New Obama deficit talking point: The GOP loves corporate jets or something

posted at 8:50 pm on June 29, 2011 by Allahpundit

Six separate mentions during today’s presser, according to Jim Geraghty. So unfair and heavy-handed is this line of attack that even lefty Greg Sargent felt obliged to gently debunk it, noting that eliminating the tax break for corporate jets would net just $3 billion over 10 years. (Bonus fun fact: The tax break for jets was introduced in Obama’s own stimulus.) But it’s good election messaging, and as we know from O’s short-circuiting of the Afghanistan surge and his total cowardice on entitlement reform, there’s nothing he won’t do to position himself better for the election. He’s got two birds with one stone here, watering the evergreen narrative about the GOP being the “party of the rich” and building leverage for Democrats on the revenue-raising side of the debt ceiling debate. Everyone hates rich people and their damned carbon-emitting jets, right? Or rather, almost everyone.

It’s important to flag this now, though, because soon it’ll be as ubiquitous as the eternal “car’s in a ditch/Republicans are sipping a Slurpee” meme and you’ll need a reference point. Seriously, there’s nothing else for O to talk about: The economy’s such a disaster that Democratic pollsters are warning him to drop the rhetoric about “recovery” altogether because it makes him sound like an imbecile. As such, by late July, you’ll be so weary of corporate jets that you’ll find yourself thinking, “How long has he been mumbling about corporate jets? Two years now, maybe?” Nope. But it’ll feel like two years.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Is the debt ceiling even constitutional? Frum drew attention to section 4 of the 14th Amendment and he might have a point.

lexhamfox on June 29, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Yeah, David Frum has a point… but as long as he wears a hat, nobody will see it.

Art I Sec 8 very clearly spells out that it is Congress who has the authority to borrow money and repay debts. If they haven’t authorized the borrowing, then it ain’t the US who is being lent the money.

JohnGalt23 on June 29, 2011 at 11:58 PM

JohnGalt23 on June 29, 2011 at 11:58 PM

But Congress isn’t allowed to walk away from existing obligations it has approved. Perry vs US 1935

lexhamfox on June 30, 2011 at 12:21 AM

To paraphrase Reagan:

A Recession is when you neighbor loses his/her job.

A Depression is when you lose your job.

A Recovery is when Barack Obama loses his job.
…..

November 2012 can’t come soon enough

ChuckTX on June 30, 2011 at 1:35 AM

Charles K. did a great job explaining the amount of debt we are talking about.

What was it? If we taxed every private jet for the past 2,000 years we could pay off Obama’s Stimulus and the Fed’s spending in about 700 years??!!!???

LOL!

OK! The numbers are mind-numbing, but still….

shorebird on June 30, 2011 at 1:49 AM

Obama doesn’t realize that a whole industry he’s demonizing. People buy the planes that people make, and people service the planes, pilots fly the planes, gas companies fuel the plane.

That’s a lot of people he wants to put out of work.

He did the same thing to Las Vegas.

YehuditTX on June 30, 2011 at 1:51 AM

No No No!!!!!
That’s an industry he wants to “organize” and “unionize!!!!”

shorebird on June 30, 2011 at 1:55 AM

eliminating the tax break for corporate jets

Better idea: Eliminate public funding for the FLOTUS jet.

petefrt on June 30, 2011 at 6:17 AM

Better idea: Eliminate public funding for the FLOTUS jet.

petefrt on June 30, 2011 at 6:17 AM

And the First Dog’s jet too.

petefrt on June 30, 2011 at 6:23 AM

Has the little woman got back from her latest private jet vacation, yet?

Is there a single Obama voter smart enough to ask themselves that?

MNHawk on June 30, 2011 at 7:11 AM

I know I’m late to this thread, but I have this crazy idea and I wanted to run it past you…

What if we somehow could have BOTH corporate jets and scholarships? And the weather service too! We could grow the economy and have all of these things at the same time.

And we could call this place America. And the leader of America, say, the President, could want us to have all of these things too and allow it to happen.

Crazy.

saint kansas on June 30, 2011 at 8:21 AM

saint kansas on June 30, 2011 at 8:21 AM

That’s just crazy talk. No, Corporate jets are killing college students and weathermen.

Fallon on June 30, 2011 at 8:42 AM

Will there be an ad featuring a corporate jet pushing a wheelchair-bound grandma over a cliff?

