Pelosi and her 100K in flight tab
- Thread starter Pima
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
Hahaha
What many here are forgetting is the huge controversy of her needing the bigger Air Force Jet (not sure of the AF name but it's a Civilian 757) because the little G-4's we're not capable of flying non stop to San Fransico in the winter head winds. She pawned this off as the "Sergeant at Arms" request and she didn't ask for a bigger jet. Any child knows what game she's playing 
"Oh is that a much larger airplane???
Also the $100,000 booze bill was from back in 2007 and 2008, we still don't know what she spent since and that was only booze, her total tab for those two years is north of $2,100,000.00 to fly her and he family back and forth to Washington on her grueling 3 workdays a week schedule. I don't want to shudder, I want to puke!
**************************************************
"Judicial Watch said the newly obtained 2,000 pages of documentation show Pelosi's military travel cost the U.S. Air Force $2,100,744.59 over two years – including $101,429.14 for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. "
"Oh is that a much larger airplane??? Also the $100,000 booze bill was from back in 2007 and 2008, we still don't know what she spent since and that was only booze, her total tab for those two years is north of $2,100,000.00 to fly her and he family back and forth to Washington on her grueling 3 workdays a week schedule. I don't want to shudder, I want to puke!
**************************************************
"Judicial Watch said the newly obtained 2,000 pages of documentation show Pelosi's military travel cost the U.S. Air Force $2,100,744.59 over two years – including $101,429.14 for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. "
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 31
Nancy Pelosi is the most despicable member of Congress. The gap between perks and her abuse of power is monumental. Up until 9/11, the Speaker flew on commercial aircraft between DC and his district. However, after 9/11, it was deemed that the Speaker should travel on military aircraft for increased security. At that time, Speaker Hastert used a 12-passenger C-20 to fly between DC and his district in Illinois and the arrangement seemed appropriate. But with San Fran Nan’s district on the left coast, the C-20 often could not fly non-stop, especially with strong western headwinds. Since a 20-minute fuel stop in the Midwest was a major inconvenience, she strong-armed the military into providing a 50-seat C-32 (B-757). Besides the longer range, this aircraft provided the platform for carrying a larger entourage under more luxurious accommodations.
Unfortunately, it gets worse. According to Doug Ross at the American Thinker, it seems that Speaker P allowed her kids and grandkids to fly unaccompanied on military jets at taxpayer expense. Guess this is just another “perk” that goes along with being Speaker of the House. The Judicial Watch estimates that her travels have cost the taxpayers over $2 million in addition to $100k for food and booze. This comes at a time where this government has increased the deficit by nearly $1.5 trillion since last January. This money could have been better spent on school lunches, after school programs and midnight basketball. Or we could have used this money to put about half a dozen people back to work under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka Stimulus Bill).
It’s rather ironic that when Obama called for cuts in federal spending for FY11, Speaker P was upset that there were no cuts in defense. Yet she has no problem wasting our hard-earned dollars on military aircraft. With so much garbage coming from DC, it now appears the sleeping giant has finally awakened.
Unfortunately, it gets worse. According to Doug Ross at the American Thinker, it seems that Speaker P allowed her kids and grandkids to fly unaccompanied on military jets at taxpayer expense. Guess this is just another “perk” that goes along with being Speaker of the House. The Judicial Watch estimates that her travels have cost the taxpayers over $2 million in addition to $100k for food and booze. This comes at a time where this government has increased the deficit by nearly $1.5 trillion since last January. This money could have been better spent on school lunches, after school programs and midnight basketball. Or we could have used this money to put about half a dozen people back to work under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka Stimulus Bill).
It’s rather ironic that when Obama called for cuts in federal spending for FY11, Speaker P was upset that there were no cuts in defense. Yet she has no problem wasting our hard-earned dollars on military aircraft. With so much garbage coming from DC, it now appears the sleeping giant has finally awakened.
Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
First off I agree with Viper...this woman not only allowed her family, which I could justify, but her staff member's families.
Next.
