Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate America, Ground Your Jets

By Barbara Ehrenreich and Chuck Collins, AlterNet. Posted February 21, 2009.


The American taxpayer, reeling from the economic meltdown, doesn't feel like subsidizing lavish jets and bonuses any more.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

If anything symbolizes the excesses and inequalities of the last few years, it's the private Learjet or Gulfstream. While the masses take off their shoes and line up for security screening, high-fliers inhabit a parallel transportation universe characterized by cozy private terminals, flexible departures and nonexistent security. In flight, the sky is the limit, with some private jet owners spending $10 million to $40 million on interior decorating, which could include gold bathroom fixtures and rare-wood paneling, as well as flight staffs, including chefs and masseuses.

But corporate America is finally waking up and smelling the jet fuel. The American taxpayer, reeling from the economic meltdown, doesn't feel like subsidizing lavish jets and bonuses any more. First there was the spectacle of the Big Three auto-industry CEOs flying in their separate private jets to beg for taxpayer bailout funds. Humbled by the blowback, they each drove energy-efficient cars on their subsequent visit to Washington.

Then it was revealed that Citigroup, recipient of $50 billion in federal bailout funds, was purchasing a $50 million French-made, 12-seat, Dassault Falcon private jet. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., was livid: "To permit Citigroup to purchase a plush plane -- foreign-built no less -- while domestic auto companies are being required to sell off their jets is a ridiculous double standard." President Barack Obama weighed in, pressing Citigroup CEO Richard Parsons to forgo the jet. Yet, six other financial companies that received billions in bailout funds, including AIG, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America continue to operate fleets of private jets.

A ban on private jet ownership for recipients of funds from the Trouble Assets Relief Program passed the U.S. House of Representatives and awaits action in the Senate.

But now is the time for all of America's corporate titans to surrender their private jets -- and not just as symbols of greed. Private jet travel imposes heavy costs on to the rest of us, first by straining air traffic control systems. Although commercial airlines are mostly to blame for airport delays, private jets add to the congestion, particularly in the New York City airspace where commercial flights only account for 53 percent of the air traffic. The Big Apple's delays compound through the air system, triggering a third of all delayed flights nationwide.

Private jets also contribute disproportionately to global warming. A private jet passenger, with his or her Godzilla-size carbon footprint, puts five times more carbon into the atmosphere than a commercial jet passenger. An hour aloft in a private jet burns as much fuel as a year of driving. Furthermore, as Britain's anti-terror chief has warned, private jets pose an unacceptable security risk, since there's nothing to stop passengers from carrying weapons aboard, never mind 4-ounce containers of lotion. The U.S. Homeland Security department agrees, but eight years after 9/11, it still hasn't adopted security rules for private jets.

Meanwhile, the rest of us, as taxpayers and commercial travelers, subsidize private jet travel through fees, infrastructure funds and tax breaks. Private jets use 16 percent of air traffic control system services, but pay only 3 percent of the costs, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. And a third of airport improvement funds over the last couple years have gone to fix up small, remote airports serving primarily private jets, such as Oregon's North Bend airport, where 5,000 wealthy golfers a year are able to land their private jets before playing at the world-class Brandon Dunes course.

If it's too painful for the super-rich to abandon their stratospheric sybaritism, Congress should at least impose a luxury tax on private jets to offset their environmental impact. They should also fix the FAA's funding structure to require private jets to pay their fair share of the air traffic control system costs and impose a few security requirements. But ideally, the high fliers should come down to earth with the rest of us. Maybe if more powerful CEOs had to endure the delays, indignities and discomforts of commercial air travel, they would throw their tremendous clout behind a transportation policy that works for everyone.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: corporate america, jets, financial crisis, bonuses

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of 13 books, including the New York Times best-seller Nickel and Dimed. A frequent contributor to the New York Times, Harper's and the Progressive, she is a contributing writer to Time magazine. She lives in Florida.

Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and chairman of the Working Group on Extreme Inequality, an emerging coalition of religious, business, labor and civic groups concerned about the wealth gap. He is coauthor with Bill Gates Sr. of Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Let em jet
Posted by: Rolomax on Feb 21, 2009 1:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, they need to get from here to there quickly in order to better decide how many jobs to cut or to give out free bonuses to people who don't really work for a living.

It'll all be borrowed and our descendants will have to pay interest on it.

Good article. Sarcasm. It happens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Ground your jets." That's it? You're kidding, right?
Posted by: jeffnc on Feb 21, 2009 3:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Ground your jets." Check out 1790s France. After what these people have done to us, they're lucky they're not hanging from lampposts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You mean...life is not an Ayn Rand novel?
Posted by: Perry Logan on Feb 21, 2009 3:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After 30 years of pretending businessmen are the super-race, this is going to be quite a shock.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

flying minivans
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Feb 21, 2009 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are these the same jets that needed to be grounded during the ingratiation, the same event that Dulles seen the most pvt jets like ever!?! Congress has there own jet, Nancy Pelosi has her own jet. You know there are people employed to make, build and maintained those aircraft and they an't all huge fatcats. Some are ex military aircraft maintainers or just people whom went to college to work on jet engines (you know work with hands and brains), it could almost be called blue collar workers and you want to ground these jets? Also, most of the pvt jets are flying Minivans, nothing uber special, no case of don P and it very $$$$ to even have satellite TV on your flying minivan. Just the fact there is a plane waiting for you in Auburn Hill, MI to take you to Arlington Texas w/o having to go to the "regular" airport and deal with the hokey pokey of... you know the airport drill. Either way, let pvt business do its damm thing and create jobs, becuase we all can't work for the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: flying minivans Posted by: richholland
» RE: flying minivans Posted by: Rolomax
» all that above Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: all that above Posted by: Longdream
» People whom went to college?? Posted by: iolanthe
» RE: flying minivans Posted by: liz_imp
whistlewhat
Posted by: kafka, f on Feb 21, 2009 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about government miscreants who illegally confiscate honest citizens’ income while being tax cheats themselves? I find it depressing that Mike Hamersley gets to confiscate honest citizens’ income while he himself by his own definition is a tax cheat. Misprison, it is a crime not to report a crime. Any U.S. citizen who knows of another who has committed a crime and does not report it to the authorities, is guilty of Misprison and could be subjected to years in prison for the commission of such crime. Therefore I must hereby notify all legal authorities that Mike Hamersley a high level Government official in the bankrupt state of California at the FTB (who is nationally known as a tax shelter fighting crusader) is guilty of tax evasion and conspiracy to commit tax evasion as (he defines it); guilty of theft of honest services; conspiracy to defraud creditors; possibly perjury to the Senate and other government agencies: and violation of 7216, disclosure of confidential taxpayer information to third parties. It is indeed a rather long list.

Hamersley testified to the Senate in 2003 that tax fraud involves devising transactions which allow for tax losses and “hiding the true facts from the IRS”. The transcripts are available for all to see. Hamersley also restated the same in his lawsuit against KPMG in 2003 (which is a public document).

As one example of Hamersley’s fraud, Hamersley while at KPMG gave advice to a client that tens of millions of tax losses could obtain with a 20% to 30% of success upon IRS audit if the IRS discovered the true facts of the transaction. Presumably, if the IRS did not discover the true facts of the transaction, a higher chance of success upon audit by the IRS would obtain. Hamersley was advising on a series of preplanned asset and stock transfers which involved separating assets from liabilities inside a company, transferring the assets to a foreign company and selling the stock of yet another company to the client’s lawyer for a dollar, all to achieve tens of millions in tax losses and defraud the creditors of the company from which the assets were being stripped. Hamersley’s participation in all these crimes is confirmed in an email by him dated May 24, 2000 prepared by him while working as a tax expert at KPMG.

Hamersley also further participated in hiding the true facts of the transaction from the IRS and the creditors by reviewing and approving documents prepared in June of 2000 which gave effect to the transaction back to 19999 (which based on Hamersley’s definition of tax evasion, is a classic case of backdating a fraudulent tax shelter).