Punchenko on June 30, 2011 at 8:59 AM

For all contracts let out by the US Government there is a Terminate for Convenience of the Government clause. It does not have to appear in the contract as it is part of what government does: it is one of the many included clauses in contracts that the contractor must understand is included in the contract. At any point in time on any contract the government may exercise a T4C – and there is no recourse to this. By stopping the commitment of expending money Congress stops incurring new debt: the government is to pay of its debts but is under no obligation to spend money save for the few functions it is handed via the Constitution.

That includes paying off debt, running the military, making sure the Executive and Judicial branches get paid for those in positions Congress must fund. All else can be cut. The promise to purchase something or hand out money for the non-mandatory parts of government is done at the pleasure of Congress. That includes SSA, Medicare, Medicaid, FCC, EPA, Ag, Ed, Energy… these are not mandatory parts of government and when Congress is not raising the debt ceiling (that is they are not going to allow more spending than what is taken in) then the cuts come in those non-mandatory areas. We should be able to run a government on $2 trillion/year of income with about 1/3 of that on debt service.

ajacksonian on June 30, 2011 at 9:11 AM

From the NBAA 2010 Factbook

Nationwide, business aviation employs 1.2 million people, and contributes $150 billion to U.S. economic output. In some states and regions, the industry is an especially significant generator of employment and local investment. A case in point is Kansas, where aviation accounts for $7.1 billion, or nearly one-third, to the state’s economy. Most of that activity is related to the major business aircraft manufacturing companies based in Wichita. Yet even in a smaller state, like Rhode Island, business aviation contributes $460 per year for every resident in the state.

I guess Barry thinks: what’s another 1.2 million jobs compared to how many I’ve killed since 2008

phreshone on June 30, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Yep. Corporate jets are evil. That’s why they were included in the Stimulus bill.

kingsjester on June 30, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Corporate jets do far more than free enterprise daily than Zero’s Scare Force One aka Vacation Express ever will.

viking01 on June 30, 2011 at 9:46 AM

1st “than” = “for”

viking01 on June 30, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Given these two items, let him have it. Republicans can go to the microphones, say “If Obama wants to end a tax break that he created with his stimulus that will only net $3 billion dollars over 10 years when our deficit is $14 trillion, we’re more than happy to work with him in exchange for cuts cuts cuts and more cuts.”

Gee, $3 billion over 10 years is $300 million a year, or about 0.02% of our budget deficit. Going after those “fat cats” with a micro-scalpel when ObamaCare takes a machete to Medicare, and cuts Medicare funding by 160 times the tax break on corporate jets. Grandma over the cliff!

Tell you what, Barry…we’ll repeal the tax break on corporate jets when you sell Air Force Two on eBay, and drive a Chevy Volt thru Beltway traffic to your next campaign stop or round of golf.

Middle Class people BUILD those jets, Middle Class people MAINTAIN those jets, Middle Class people FLY those jets, Middle Class people DESIGN those jets, Middle Class people LOAD those jets … tell me again how these jets hurt the economy.

Tony737 on June 29, 2011 at 8:56 PM
Yep. One of my best friends is a corporate jet pilot. Good pay and it requires a significant investment in maintenance and upkeep, all of which is done by middle class workers at airports around the country. The plane was also built in the US by an American company.

I second that emotion…my son is halfway thru college, training to be a pilot, and his education will cost me more than my house! With all the new restrictions on the flight hours required to fly commercial jets, young pilots can only get jobs flying (you guessed it!) corporate jets…

Steve Z on June 30, 2011 at 9:48 AM

When did the federal government get into the business of funding and handing out scholarships?

abcurtis on June 30, 2011 at 10:00 AM

I used to work for a company that had corporate jets. Our fleet had regular schedules between corporate locations and to places not normally served by commercial airlines. Regular employees were allowed/encouraged to fly the jets when seats were available. It was not just for the corporate elite, it was efficient, and it was cost effective.

diogenes on June 30, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Michele Bachmann might be a little hazy on the age of John Quincy Adams, but yesterday BHO said his daughters are “10 and 13″, when in fact they are 10 and 12.

MassVictim on June 30, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Corporate Jets are an offshoot, and a much more violent and agressive one at that, of the gang the Jets.

We used to be able to contain the Jets by pitting them against the Sharks – which led to a balance of power in teh region. However, with teh demise of the Sharks, the Jets have grown too large and its more radical members created a new, and worse gange, the Corporate Jets.

When you’re a Jet, you’re a Jet for life. But when you’re a Corporate Jet, you are even more.