If you read further into the article about her boorish demands you would have seen that she believes the AF is at her whimsy. The woman is known to order the jet and then cancel. As a DD of a retired AF pilot I would have thought you would realize that the servicemembers arrive hours earlier to prep the jet. They don't just show up like her and take off. There is pre-check flights, flight plans to be logged, briefings to occur before the wheels are in the well. These are many man hours, they are not minutes. AS a spouse of a flyer I can tell you that it is about 3 hours of work before they hit the runway. Can you imagine showing up at work, prepping for a meeting and told never mind, you will not be presenting at the last minute? That is why she is boorish! She abuses the power of her position and for somebody who is suppose to be for the little people, she shows how little she cares for them when it comes to her NEEDS!
Her newest action of cutting the defense bill will be very interesting. Will she be willing to cut her costs? She can always go back to the smaller jet and be re-fueled at an AF base in the middle of the country, but then again, her poor staff will have to ride commercial when they go home!
Next.
If you read further into the article about her boorish demands you would have seen that she believes the AF is at her whimsy. The woman is known to order the jet and then cancel. As a DD of a retired AF pilot I would have thought you would realize that the servicemembers arrive hours earlier to prep the jet. They don't just show up like her and take off. There is pre-check flights, flight plans to be logged, briefings to occur before the wheels are in the well. These are many man hours, they are not minutes. AS a spouse of a flyer I can tell you that it is about 3 hours of work before they hit the runway. Can you imagine showing up at work, prepping for a meeting and told never mind, you will not be presenting at the last minute? That is why she is boorish! She abuses the power of her position and for somebody who is suppose to be for the little people, she shows how little she cares for them when it comes to her NEEDS!
Her newest action of cutting the defense bill will be very interesting. Will she be willing to cut her costs? She can always go back to the smaller jet and be re-fueled at an AF base in the middle of the country, but then again, her poor staff will have to ride commercial when they go home!
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 218
Ugh. If you look at the documents, Pelosi's expenses look basically identical to Hastert's. The 2 million was the accumulated expenses of CODELs that included dozens of congressmen and their spouses (exactly the same as Hastert CODELs IN THE SAME DOCUMENTS). Pelosi, like Hastert, flew on C-20s and C-37s for the flights shown in the documents.
I'll agree all day that there's a lot of waste in this system, but you don't need to make lazy partisan attacks. Give me a break.
I'll agree all day that there's a lot of waste in this system, but you don't need to make lazy partisan attacks. Give me a break.
Just_A_Mom
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 4,774
so what? She is not allowed to fly commericial. If she was then she would be able to either cancel a flight at the last minute or buy a ticket at the last minute. Peoples schedules do change.
Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
SO TRUE! However, is she did fly commercial she would have to swallow the cost of the ticket, not taxpayers. Additionally, the commercial flight would still take off, regardless...the reason standby exists is due to the factor that some may not show!
OTOH, that plane is for her and her alone. She wasted military man hours by not showing. Let's be honest and real. How often are MOCs stuck in DC at last minute for an all important vote?
There is a difference in canceling 8 hours before (crews would not be called in to prepare to fly) and being a no-show, which is what this report stated as her typical practice.
Honestly, I think it shows her true colors on how she wants the defense budget reduced, but has no problem abusing the military for herself. I make no bones that I think Bernard Goldberg got it right when he listed her as 1 of the top 100 Americans hurting America.
I ask this with no antagonism, what is it about her that you can defend her actions? I am truly curious, because I do not see it from a military standpoint. She uses the military for her personal gain, but does not support them from a professional point.
Answer to both questions is this: Nancy Pelosi (D)
kp2001
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,243
Your going to feel foolish on this one, but the speaker of the house is NOT second...
The Vice President is...
But other than that I believe your correct
If you read back through the posts they had mentioned that they were speaking to the fact that they were second in line behind the vice-president.
Merely semantics. Second in line to the presidency or second in line to take over the presidency.
C/ 2nd Lt. McKnight
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2009
- Messages
- 182
Someone pay have posted this already, but I am crunched on time and just want to put this out there.
Spending like this is what needs to be fixed in our country. Stop cutting teacher salaries and school programs. Stop cutting funds for community programs and services. What our leaders need to do is cut their pay. Honestly, I feel they are way overpaid for the work they do. Instead of cutting programs that will help the future generation, cut some of the pay and help for politicians. I mean honestly, there are basically secretaries for peoples secretaries nowadays.
