Washington Post Finally Finds Government Waste They Don’t Like

The WP has been against demolishing wasteful spending from federal agencies like USAID, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and many, many more. Against getting rid of tons of federal govt bureaucrats who bring little to no value and/or are doing redundant jobs. Against waste in DEI, environmental justice, and grants. Against investigating all that waste in places like Minnesota and California. Waste that accounts for hundreds of billions, if not into over a trillion, dollars. But, the editorial board finally found something that upsets them

Zombie flights to nowhere

The Essential Air Service program, through which the government subsidizes money-losing commercial flights to tiny airports, was supposed to expire 38 years ago. Like so many zombie programs, this wasteful spending — nearly $700 million last year — persists because a small constituency, with outsize influence in the Senate, fights for it while few others care enough to push back.

That risks happening again. President Donald Trump’s new budget proposes $372 million in cuts to EAS, but key lawmakers in both parties declared that dead on arrival, including Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), a member of the committee. Their partisan affiliations are less important than the number of airports in their states receiving subsidized service: four in Maine, five in New York.

The EAS program was part of the 1978 compromise that deregulated passenger air travel, allowing airlines to compete freely on price and scheduling. Congress feared service to smaller airports would disappear without government mandates, so the deal created EAS as a 10-year stopgap to soften the transition to the free market. As the deadline approached, legislators extended it another 10 years. Then, in 1996, they made the program permanent.

Once something is created in D.C. it’s almost impossible to get rid of

It was never necessary. From 1978 to 1982, the number of passengers on flights subsidized by EAS fell by over 50 percent, even as the total number of passengers increased nationwide, suggesting that passengers did not view the “essential” service as very essential.

Nevertheless, the government continues paying to keep flights operating with barely any passengers. The floor to continue receiving subsidies is an average of just 10 passengers per day.

How dare the govt help out those rural folks!

People in communities receiving EAS subsidies frequently don’t use the subsidized flights, preferring instead to drive to larger airports with more options, according to a 2025 study by Austin Drukker, an economist at the Federal Trade Commission. The people who do take the subsidized flights tend to be from out of town and have incomes 40 percent higher than local residents.

In other words, a program created to keep people in rural communities connected to air travel is now allowing the affluent to fly in and out of remote destinations, underwritten by taxpayers.

$700 million is nothing to sneeze at, but, usually Democrats tell us this is a big nothingburger when compared to the (bloated, wasteful, insane) federal budget. Why does the WPEB have such a hate-on for this one program enough to write an editorial on it?

Trump is not even trying to eliminate the subsidies, just reduce them. If D.C. was serious about fiscal restraint, that would be on the table. Instead, the zombie flights to nowhere will continue.

Nothing like a little TDS to end the piece, trying to say Trump is not serious. Even after allowing DOGE to take a chainsaw to federal agencies and the number employed by the government, the WPEB says Trump is not serious. The thing is, DC is not serious about fiscal restraint, hasn’t been for 50 years? 100 years? Every representative and senator has their own thing they want funded. Which, really, tends not to help Americans since earmarks were eliminated (at least earmarks, no matter how wasteful, were designed to go back to districts and states, rather than overseas).

To be clear, I fully support ending the subsidy, but, now I look forward to the WPEB telling us about more wasteful spending, especially the type that goes to foreign citizens, gets used to fund Democrat campaign coffers, and bloats the federal bureaucracy.