." The President does need to have the ability to respond to any potential crisis - and AF1 does allow for that. And as long as we are sure that the person he is campaigning for is paying the government (thus, the taxpayers) back for some of the President's trip - then I can't complain. But saying they are supposed to do it - and it actually happening - are two different things.

And as long as we are sure that the person he is campaigning for is paying the government (thus, the taxpayers) back for some of the President's trip - then I can't complain. But saying they are supposed to do it - and it actually happening - are two different things.

Sounds rather fair to me.

Why not just charge the full expense of using AF1 and the cost of his entourage back to the preznit? They do that for the WH kitchen.

Why not just charge the full expense of using AF1 and the cost of his entourage back to the preznit? They do that for the WH kitchen.

Do they charge the entire White House back to the President?

Again, part of the reason why he takes AF1 is that he is always on the job. It is a business expense. Just as long as the campaign guys pay at least as much as they would have had to travel commercially, that seems rather fair.

Yall are ridiculous, lets go back since planes were invented, and send a bill to every president who flew in the plane.

We're ridiculous for questioning how our tax dollars are spent? I don't see how that adds up... we're having a discussion on whether this is legitimate use of taxpayer money - I think that's that opposite of ridiculous...

No it isnt, but why are you only saying send Bush a bill, hell lets go back to the beg. and bill them all, I'm sure they all have kids somewhere.

Andrew: I've been following along with this conversation and I'm not sure who you are implying said send Bush a bill (and no one else) is accurate to what is being said. This is about correcting the system in place and ensuring that future tax dollars get spent on governing and not campaigning. I've not heard anyone talk about such a thing being retro-active, but perhaps you could point out where someone has?

I tend to agree with Adam that this is a cost that should be expected for our President and something of a perk of the job (I'm paraphrasing Adam, so feel free to correct me), although obviously there could stand to be some adjustments made. Sean and I also were describing this at the beginning of the comments.

This is not just 'Bush-bashing' and you seem to be jumping to conclusions too quickly.

Just as long as the campaign guys pay at least as much as they would have had to travel commercially, that seems rather fair.

He doesn't have to campaign. That's not what we're paying him for. If this is something that he wants to do, he should foot the bill.

Lazzerus47,

I think you are right and he was just being sarcastic.

What would be different is if Bush pardoned crimes done by people in his own administration as President. The Bush adminstration is already trying to get Congress to retroactively make crimes that may have committed already no longer illegal. If that fails I wouldnt be too surprised if he ends up pardoning crimes committed under his own orders or people like Scooter Libby. That would be different. The closest analogy would be his father's issuance of pardons committed when he was Vice President, when a trial threatened to bring more of the Iran Contra scandal to light.

I've definitely got to work on my sarcastic writing. :)

The fact of the matter is that sarcasm does not translate well into a purely written format. Studies have shown that people who write sarcasm consistently overestimate how clear there intent is and the people vastly overestimate their own sarcasm detectors.

While I appreciate humor, the over use of sarcasm tends to lower the level of debate and produce confusion and reinforce some people who miss the sarcasm while reinforcing others who see those who disagree with them as idiots.

If you're referring to the accompanying photo, I'm pretty sure the president is waving hello. However, if we're going to start playing the photo-caption game, my entry is Little help here? Your president just twisted his ankle! Stupid Barney.

But it's Bush whose doing it, who apparently is the devil incarnate.