Jet idea is not improving with time

Letter to the editor

Posted: Wednesday, May 04, 2005

In response to the "disingenuous" article by Mr. Fremming, I find it interesting that the author thinks it is "calculating" to question the actions of the governor when he asks to use, first federal money, and then state general fund money for a jet aircraft, when both the Department of Homeland Security and the state legislature have deemed the request inappropriate. Does the author seriously think that the governor wants to use a new $2 million jet aircraft to transport prisoners, respond to Homeland Security emergencies, as well as to shuttle state government personnel to and fro? I seriously doubt the airplane would be made available to any state employee other than the governor himself, let alone serve as a black maria. The reality of the situation is that the governor wants a new perk for his golden years in office, something befitting his self-importance and egotism. To imply that the few legislators who have been willing to go on record against this wasteful purchase are being disingenuous is sad. Does the author believe that those who question the financial wisdom of a $2 million "limited use" jet plane should be removed from office simply because they refuse to tow the line from on high? I support the findings of the DHS for turning down the governor's obscene funding request; it was clearly not an "efficient and effective aircraft for Homeland Security purposes" (due to the fact that it could not land at the majority of the state's airstrips).

And as for using general funds to ease the governor's travel woes, I can think of many ways $2 million would buy a lot of good will: school funding, state facilities maintenance, or aid to the elderly. A jet plane for the governor was a bad idea when it was first proposed, and it's still a bad idea.

Mathew Brock


Trending this week:


© 2018. All Rights Reserved.  | Contact Us