Go back to the roots of this nation. The fathers of the revolution and the framers of the constitution weren't doing it for the money. Most of them were already well off and what they were doing was frowned upon by many. They had nearly nothing to gain and almost everything to lose.
Spending like this is what needs to be fixed in our country. Stop cutting teacher salaries and school programs. Stop cutting funds for community programs and services. What our leaders need to do is cut their pay. Honestly, I feel they are way overpaid for the work they do. Instead of cutting programs that will help the future generation, cut some of the pay and help for politicians. I mean honestly, there are basically secretaries for peoples secretaries nowadays.
Go back to the roots of this nation. The fathers of the revolution and the framers of the constitution weren't doing it for the money. Most of them were already well off and what they were doing was frowned upon by many. They had nearly nothing to gain and almost everything to lose.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
I'm not sure if the Framers saw education as a federal issue...I certainly can't find it in the Constitution....
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,925
I can't, either.
Nor can I find a mandate for the Federal Government to set up a pension scheme (Social Security).
Nor can I find a mandate for the Federal Government to set up a healthcare system (Medicaid, Medicare, and the abortion being forced through Congress as we type).
Nor can I find a mandate for the Federal Government to set up an environmental department.
And the list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on.......
But hey! Let's cut the military!
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 3,059
I can't, either.
Nor can I find a mandate for the Federal Government to set up a pension scheme (Social Security).
Nor can I find a mandate for the Federal Government to set up a healthcare system (Medicaid, Medicare, and the abortion being forced through Congress as we type).
Nor can I find a mandate for the Federal Government to set up an environmental department.
And the list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on.......
But hey! Let's cut the military!
Well- if you take the view that the only thing the Government is allowed to do is exactly what is enumerated in the constitution then clearly it doesn't say those things. But doesn't the Preamble to the Constitution - which explains the rationale for the Governments existence- pretty well lay out the responsibilities of government?
and then I believe that the Necessary and Proper clause -Article 1 - gives Congress the authority to enact laws not expressly forbidden or reserved to the States - a question which was settled before Andrew Jackson was the President. You guys are about 200 years too late in arguing the powers of Congress. Now you can argue (pretty convincingly IMO) that many if not most of the creations of Congress are the least efficient means to affect those purposes.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/treasures_of_congress/Images/page_9/30a.html
This Andrew Jackson? What is he standing on there?
The Necessary and Proper clause .....a nice way of saying the "elastic clause".
I'm looking more at Amendment 10 of the U.S. Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The "general Welfare"....unless you earn a living of over $250,000 in your household, then you're SOL. Of course, because it's "We the People of the United States" means that "general Welfare" does not extend to illegal immigrants and undocumented workers, correct Bruno? Or are we just picking parts of the Consitution we like? That would beg the question as well, why would the protections of the Constitution extend to enemy combatants if they are not included in "We the People"?
This Andrew Jackson? What is he standing on there?
The Necessary and Proper clause .....a nice way of saying the "elastic clause".
I'm looking more at Amendment 10 of the U.S. Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The "general Welfare"....unless you earn a living of over $250,000 in your household, then you're SOL. Of course, because it's "We the People of the United States" means that "general Welfare" does not extend to illegal immigrants and undocumented workers, correct Bruno? Or are we just picking parts of the Consitution we like? That would beg the question as well, why would the protections of the Constitution extend to enemy combatants if they are not included in "We the People"?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2008
- Messages
- 262
Ron Paul disagrees.
futurepilot22
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Messages
- 89
And since Ron Paul disagrees, then the argument must be correct? That makes a whole lot of sense. Look, we can argue all day about what is constitutionally provided for as far as congressional powers go. The Air Force isn't in the Constitution, while unless I'm mistaken (could be), the Army and Navy are. Should we therefore get rid of the AF?
futurepilot22
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Messages
- 89
And for the record...I always wonder about people who justify their arguments, on the right and the left, with "Well, the Founders intended...". I mean, the Founding Fathers were visionaries who established the greatest nation on Earth. But they also lived over 200 years ago. It is now an entirely different world. To me, their opinions on things are pretty much irrelevant to today's policy. Sorry.