CBS puts the cost of the military flights at about $170,000 (which doesn’t include the commercial flights, hundreds of hotel stays, and 10’s-of-thousands of dollars in meals and other expenses).  “This nation’s hurting.  But Nancy Pelosi can use 3 military jets… and then refuse to answer any questions about it,” says Jack Cafferty, CNN.  “What a horrible woman she is.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks with GM CEO Ed Whitacre, alongside UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, center, while they view a Chevy Volt on Monday at the North American International Auto Show. (SUSAN TUSA/Detroit Free Press)

When Pelosi visited the North American International Auto Show at Cobo Center yesterday (Monday), she was met by protesters.  Upset with the recent bailout of the auto industry, they couldn’t miss the opportunity to voice their indignation with the Speaker of the House.  Her comments, no doubt, only added fuel to the fire.

“Our hopes are riding on the auto industry succeeding in this country,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi…

She led a congressional delegation to the show and — after riding in the hybrid versions of the GMC Sierra pickup and Chevy Equinox — declared: “The investment that taxpayers made in the auto industry is one that will be rewarded.”

[...]

“There is no doubt the American auto industry needs help, but the Democrats’ solution of government takeovers and expansion isn’t the answer,” said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kristen Kurkowski.

[...]

About two dozen Tea Party activists picketed outside of Cobo Center… The state and national Republican parties mocked Pelosi for her comments that the visit was historic.

Detroit Free Press

It’s quite humorous to consider the presumed number-one carbon emitter in Congress taking delight in a hybrid car.  This presumption is of course based on her military jet, which has been flying the Madame Speaker coast-to-coast since 9/11.   Cost is estimated to be around $60,000 one way, and that doesn’t include food… or flowers.

Picture courtesy of The Absurd Report.

He asks John for 3-5 hot topics, to which John replies:  Individual liberty, respect for the Constitution and the free market.

Nancy Pelosi’s jet transportation has costs the American taxpayers $21- to $28-million over the last 3 years, and we are borrowing 1/3rd of that money.  “That to me is unconscionable,” he says.
Dennis has the ambitious goal of ending the IRS, saying that we do not need the income tax to fund the government, despite popular belief.

When asked about the drug war, he recognizes the futility, saying: “I think we’ve seen that we’re not prohibiting anybody from doing anything.”  We are creating an underclass of former prisoners and costing a fortune, all for what?   Liberty is not a “salad bar”; if you are going to accept it, you have to accept the whole package.

He also feels the 700+ bases around the world need to be reevaluated from a socio-economic perspective.  We really should stop at “what is constitutional” and what isn’t.  Upon review, we may find that these bases do not make us safer, and certainly are not affordable.

Regarding Social Security, John considers it a pyramid scheme that depends on population growth.  We should allow people to opt out of the system and be responsible for their own retirement.

The following is taken from a recent article written by Mr. Norris:

Phrases such as “creation of new levels of cooperation,” “a shift in global investment patterns,” “adjust global economic growth patterns,” “integrated system of financial and technology transfer mechanisms,” “new agreed post-2012 institutional arrangement and legal framework,” “new institutional arrangement will provide technical and financial support for developing countries,” “global fund,” etc., are messages that make one wonder how far this political body’s arm would reach into our country and force our hands into others.

Read in full

Protesters outside the Wortham Center before the Nancy Pelosi event June 12, 2009. (www.flickr.com)

Between the recently passed healthcare reform bill (in the House) and the cap-and-trade bill (HR 2454, House passed June 2009), I really hope the Senate takes their time with the hefty legislation on their agenda, and that’s a rare thing for me to hope.  Both of these policies will overtax the poor; indirectly, it may be argued, but they will feel the tax nonetheless.

“This historic legislation is the product of months of consensus building to achieve an effective and affordable transition to a clean energy future,” Pelosi says, who supported and voted for the bill.  The bill is nearly 1,500 pages and was part of a global effort to regulate industry.  As usual, I should offer this disclaimer: no one likes pollution, we all wish to address the issue.  The solutions provided however disrupt our freedoms, to be concise, and have potentially dangerous ulterior motives.

The following is taken from the Senate Republican Policy Committee website entitled:

Pelosi’s Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax:
Skyrocketing Costs, Disappearing Jobs, Struggling Economy
All for Nothing?

Skyrocketing Costs to Families and Farms
• Under Obama and Pelosi’s proposed energy tax – known as “cap and trade” – every American
family would pay more when they turn on the lights, set their thermostat, or fill up with gasoline.
• As a candidate for president, then-Senator Obama admitted, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade
system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”1
• Since energy is used to make and provide other goods and services, Americans would see higher
costs across the board. Recent studies show that these “indirect” energy costs are nearly as high
as “direct” energy costs of gasoline, electricity, and home heating fuel.2 The director of the
Congressional Budget Office testified it was unlikely any product’s price would stay the same.3
• In testimony before Congress in April 2008 Peter Orszag said: “Under a cap-and-trade program,
firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances but instead would pass them
along to their customers in the form of higher prices…price increases would be essential to the
success of a cap and trade program.”4
• The CBO has projected that gross costs of compliance would go up an average of $890 per
household (some will go up by $1,380) in 2020, one of the lowest cost years in the program.5
And that figure did not include any costs from a slowing economy or transition costs.
• A report by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute found that a typical 1,900 acre
corn, soybean and wheat farm in Missouri could see increased costs of $11,649 in 2015 and
$30,152 in 2050.6
Bottom line: Skyrocketing costs of energy and everything else due to cap-and-trade.

Read the rest here; job loss, struggling economy and environmental issues…

How about a tax provision for biofuels, including ethanol?  Now, I know what you’re thinking, biofuels have nothing to do with healthcare.  But I assure you they do.  Unfortunately, the legislation proposed and supported by Madame Speaker is only making things worse, not better.  Let me explain briefly…

Besides the common sense uneasiness agriculture intervention by the government lends to the public as a whole, who would prefer to know that their nation can sustain itself with its agriculture needs with a variety of crops supported by the free market, there are many other logical reasons to question government subsidies.  The destructive path such legislation has paved is evident in a number of agribusinesses, but let’s take corn as our example.

Under the guise of public necessity, our government manipulates crop production according to foreign policy via subsidies.  No sugar from Cuba?  Let’s grow more corn and make corn syrup (it worked for Europe with beet sugar, right?).  We’ll subsidize the farmers so they can meet the market’s demand at such a reduced price that no profiteer will complain (so low that it doesn’t even come close to breaking even for production!  In other words, large “junk food” corporations are better off buying from government subsidized farmers than growing their own corn- or other sugar product).

Subsequently, farmers swap their crops out in favor of corn due to the profitable government subsidies.  It’s hard to say no, when the government has distributed around $60 billion in the last decade or so for corn alone.  With pesticides and GMO practices crops overflow with low quality feed for cattle, which, it turns out, the livestock are poorly suited to digest.  Hence, they become sick and consistently need large doses of antibiotics.  (By the way, Turkey issued a new regulation on its “food and feed products,” meaning our exports will take a hit because our low quality GMO-pesticide-contaminated corn we feed our livestock in the US is not acceptable in Turkey.  Turkey is the largest buyer of corn gluten feed from the US.)

In turn, we eat beef of inferior quality, and some say our diet is dangerously contaminated as a result.  Now we are using the excess corn to fund a new market and perpetuate the intrusive government subsidies.  Biofuel is disguised as a contender to the oil tycoons yet is actually costly to make and has a number of negative consequences.  Not to say the oil tycoons should continue their energy monopoly, but rather that the solutions offered are often cleverly concealed and should not be accepted at face value.