PINAR DEL RIO


support babalú


Your donations help fund
our continued operation

do you babalú?

what they’re saying


bestlatinosmall.jpg

quotes.gif

activism


ozt_bilingual


buclbanner

recommended reading





babalú features





recent comments


  • Gallardo: In any self-respecting country such megalomaniacal piece of shit would not have been put in an insane asylum but rather in a...

  • Humberto Fontova: Matter was explained at the time–where else?–right here at Babalu. Big-time AIPAC beneficiary and Israel...

  • Honey: Antonio2009, yes Netanyahu says a lot of things that perplex me, like how wonderful the relationship is with Obama and the U.S....

  • Honey: I would like someone to explain to me why the U.N. remains in NYC, in America. Please send this monstrosity to Cuba or Gaza or...

  • antonio2009: Israel applies its doublespeak to Cuba. Netanyahu was praising Fidel Castro in 2010 https://romancatholicworld....

search babalu

babalú archives

frequent topics


elsewhere on the net



realclearworld

It’s good to be the King (Part 235)

Do as I say, not as I do.

Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies.

But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.

The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet price tag: about $65 million as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service.

But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials.

Because the Appropriations Committee viewed the additional aircraft as an expansion of an existing Defense Department program, it did not treat the money for two more planes as an earmark, and the legislation does not disclose which Member had requested the additional money.

Comments are closed.