Frank: I believe we should be very strongly supporting scientific experimentation, and exploration. And the scientists I talk to agree that you get the best bang for the buck when you do this with instruments. I think the notion of getting to Mars in 3 to 7 days, is, frankly, and I want to be retrained, wacky. One, it is not possible. Two, it is not desirable, because you cannot talk seriously about increasing spending on our infrastructure here, on trying to improve medical care for people, on doing the things that promote jobs for people—you're not going to create any jobs for Americans on Mars. And what you are going to do, is spend hundreds of billions of dollars.And by the way, I'm not simply talking about this particular proposal. Like bringing the ice water down from the mountains of Canada into the painted desert is a little bit unreal. But I differ with President Obama and Bush in their decision to send a human being to Mars for however long. That would be a nice thing to do, but how can you talk seriously about our deficit? How can you tell us we don't have enough money to put cops and teachers on the streets? We don't have money to stimulate the kind of manufacturing we want. And spend a half-trillion dollars to go to Mars?
So, because Fwank, the "most intelligent person in Congress" (and ain't it a shame) can't wap his little ho-brain around the concept of NAWAPA, it's silly. Or, perhaps he was told by his British masters, to whom he gave not just half a trillion bucks, but trillions (in exchange for their gambling IOUs, and nothing productive such as a Mars mission), to use the term "ice water" to deride the plan, which actual experts consider to be feasible. So, we're going to abandon a huge agricultural area on the basis of pathetic sophisms such as Fwank's. In a sane world, he'd be in prison, or he would have been strung up long ago, for treason. Instead, he's lionized as a genius because he's a loyal subject of another queen whose empire controls the media.