I continually find myself drawn in to discussions on various political websites, and a particular issue that certain members like to bring up from time to time is how the President is costing the taxpayers so much money on his vacations, and even flying cross-country to deliver speeches.
Is there a finite budget for travel expenses for the President? Would a President who has a home in Maryland end up saving the taxpayers more money than one who lives in Hawaii? I mean, what happens if the entire budget isn’t spent? Does it magically get returned to the taxpayers or something?
Is going after a President for spending money budgeted for travel a fair argument to make? Is there a way to see what the travel budget is for the President? Could the President actually reach a point where he wouldn’t be able to fly cross-country to make a speech because his budget has already been spent?
Any insights on these issues would be greatly appreciated.
I thought that his vacations are paid from his own pocket, and campaign speeches paid by the campaign. No cites, sorry to say.
And I’m curious about other speeches. Let’s say for example, that he is asked to speak at the graduation ceremonies of some college or high school somewhere. I can see an argument that this is one of his duties as Chief Morale Officer of the nation, and that it should be covered by the taxpayers, but would I be correct?
Well, taxpayers pay for the paid vacations of all government employees at the local, state, and federal levels all the time. Where is the outrage over that?
But even while on vacation, the President is the President which means, as stated above, he’s still on the clock getting daily security briefings and being ready to run back to work at a moment’s notice (which he had to do just recently during Christmas break). Also, as President, he can’t load up the SUV and just drive off. Wherever he goes, it must be Airforce One or some other suitable bubble of ultra-security.
This President was actually born and partly raised in Hawaii. If he wants to vacation in his home state, then, well, he deserves to. Previous administrations famously vacationed in their home states or nearby resorts (Texas ranches, Martha’s Vineyard, Kennebunkport, etc…). It’s not like he’s taking advantage of his office by staying in the royal suites of Monte Carlo or San Moritz.
The concerns of some over the cost of such vacations rarely come from members of their own party. Ask those who complain of the current costs if they complained over the same costs in the previous administrations. IOW… such concerns are rarely about the actual cost but more of a political jab.
WRT purely political speeches for election: Yes, the campaign pays for that. Otherwise, policy speeches are part of the job and on the taxpayer’s dime. But again, ask those who don’t like paying for the current administration’s policy speeches over which they disagree whether they also expressed a dislike for paying for the previous administration’s policy speeches over which they did agree. Not likely. But it would be interesting if they can pull up their screed against such things dated anywhere from 2000-2008.
I think you’re talking about getting a salary while not working.
When the OP compared Hawaii and Maryland, it became clear to me that the OP is asking about travel costs. I’m pretty sure that if a mayor wants to vacation in Hawaii, the government does NOT pay for his plane ticket.
If the trip is purely political, the campaign pays for it. If the trip is job-related, a diplomatic trip to China or Britain, say, or a speech in front of the Poukeepsie Chamber of Commerce on how the government plans to protect the heritage of towns with funny names, then of course it is government business and the government pays for it.
If he goes on vacation, then presumably he should pay his own trip - except, it is the government that insists he be accompanied by the secret service detail, the minimum level of advisors and aides, communication gear, armoured limo, the guy with the big red button, etc - so technically all that is the government’s idea (and they do it for every president) so they pay for that. It’s probably cheaper than a state funeral and several days of government shutdown in Washington from skipping the security detail.
As for what it all costs - the White Hosue likely has a budget that plans for X days of travel; so many miles on AF1, so many people put up in hotels and so on… Based on the number of days, an average mix of trips, and the past decade’s travel plans. If the budget goes over, well, I’m sure they know where to transfer budget allocations from to cover it.
I know with politicians in Canada, if they take their friends or family along on the trip as a perk, they are expected to reimburse the equivalent airfare. I wonder if that is how AF1 handles campaign trips? After all, it’s still the government that wants the trappings of government with the president. Just the campaign staff is not on government business. The bus I assume is paid for by the campaign, but I suspect the chase mobiles with the Secret Service and the others are on the government tab.
Sometimes (i.e. cash-conscious campaigns) they charge the press corps for the spaces they take up on the plane. (IIRC Air Force 1 has a back section for a few dozen reporters.) it may be cheaper or simpler to fly a reporter to Hawaii commercial, but when you are keeping up with a guy hitting 10 countries in 10 days, commericial just don’t hack it.
Several, in fact. The President doesn’t just use the VC-25As to get around. The last several presidents have flown all over the world in Gulfstreams and the like.
There are ways to get around it. We had one ambassador who would arrange to give a seminar at his alma mater, which meant that his transportation costs from Africa to Michigan were paid by the government. I used to attend conferences and extend my stay for short vacations. That meant the plane ticket and one or two nights were on the government, while the rest was on my nickel. As long as you don’t charge the taxpayer for your personal costs beyond official business, it’s legit.
IIRC the Canadian military “owns” the big jet the Canadian Prime Minister uses for official travel. So a huge amount of the travel costs (running a passenger jet) is buried in the military budget. The PM office picks up hotels, limos etc. The Mounties pay for security (and I assume the travel costs for the security detail - hotels etc.) out of their own budget. Figuring out the “real cost” of a trip is a complex exercise.
It would not surprise me if the total travel costs are similarly distributed all over the place in the US budget too. After all, an aircraft costs money for maintenance etc. just sitting on the ground.
Indeed, as md2000 thought, the budget for running Air Force One is buried in military expenditures. And the press are charged for flying on Air Force One as well.
Campaigns used to reimburse government based upon the cost of a first class ticket for non-official campaign travel. That has changed and the reimbursement rate is now based on costs of chartering an aircraft.
But, as have presidents of both parties before him, if the president gives short speech or conducts other official duties during a trip then much of the travel expenses can be passed back to government. Obama did this by giving a 34 minute speech on a trip that included 3 fundraising stops.
A New York Times article noted reports of each president over the last 3 decades seeming to set a new record for spending on official travel “by mixing official and political travel”. The the opposing party always complains.
For what it’s worth, Air Force One and it’s crew are, as the name suggests, Air Force personnel, so their salaries at least come out of the Air Force’s budget. Dunno how the operating costs work though, that might be a special budget separate from the “normal” Air Force budget.
Which means, of course, that complaints are never legimate.
/ sarc
Without moving this thread to GD, I’ll just offer my brief opinion: it’s disgraceful in a republican democracy that the temporary leader of the nation (not to mention their spouses) can travel on our tax dollars in a fashion heretofore reserved for the most opulent monarchs in human history. Republicans, Democrats, I don’t care who does it, it’s demonstrably getting worse. Anyone who has ever had the misfortune of being stuck behind a presidential motorcade or watched their community come to a screeching halt as the hundreds of people descend upon it knows of what I write.
These men (and women) are public servants. I don’t begrudge them their vacations, but… c’mon.
Exposing the president and his family to assassination, kidnapping and the like are far worse alternatives. Your temporary inconvenience notwithstanding, of course.