Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Sister Toldjah
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & academic
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Economists Do It With Models
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
UCFB
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
Archbp Dolan: Gospel in the Digital Age
Bp Chris Coyne: Let Us Walk Together
ADW blog
Simon Dodd: Motu Proprio
Fr Zuhlsdorf: WDTPRS
Fr Longenecker: Standing On My Head
Elizabeth Scalia: The Anchoress
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Rorate Cæli
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
Whatever
Tully noted last week that Pelosi has been seeking to use the Air Force to travel around the country, and I linked to Glenn Reynolds' post about the carbon footprint of private air travel. Let's join the dots:
Last week, Pelosi asked to use the jet to fly roughly 150 miles from Washington DC to Williamsburg, Virginia for the Democrat retreat. Her request was denied.
Private Air Force Jet to travel 150 miles! My, how environmentally-conscious. As Tully observed in a comment here, when Hillary says that "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," the emphasis is on you: "they're going to take things away from US. They intend on keeping all the same things for themselves. 'Cause they're important and really need them." Yep.
In the comments: It's the hypocrisy, stoopid.
Our RSS feed
Heh.
Heh.
who's in this club?
In the abstract, I agree with the notion that it's VERY unseemly for important government officials to think they deserve such special treatment that it's OK for them to wantonly waste both public and natural resources.
However, I do wonder about the overall context. Do we have reason to believe that Pelosi's behavior here is singular, at the extreme? What have other speakers and congressfolk done? Have there been and are there other folks in similar positions of power requesting and taking advantage of such perks? Or is Pelosi taking it to a new level?
If it's yes in the former, then we simply have a case of CPD. But if it's demonstrably yes in the latter, then Pelosi would seem to deserve the spotlight you've been shining on her.
To wit, how does Dick Cheney usually travel? How does Bill Frist? How did Delay? How did Newt Gingrich travel when he was top gun in his chamber?
If the cochroaches are abusing their domain, we ought to expose and spray as many as possible, no?
Pelosi One club members
One, how the Vice President travels is a different issue from how the Speaker of the House travels. The Vice President is 2nd in line to assume the presidency and is already and currently a part of the executive branch, with as much (or as little) role in the chain of command as the President sees fit to delegate to him. As a nationally elected figure, he's also a much more likely target for terrorist action or ordinary assassination by the odd nut case.
But the comparison to Frist, Hastert, Gingrich, and the others is an apt question. As it turns out, according to this Washington Times report, the Speaker of the House was historically never granted such jet privileges. However, after 9/11, increased security measures resulted in a change in policy, and Speaker Hastert was provided with military jet transport to and from Washington and his district.
However, Hastert used an Air Force commuter jet, while Speaker Pelosi is requesting a larger aircraft, so that she can also carry other members of the California delegation, family members, and staff. She also requested Air Force transport from D.C. to a Democratic political event in Virginia. Apparently, such transport was one time provided to Speaker Hastert, but after review the Air Force determined that it was inappropriate to provide transport to purely political events, so no further such flights were allowed. According to an unnamed "Congressional source" in the Washington Times article, the Air Force will likely succumb to political pressure and give the Speaker and John Murtha what they demand:
I say, give her exactly what Hastert had. We must still be vigilant on security issues. If her family can fit on a small commuter jet, that's fine with me too. But do not give her a larger jet which she can use as a display of political power. I support the President having such a tool in Air Force One, because he legitimately needs the aircraft for reasons of government and state, but to provide an aircraft solely for a Member of Congress' use to project political power sets a dangerous new precedent.
Other lawmakers frequently travel on corporate jets. At the time of this MSNBC story last May, 2006, Republicans (and Harry Reid) were the biggest users of corporate jets. Look for those numbers to switch now that the Democrats are in the majority.
that's an argument I can accept
I don't think Pelosi deserves any more special privileges than any other speaker. I do question how much more of target the VP is than the speaker. VP travel is indeed a somewhat different issue, but it's not wholly unrelated or ungermane. Still, that's a minor quibble not worth pursuing. Giving Pelosi what Hastert got seems simple, fair, and unassailable.
If she's looking for an especially sweet deal as a display of her clout, that troubles me.
The Veep
A commenter at Althouse made a great point that relates to that argument, viz., although the Speaker is
I'd argue that the problem
I'd argue that the problem isn't just that it's a Speaker doing it, it's this Speaker. I have no particular beef with the Speaker using private air travel (for official business, at least, although I would have some beef with a Speaker using it for personal business), but Pelosi can't have it both ways: you can't be against abuse of priveleges and demand to be flown around by the air force when commercial travel is available, and most of all, you can't be an environmentalist who wants to place grim restrictions on what people can and can't do in their lives that generates a carbon footprint and use private air travel. It's not the jet, it's not even the arrogance, it's the hypocrisy.
as I expected, CPD
you can't be an environmentalist who wants to place grim restrictions on what people can and can't do in their lives that generates a carbon footprint and use private air travel.
