This is where my idea comes in. We need to have a real tea party where everyone who is sick and tired of Washington spending our tax payer money like they rule over us. Everyone needs to up their deductions on their w4 forms and have a tax tea party and starve the beast. If millions of people do this with no federal tax coming out of their paychecks then maybe they will start to think about how they are spending OUR MONEY! Do the math. If an average of $175.00 in fed taxes comes out of your paycheck multiply that by just 3,000,000 people (I would like more to do it) that would be $525,000,000.00 that the government couldnt spend just that week. Multiply that by 2 times a month for several months to see how much that would be. If 25,000,000 people did this (x average of $175.00)it would total $4,375,000,000 just that one time.
Keep the money in a savings account and dont spend it. Do this for a few months or the rest of the year and make sure you save enough to pay the taxes you owe at the end of the year. If enough people do this it could change Washington for the better.

Dragonslayer, that's a nice idea, but not having the money never stopped Washington from spending it anyway. And if people figured out a way to "protect" their income via W-4 exemptions, look for Washington to start disallowing certain exemptions, and accusing withholders of being greedy.

Failure to have enough withheld will mean you will be paying a penalty.

Vote for the right people. Then vote for more right people. Utah has a chance to primary out a prolific porker. Look for similar opportunities. It's our money and our freedom.

Just in case you were interested, this is a C-37 like the one Secreatary Panetta flew, which is a militarized version of the Gulfstream corporate jet.

Just a tasty tidbit for the airplane fans.

This is one of the few expenditures that I have to agree with in principle.

He is one of the people who CANNOT fly commercial due to his position... but he should not be able to fly back and forth as if it's TDY. When he flies anywhere on business, sure he needs that C-37. ELSE, he needs to move the wife to DC, just like anyone else would.

And that should go for Pilosi, et, al.

It's called relocation for your job. WHEN you are in congress, there should be a certain mandated number of times you can fly back to talk to constituents as a business trip.

Not to go pet the dog.

I was outraged until I read this part:

"George Little, the Pentagon press secretary, said Mr. Panetta has asked department officials to see if there are lower-cost options that would enable him to travel with secure communications equipment. 'No one wants the secretary of defense making decisions on classified military operations from the middle seat on a crowded commercial jet,' Mr. Little said."

So basically he reimburses the government the cost of a normal ticket, and the difference is because of all the secure communications equipment that he is required to have with him.

I don't see a problem with that. The extra money is for communications equipment so he can do his job while he's away from work. Does a corporation charge its employees extra when it gives them a corporate blackberry and requires them to carry it for work purposes? Of course not. So why shouldn't the government have a similar policy? Especially given the "we should run the government like a business" meme that we constantly hear.

"I am an airline pilot based in Boston, but I choose to live in Atlanta. I am responsible for getting myself to and from work at my own expense and on my own time. I am prohibited by the Internal Revenue Service from deducting the expense of commuting."

This airline pilot brings up a great example. First of all because he works for an airline the cost of him getting a flight somewhere is $0. His employer pays for it. So why should different rules apply to a government employee who works for an agency that coordinates air travel? Being in the military I can tell you that army/navy/air force flys just as many cargo or passenger planes if not more than a small airline does. In fact the pilot has a much sweeter deal because unlike Mr. Panetta he doesn't have to reimburse the airline the price of a regular ticket.

Of course the pilot has to ride on standby, but getting on a standby flight from one major hub to another is easy. My brother worked as a baggage handler for a while, and he was making trips from Chicago to South Florida almost every weekend. He had no problem getting a flight, and usually flew 1st class. Also obviously baggage handlers have a much lower priority when flying somewhere then pilots.

Mike obviously doesn't know too many pilots, or baggage handlers.

Unix-Jedi:

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Pilots can fly in the jump seat, also, but it is harder to get on a flight during a holiday because of the flights being overbooked.

Mike:

I didn't drop a laugher like this:

Also obviously baggage handlers have a much lower priority when flying somewhere then pilots."

Whether it's "obvious" to you or not, that's not how it works.

"Of course the pilot has to ride on standby, but getting on a standby flight from one major hub to another is easy."

I just laughed so hard I snorted and scared the cat.

I don't know how long ago your brother was flying non-revenue, but it hasn't been *easy* to fly standby like that for at least ten year. (Probably longer.)

Now obviously for the flight crews who live somewhere other than the major hub for their airline it's worth the inconvenience. But it isn't *easy.*

Gee, Mike, Patrick Smith writes about commuting in Ask the Pilot, and he's not so casual about it.

Of course, such a pilot does not have a right to travel by airplane, according to you. I'm still waiting to hear of a mode of travel that is your right.

"I just laughed so hard I snorted and scared the cat."

"I don't know how long ago your brother was flying non-revenue, but it hasn't been *easy* to fly standby like that for at least ten year. (Probably longer.)"

"Now obviously for the flight crews who live somewhere other than the major hub for their airline it's worth the inconvenience. But it isn't *easy.*"

He was flying for free on standby for a year and a half, and did so with no problems until two months ago when he finally found a white collar job. He went to school, graduated, and was unable to find a job in his field for a while so he worked as a baggage handler.

"Of course, such a pilot does not have a right to travel by airplane, according to you. I'm still waiting to hear of a mode of travel that is your right."

Any other mode of travel you wish as long as you're not on someone else's property, and contracting with another party to use their airplane/vehicle as a mode of transportation. When you use someone another persons property you have to follow their rules while you do it.

"Any other mode of travel you wish as long as you're not on someone else's property, and contracting with another party to use their airplane/vehicle as a mode of transportation. When you use someone another persons property you have to follow their rules while you do it."

Artful dodge.

In what mode of travel have you the right to move without being searched absent probable cause?

The airlines aren't responsible for patting you down, and you damned well know that.

"He was flying for free on standby for a year and a half, and did so with no problems until two months ago "

Well I can't argue with his experiences but I am amazed and jealous that it went so swimmingly for him with less than two years of seniority. Last time my dad (pilot for 25+ years) went non-rev from Charlotte back to Pittsburgh it took him something like five tries.

He is one of the people who CANNOT fly commercial due to his position...

Bullshit. The secretary of defense doesn't really do shit but stand around and pontificate. Moreover, he sleeps at night doesn't he? He takes many trips and does many things where he isn't available for several hours at a time. The notion that ANY given person in government is needed 24x7 is both a conceit and a problem.

He can fly Delta.

Panetta does it because he can. It's about him using his power because nobody has the balls to tell him no (such as Obama or Congress.) His claim that he wants a cheaper alternative is a lie.

'Cost of doing biz. Absorb it