In the past, we had assets on teh ground taht could handle the Jets, but since Officer Krupke’s retirment, we have not had any feet on the ground to help deal with the Jets issue.

Monkeytoe on June 30, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Republicans in the House should pass, and in the Senate should introduce, legislation eliminating the tax break for corporate jets by the end of the day.

There, you impertinent churl, you’ve raised taxes another $300 million per year. Now can we please discuss the economy and the debt, issues that are literally ten thousand times larger?

HitNRun on June 30, 2011 at 12:37 PM

I love the photo … O’Bozo looks like a lost, scared little boy. He’s getting slaughtered in the press over his idiotic performance.

Jaibones on June 30, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Hmmm.
Doesn’t Boeing make corporate jets?

mrt721 on June 30, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Man, who picked those burnt yellow drapes? Mooshell?

They’ve been making the photo-op rounds lately and they are just ghastly.

eyesky on June 30, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Needle”Dick” is more accurate.

Winebabe on June 30, 2011 at 2:04 PM

This was just a spiteful payback attack on Donald Trump – who recently was in the news for a lavish private jet.

Dhuka on June 30, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Damn TelePrompTer! does not know how old MY daughter Malia is! TAX IT!

I am not a racist on June 30, 2011 at 8:22 PM

tell me again how these jets hurt the economy.
Tony737 on June 29, 2011 at 8:56 PM

I was wondering along that same line.

Business planes are still something that the US makes and are in the top tier!
Beech, Gulfstream, Dassault Falcon, Boeing Business Jet all made in the USA!
So why does Obama wants to kill that group as well?
Hummm?

“The Embraer Lineage 1000 is a variant of the Embraer 190 regional jet airliner, launched as a private jet on May 2, 2006. Manufactured by the Brazilian aerospace firm Embraer, the Lineage is advertised as an “ultra-large” business jet with comfortable seating for 19.”

Things that make ya go hummm????

March 19 2011 “Obama, appearing with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff in Brasilia today, said the nation is becoming a global economic leader and the two governments have an “historic opportunity” to deepen cooperation. Obama said he is starting his first visit to South America in Brazil to highlight its economic ascendancy.”

DSchoen on June 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM

canopfor on June 29, 2011 at 9:20 PM
================
hello gop candidate, are you listening?

cmsinaz on June 29, 2011 at 11:44 PM

cmsinaz:)

canopfor on June 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM

I second that emotion…my son is halfway thru college, training to be a pilot, and his education will cost me more than my house! With all the new restrictions on the flight hours required to fly commercial jets, young pilots can only get jobs flying (you guessed it!) corporate jets…

Steve Z o

Yikes, your son is going down a path I would absolutely not recommend, if he is doing one of those collegiate aviation degree programs, where you end up with a worthless degree and pay a lot more than you would just taking lessons at a local airport.

And corporate jets are absolutely not an entry level job either, you typically need substantially more hours to get into that, than even the higher FAA flight hours requirements that will take effect later for airlines. Unless he knows people already with corporate flying jobs, no way he is just going to walk up as an unknown unexperienced low time pilot and get one of those jobs either. There is no shortage of corporate pilots, and actually there are many who are laid off and looking for work

The gaining flight experience will be the same way it has been for decades – flight instruction (which pays much less than teaching tennis or horseback riding), bottom feeder cargo jobs that pay less than working at a good coffeeshop, but hey you get to risk your life in the weather.

Raising the flight hours was sorely needed. A 250 hr pilot has no business being in an airliner cockpit. Even though he will prob have a fairly experienced captain, the captain ends being a babysitter for a long time.

firepilot on July 1, 2011 at 2:51 AM

Is this guy even capable of having a coherent thought?

rplat on July 1, 2011 at 9:05 AM

Not only is Obama a liar he is stupid. The democrats passed this corprorate jet tax break. They passed it because Obama wanted this particular tax break. I am not sure about the vote but I think 0 republicans in the House and 3 republicans in the Senate voted for it. And now 2 years later this liar stands up in front of the American public and blames the republicans. This man’s stupidity and lieing nature is only exceeded by his arrogance and contempt for the American public.

TomLawler on July 2, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Hi guys, I’m from the future! Sadly, Obama WAS reelected, so we’re taking what we can get and today, it’s to point out Obama’s hypocrisy on all the private jets that came to see his inauguration. Farewell!!!

thebrokenrattle on January 18, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2