http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/2016-private-jets-candidates-214894
This article doesn't boast the most controversial political news but I think that it is very important when forming our opinions about the presidential candidates. It is crazy how much spending has been put into private flying but not totally unreasonable because the politicians do need to travel far and quickly so that can continue their campaigning. Even so 2.5 million dollars invested by all of the candidates combined into chartered flying is probably why people distrust politicians so much. I think that paying so much for private planes is illogical and very selfish for Bush, Clinton and Trump who are the biggest spenders in these flights. At least Trump owns the company he flies with. Besides the fact that these payments probably boost the economy although these selfish aristocrats most likely don't fly for this reason, the bottom line is how can we trust these people to respond to the common needs when they are so addicted to their lavish lifestyle? This amount of spending is ludicrous! If they want privacy then at least fly first class. After reading this article, I view the candidates in a new light. Chris Christie is probably the most admirable because he flies commercial most of the time though that's probably what his campaign can afford. In the end: Is this issue really important when we weigh the politicians?
While both the environment and money could definitely be saved by using commercial jets, I honestly don't think this will matter as much since no matter who is elected president, that person would still use charter jets for safety reasons. While it is admirable of Chris Christie to fly commercial, it's probably because he can't afford to splurge money like this, as you said. No matter what we feel on the issue, I don't think this would change their views on the issue nor the general public's when electing a candidate. I don't think this is something that can be changed because of security and other variables (getting to an exact location in time without having delays or stopping because of another passenger on board, etc), but if it can, it would be more holistically beneficial in a sense.
ReplyDeleteI think the main issue is not on whether they will respond to common needs or their addiction to lavish style, but more on how they will deal with our national finances. In the article, I noticed how it said that Jeb Bush's campaign proclaimed that it was going to cut back, but ended up using the most money for jets. How much would they see as "okay" to spend on national projects or movements according to their plan, advocating expensive things such as Obamacare, according to their beliefs? I don't know the standard of what is considered expensive to them, so I don't know how would they handle the current situation of national debt of several trillion dollars.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is an issue of immediate priority but is still is a valid point to bring across. As Janice pointed out, how candidates choose to allocate their money and budget is a reflection of how capable they will be when their budget will eventually become presidential in scope.
ReplyDeleteYour decision in transportation also, as mentioned, a reflection of your character - something that the American public can and will pick up on and address. For example, Bernie Sanders has gained attention for opting to fly coach, rather than privately. (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/07/18/summer-sanders-fall-sanders/FWFu6n73iroD98e4og2baM/story.html) This stays consistent with his anti-greed mantra and helps accrue support from his populist fans, who find him more relatable. Especially since an anti-establishment and anti-politician mentality is in vogue, perhaps its better for politicians to liken themselves to the common American and become more trustworthy, rather than practice what a normal politician would.