Your mileage. I think it's a weak and somewhat silly argument that Pelosi ought to be held to an extra especially high standard when it comes to travel, because of her policy views. I don't really see why only those who want to place grim restrictions deserve pillorying for wasteful consumption.
If such special travel privileges are routinely used and generally accepted for the sake of logistical reasons related to the requirements of busy powerful folks, it really doesn't bother me very much at all.
Is there hypocrisy? Maybe so. Still, I am not much moved by the notion that everyone who advocates some version of a green policy ought to therefore live like a monk, environmentally speaking. It's no more compelling an argument to me than, say, the one that all pro-war folks ought to immediately enlist if they truly believe that failure is not an option, and that failure to do so amounts to hypocrisy.
Pelosi's environmental views and her policy prescriptions ought to sink or swim on their merits. In the meantime, if she travels to Cleveland and Louisville and Podunk and Mudville in a similar fashion to other folks in similar positions, big whoop. Like it or not, she's an important person with a busy schedule. Realistically speaking, you are suggesting that ideological purity is more important than doing her job.
You present a catch-22 here. Would you maintain that no person who believes in reducing carbon footprints can credibly mount a modern campaign for President making frequent, condensed multi-stop trips across 5 states, for example? Ought such a person choose to campaign via horse and buggy, even if they believe their goal of winning the presidency to impact environmental policy is crucial and know that traveling by buggy or on foot would be likely to mortally wound their campaign?
I just have to wonder if
I just have to wonder if they are going to have to designate a plane and paint it up with bright flowers and call it Flower Power One since the majority of her constituents seem to want nothing to do with anything in the military. They may think its a military invasion of San Francisco every time she heads home and create wide spread panic in the city.
fuel
Yeah, and can't we get it to run on soy and wheatgrass, or maybe smiles and hope? :-)
Yes, I would argue precisely that...
Not to the extreme, but the history of governments around the world in the last century showed a remarkable willingness to make exceptions for "important government (or party) officials" that were not allowed for the rest of the people.
The argument made by the VIPs is, as you note, based on the idea that their time is very valuable. Is Pelosi's time more valuable than the CEO of Exxon/Mobil? Of the CEO of GM or GE? Who gets to decide whose time is so valuable that they are entitled to protect that time by flying in an ozone-destroying, carbon-dioxide belching jet aircraft.
How can a politician justify telling me that my time with my work and my family is not so important, and thus I must carpool to work or take public transportation, while their time with their work and their family is so important that they must have special travel perks, special parking places, special flights, you name it.
That's the hypocrisy in the claims of the Gores and the Pelosis and the Hillarys of the world. They have jobs so valuable that they must have these special privileges, while we need to adjust our lives in accordance with the dictates they set forth.
The issue is not the same as the "chickenhawk" argument. The conservative argument regarding global warming is that the market can and will adjust, responding to the decisions of consumers. The environmental-oriented political activists are consumers, too. Most of the actions they call for can be done today, they just cost a bit more money. They want to force all the rest of us to pay more money, but they themselves are not willing to pay more on their own. Supporters of the war don't desire to send any unwilling civilian to Iraq. There is no draft, nobody's children are being forced to go to war unless they voluntarily signed up for the armed services. The war movement is not forcing individual citizens to do much of anything except stay out of the way. The environmental movement, however, wants to legislatively impose a very direct impact on each and every consumer in the United States, forcing all of us to do things which they themselves are largely unwilling to do voluntarily.
What Pat said. I can't
What Pat said. I can't agree, Brian, that "it's a weak and somewhat silly argument that Pelosi ought to be held to an extra especially high standard when it comes to travel, because of her policy views," given that her policy views is that ordinary plebs like you and I shouldn't be able to do precisely what she demands for herself. If Pelosi's view were to prevail, not only would you and I not be permitted to pay for our own private air travel, we would be forced (indirectly, admittedly) to pay for her private air travel. It's not the plane, it's the hypocrisy. When I point out that Democrats should either cut off funding for the war or admit they were wrong to present ending the war to the electorate as their platform last year, do you think that I'd rather they resolve the dissonance by cutting off funding, or by admitting that they mislead the electorate? Likewise, in this case, I'm not suggesting that "ideological purity is more important than doing her job," I'm suggesting that the demands of her job prove that her ideology is wrong.
Unless we're ready to create an Orwellian American governing class whose priveleges and immunities are far superior to those that we mere proles are permitted, politicians should live by the same rules that they would prescribe for the rest of us (that was the point of the Lost Liberty Hotel project, too). She can't have her cake and eat it too. Pick one, Nancy: credibility as an environmentalist / crusader against government waste, or your plane.
