Panetta, defense cuts, and weekends in CA
The Washington Post, in a link sent to us by Chief Tango, talks about Leon Panetta, the Defense Secretary, and the dilemma he finds himself in what with $1.2T in defense cuts looming on the horizon. Clearly, Panetta was sent to DoD as a hatchet man who merely salutes and executes, but the Washington Post sympathizes with him;
By contrast, Panetta sometimes sounds more like a congressman representing the “Pentagon district” than the leader of the world’s largest military. He talks frequently about his parents, who immigrated from Italy. And he regularly rails against the possibility that the Pentagon will have to absorb $500 billion in automatic cuts if Congress cannot agree on how to trim $1.2 trillion in government spending. The cuts, triggered under an arcane process known as sequestration, would come on top of an already mandated $487 billion in reductions.
“It’s mindless, and it will…do incredible damage to our national defense,” Panetta said last month in a speech in New York.
Then, without blinking, the Post reports the thing that we’ve been harping on for months here since we found out;
As he did during his days as a congressman, Panetta spends most weekends in California, commuting home on a military jet at a cost of more than $800,000 as of this spring, the latest figures available.
Doesn’t anyone find it incongruous that he’s charged with reducing our defense posture while he spends taxpayer dollars to go home every weekend on the other side of the country – a perk that none of the people who work for him are allowed. He has tens of thousands of soldiers deployed to a foreign shit hole far from their families and homes who don’t get to see their families for months at a time, yet he gets to spend a million or so dollars to see his EVERY WEEKEND.
The Post goes on to explain that our “new” enemy is China and that our focus, in regards to defense, should be on Asia. Last I knew, Iran was still rattling their sabre in the Near East. While I agree that China is a threat, but, it appears to me that Iran is a more immediate threat, what with their terrorist cells spread through out the world and their work on their nuclear program that no one seems to have the fortitude to confront directly.
The wars we fought in the Middle East are not over until we’ve somehow restrained Iran. Embargoes don’t seem to be having the desired effect. I guess facing Asia will give the administration another “win” when China hasn’t taken over the world four years from now.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues, Terror War
Mom always told me ” If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all”…so when it comes to Panetta (and most of this regime) my lips should probably be sealed.
That other distingushed Italian American Nancy Pelosi
as Speaker of the House pulled the same shenanigans. As Speaker, she was authorized a military executive jet and was used quite frequently to travel to San Francisco – not sure if it was every weekend though. Pelosi’s predecessor Dennis Hastert also flew home to Illinois on military jet. Current Speaker John Boehner has eschewed his executive Air Force plane and flies commercial only.
I wonder if SECDEF Panetta is going to give former 4 star GEN Kip Ward a pass for his own unauthorized outlandish spending?
As I have in the past, I’ll have to take exception here.
While the anger is justified, Panetta is IMO not the appropriate target. Panetta has enough money to travel commercially to/from the West Coast to spend time with his family every weekend. He also notified the POTUS that returning home every weekend when feasible based on his duty schedule was a non-negotiable condition of his taking the job.
Moreover: Panetta is not the one requiring the use of Government aircraft. Rather, that requirement is coming from the POTUS. And Panetta is also paying exactly what it would cost him to fly coach commercial, so he’s getting no economic benefit from returning home. In fact, he’s probably paying more than he could were he to use a good travel agent and fly commercial. Good travel agents can usually get better deals than standard coach fare.
Again: anger is justified, but IMO not anger at Panetta. Panetta is simply following existing policy when he does something he’s authorized to do on his own time – e.g., go home for the weekend. If that policy is stupid, then the issue is with the person making the policy and not the one following orders. Presidential directive requires that the SECDEF fly exclusively on DoD aircraft – at all times, even for personal travel. It has since April 2009. Prior to April 2009, the SECDEF had the option to travel commercially within CONUS on personal business. Under current policy, the SECDEF no longer has that option.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/450056p.pdf
Irony, it’s not just for breakfast anymore.