Hypocrisy is always
Hypocrisy is always relevant.
Pelosi doesn't just want secure travel on a small Air Force commuter jet for herself on official business, which is what Hastert received on a restricted basis, she wants a bloody Boeing 757 at her discretionary beck and call for herself, her family, and her entourage. Paid for by us, of course!
That's the same plane used by the Veep as Air Force Two on official business, with full official entourage and press corps. A 234-passenger aircraft versus a 10-passenger commuter jet. And yes, the Veep directly represents the United States, where the Speaker of the House does NOT. Major difference.
Had Hastert made such demands (and it's not a request Pelosi is making, but a demand) I'd have led the charge with a pitchfork. Got an official and compelling reason to borrow one of the AF's Citation X's? Fine--if you've got that really good reason to be using it in the first place. But a damned 757 available on demand as your personal entourage taxi?? Shut down the bleepin' hubris and quit thinking you've been elected
QueenGod-Empress, lady.As I said, I'm responsive to
As I said, I'm responsive to the argument that Pelosi is asking for extra special treatment, which is why I asked.
And I promise to remember that you've said that hypocrisy is always relevant. :-)
That second sentence is part
That second sentence is part of the reason you'll often see me linking back to past posts. It isn't just an "I told you so" thing, it's a desire to proceed by identifying general principles and apply them to new facts consistently with how they've been applied to comparable facts in the past.
good questions
Great question. One worth asking ALL the VIPs.
Right. I was only suggesting that there was a similarity in the sense of requiring certain folks to put their money where their mouth is in order to avoid being an evil hypocrite. In THAT sense, it's quite similar.
The argument that if we are patient the market will respond is a good one. I place great stock in it. I don't think anyone fair-minded can just dismiss it.
Still, there's the question of how patient we can afford to be. An example springs immediately to mind for me, since I was just showing my buddy photos of our labor day truck rollover, and an auto safety discussion ensued. Air bags showed up in cars voluntarily via market forces at a rather lazy pace, no? Even if one is, like myself, a pretty solid believer in the power of markets, one can still wonder how many lives might have been saved had air bags and mandatory seat belts been forced upon us a decade or two ago by a paternalistic government intent on squeezing every last drop of freedom from our lives, no?
I happen to be a believer in more patience than the usual bear. I'm no chicken little. I believe fear and hyperbole and loose prediction based on incomplete data could lead to unnecessary and harmful regulation. But I also know I might be wrong. Humans may indeed be the primary cause of Earth's retaining more of the energy from the sun than it used to. And this additional energy might make our environment more volatile and unpleasant. We may only know in hindsight how worried we should have been and how quickly we ought to have responded. IMO, we're all mostly guessing and hoping.
That's why, in the case of the hypocritical VIP carbon consumers, I'm more concerned with the suspect VIP argument than I am in measuring degrees of hypocrisy. A time may come when we wish someone had taken draconian measures to save us from ourselves. I sure hope not. If you guys want to insist on holding Pelosi et al to a higher standard, your mileage. That's cool. I'm agnostic on it.
"Carbon footprint" of a 757
"Carbon footprint" of a 757 is at least four times that of a Gulfstream III, and it's that low only because it was designed to be a "low emissions" aircraft. Carbon footprint of a Citation X is less than half that of a Gulfstream III. Fuel consumption, ditto.
Left unsaid: "Unless it would inconvenience ME, Nancy Pelosi, and prevent me from using the United States Air Force as my personally-administered mass transit system for moving my buds and famiy and entourage from coast to coast on demand, at my whim and your expense...."
Anyone else remember the "Al Franken Decade"? Heh.
...And even if she were
...And even if she were requesting a smaller plane, the point would remain that any private plane will have bigger carbon footprint than would commercial travel. This is a kind of cack-handed way to express this, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it: as I see it, the best way to look at this whole "carbon footprint" idea is that things don't have carbon footprints, people do - ergo, the carbon emission of a commercial air flight is divided equally between the number of people on the flight, excluding flight crew, and added to their carbon footprints. So unless Pelosi flew commercial and by pure happenstance ended up being the only passenger, almost by definition a private plane is less environmentally sound.
AFD
For some reason that bit always stuck with me, and I always get a chuckle when I think "but what would it mean for me, Al Franken?"
He may have become an irredeemably self-important douche, but that was a really funny bit. FWIW, it's a comedic relative to "the summer of George."
"I find it disturbing that for some reason you equate freedom with a block of cheese."
UPDATE: upon further reflection, I realized that the Pelosi 1 episode is much more closely realated to a a completely different Seinfeld episode. The finale. Basically, Pelosi wants the "Ted Danson Plane."