I agree w/ Hondo. Much of the same applied to the Speaker of the House after 9/11. It’s just that nancy pushed the envelope and demanded larger aircraft and comforts than was necessary. I doubt any of those folks opened up any extra seats on their flights to space-A pax…
Hondo; You spent time in uniform, right? Now, suppose you took over a unit and one of your conditions to assuming leadership of that unit was that you wouldn’t have to spend a night in the field and your new commander agreed to it. Now fast-forward to your first field problem…would you feel like a real leader if took advantage of that agreement with your commander and left your troops in the field while you went home to your cool, crisp percale sheets while they slept in the mud?
Just because he made it a condition of his employment, doesn’t mean he has to take advantage of it EVERY WEEKEND, does it? To me, he lacks leadership by not setting the example. He never should have been allowed to take the job if he was going to be the guy telling everyone to do more with less, while he takes extravagant trips every weekend on the taxpayer dime.
Not only is he telling everyone to do more with less, he’s ordering people to separate from their families for months at a time, while he can’t spend more than five days away from his.
Serious lack of leadership. He never should have been the Secretary of Defense because he’s the perfect example of what is wrong with elitist politicians who are supposed to be leading the uniformed services.
Is there any way we could get Mr. Panetta to start reading TAH? I do believe the man would find it refreshing to hear the truth…if perhaps a bit painful.
Hearken back to the $1 a year men of WW2…
I don’t necessarily hold withe the “Greatest Generation were Gods” line of hooey, but in many respects many of them were a far classier act than the current crop seems to be. It may be policy that flies Panetta home military – however, as Jonn said, he doesn;’ have to exploit it tirelessly and I sure would be interested in seeing how much space-A is being allotted to the kids trying to travel out of DC on a weekend.
Jonn: we probably should just agree to disagree here.
Yes, I spent a fair amount of time in uniform. I also had to obey a lot of orders and follow a lot of policies with which I disagreed or which I thought were stupid, too. But as I recall I didn’t have much choice in following those policies or orders, either.
To reiterate: Panetta’s not demanding to use MILAIR to travel home on the weekend. He’s merely complying with existing DoD policy and the POTUS’s directive that he use MILAIR vice flying commercial.
IMO it certainly appears to be unnecessary today to require the SECDEF to do all off-duty personal air travel via government aircraft. However, when a lawful policy is unnecessary and stupid, then the blame for the effects of that policy rightfully lies with the person making policy and not the one complying with or enforcing same. Panetta didn’t make this policy; that came from the POTUS, effective April 2009.
If the argument is that Panetta is spending too much time away from his job as SECDEF by traveling back and forth to visit his family every weekend, well, I might possibly be persuaded to change my mind. I also agree that the cost of his weekend travel is excessive. But regarding the latter, I think the blame for that rightfully goes the person who’s requiring Panetta to use the government aircraft.
All Panetta is doing is going home for the weekend. He has the cash to fly commercial, and is paying that rate each weekend he flies. Apparently he’s not normally working on weekends; he therefore is free to go spend that time as he sees fit. I don’t see it as being his fault that his employer is (IMO very foolishly) requiring him to use the “company plane” vice flying home on Delta Airlines.
I dunno.
I always have thought the Iranian threat is overrated. I am not saying that Iran is not dangerous, but the al Qaida nexus and Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia are more dangerous. I would say Pakistan has the potential to be much, much more dangerous as well.
In some ways the Chinese are a bigger threat than Iran. The Chinese are known to be fond of unrestricted warfare and may be supporting Latin American Communists, pushing drugs into the United States, and providing support to the Taliban/al Qaida gang.
The Chinese are also involved with business dealings that enrich the Sepah-e Pasdaran and improve their overall position. China also seems to use North Korea to do its dirty work in exchange for support. I would say that North Korea is a bigger threat than Iran. The North Koreans also facilitate the Iranians becoming a greater threat.
The SecDef catches a military hop and pays airfare. OK, is he on a whatever-is-available flight or a special flight, just for him? Are all those flights still on a standby-only basis?
It does seem incongruous, but if he’s paying for it, I don’t have a problem with it because it’s a condition of his job, unless he’s the only one on the plane.
I’ve done long distance commutes on weekends. They’re no fun. Why not have the family come out to DC instead? And what happenes when weather turns foul, especially ths winter? We could have a truly bad turn this winter, canceling all flights including military. What does he do then?
Ex-PH2: it’s a special flight performed by one of the DoD VIP support birds. According to other published accounts, Panetta’s flights to CA are on a C-37 – military equivalent of a 12 passenger Beechcraft corporate jet.
With that many seats, it’s possible they might allow space-A passengers on the flight – though security and the need for the SECDEF to be contactable in flight might preclude that these days. As a youngster, I and another fellow managed to snag a flight on a T-39 (7 or 10 passenger VIP jet formerly used by the military) by being at the right place at the right time when looking for a space-A flight. Can’t remember for certain, but as I recall it was a GO-support flight that simply happened to have some open seats and was going where we wanted to go.
Ex-PH2: Each flight costs us, the taxpayers, $33,000. Panetta pays back whatever the standard airfare would be – a few hundred dollars. So he really doesn’t pay us back anything at all.
$33,000 per flight, so more than what many lower enlisted troops make in a year, each flight.
Disgusting.
Hondo, I will grant you that he is not responsible for the rules. However, it is Panetta himself who is responsible for his trips actually costing us money. The rule doesn’t cost us a dime. So, yeah, I blame him for the expense.
Suit yourself, OWB. I won’t blame anyone working a remote job for going home on the weekend if they can (1) afford it, (2) have the time, and (3) want to. Family is important, and I wouldn’t particularly want to bring mine to the DC area given a choice.
But I will say that it seems stupid of their employer, absent a damn good reason, to require them to travel on the “company plane” everywhere they go. Commercial air works just fine for personal travel, and everyone has someone who can fill in for them while they’re out of town or in transit back.
$33,000 per flight? I did not know that. When the gross cost is not broken down, you don’t have the real-time figures.
Okay, now I’m not okay with it. Roundtrip airfare business class runs upward of $3200, depending on where you’re going. So for one-tenth of the amount for the ‘corporate jet’ expense, he could get a ride home in the real world and none of us would have to pay for it. And his food, too.
I said upwards of $3200. That’s to Europe.
The cheap roundtrip fares (coach) DC to L.A. are $248 to $320, but you have to wait in those long lines, get groped by the TSA creeps, and pay extra for everything including handwipes.
Ex-PH2: I’m not OK with it, either. But my beef isn’t with Panetta. The policy requiring him to use MILAIR for all travel – official or personal – is IMO unnecessary and foolish and really needs to be changed. But until it is, Panetta has no choice regarding how he gets home. By DoD policy in effect since April 2009 he is required to fly on MILAIR – for either personal or official travel.
Well, why not suggest that he grab one of those transcontinental fighter jet flights that the Air Farce engages in right over my house on a regular basis?
He could pay for the gas, take his own snacks and reading material, and they could drop him off at Patuxent River (Pax River) or even on the airstrip at Bolling AFB in Anacostia Flats.
It’s MILAIR, and they have GUNS!! He’d be protected by any standard.
Ex-PH2: I think the operating costs for those are actually higher than a C-37. Besides, I think the “issue” (real or imagined) used to justify MILAIR is more a comm issue than physical security.
And the Bolling AFB runway has been closed for years. They’d have to drop him off at Andrews AFB anyway. (smile)
Seriously, the policy IMO is in serious need of being changed. But until it is, Panetta either flies via MILAIR or he doesn’t fly – going anywhere. Them’s the rules, foolish though they may be.
They could drop him out a side door over the Pentagon. ‘Chute optional.
I find it ironic that Panetta has demoted another general for lavish travel given his own travel expenses.
http://www.stripes.com/general-demoted-for-lavish-travel-spending-1.196968