In fact, the transaction approved by Hamersley is very similar to the one he claimed in his lawsuit against KPMG involving XYZ corporation (which we all now know was Occidental Petroleum) as tax fraud.

This of course creates an interesting conundrum for Hamersley, as it is likely he will claim his tax shelters were not fraudulent (not with standing his email which describes the possibility and chances of success upon IRS audit if the IRS discovers the true facts), however, if that is so, then his description of tax fraud to the Senate, other government officials, taxpayers whom he now confiscates income from and all the people he gave speeches to and articles he wrote for are being lied to. In which case, Hamersley is guilty of lying to the Senate and other government officials, perjury; outright theft of income from those taxpayer’s whom he is now confiscating income; theft of honest services from the FTB and those who he gave speeches to or wrote articles for on tax fraud; and most incredibly, conspiracy to defraud creditors by participating in a convoluted scheme to separate valuable assets from liabilities for profit at the creditors expense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's the problem, though...
Posted by: QuestionAuthority on Feb 21, 2009 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can see where Barbara is coming from here, but there is an issue that isn't mentioned: the loss of jobs in one of the few industries where the US maintains a lead over the rest of the world. Going this route will take economic finesse and thought.

The biz-jet market is huge. US manufacturers like Cessna depend on it to survive, as most light aircraft sales are flat overall. Even Boeing is building business jets based on the Boeing 737 airframe. (Learjet is part of Bombardier/Canada the last I heard.) Dassault even has a major aircraft finishing center in Little Rock, AR.

We might end up shooting the decently-paid, blue collar aircraft workers by accident. Sure, there will still be parts manufacturing going on, as well as foreign sales. Those jobs will be severely reduced, however. These are exactly the kinds of jobs that we need to keep in the US - high-skill, high-tech, blue collar (many union) jobs with decent pay and benefits.

There would also be a ripple effect through the economy as pilots, mechanics, production workers in support industries, etc. were laid off if those jets stop flying. Overall, I urge some thought here before going with the populist flow. We don't want to kill the golden goose of aircraft production and maintenance just to tick off a few rich folks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With improvements in video conferencing technologies, there is no excuse whatsoever for
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 21, 2009 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
misusing corporate jets even for mere 1-2 hour meetings. Until society learns to actually appreciate the hard work of IT workers putting in their valiant efforts to improve telecommunications and stops allowing Big Telco from overcharging customers and even businesses, I'm afraid the corporate jets are here to stay. Remember, unlike the late 19th earlier 20th century especially the Great Depression Era, for the past 50 years Main Street has been too divided amongst itself to take on Wall $treet.

P.S.: I nearly lost my job when I stood up and defended the idea of video teleconferencing in place of frequent flights just for 1-2 hour meetings a few years ago but I'm now getting thanked for being brave about it and my boss is happy he doesn't have to travel too frequently, at least by plane.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» To answer your question, Posted by: maxpayne
» Irony Posted by: drugs
gimmie shelter
Posted by: gimmie shelter on Feb 21, 2009 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barbara hits it right on the head by exposing yet more corporate welfare which may never have been brought to our attention. The citizens of our country should be sick of all the ways we are subsidizing these corporate A..holes while they overcharge all of us for toxic products and spoiled food. We need to end this gravy train they ride on, the curtain has been drawn back to expose that the wizards are only mental midgets and thieves. We need to take back our country and empty their pockets at the same time and we could start with their jets and then move onto their yachts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gimmie shelter Posted by: jeffnc
And then, fire the now unnecessary workers?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 21, 2009 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't the whole notion of the Big Stimulator Stick to create jobs, no matter the waste?

Then what to do with the 16% of maintenance folks, baggage handlers, chauffeur services, pilots, ground support personel, etc. who are hereby considered redundant by Iwrechian edict?

Stop the charade: you folks don't give a damn about working people. This is about:

a) the perception of revenge

b)

Just as a quick diversion back to a rarely played game I like to call Reality With Numbers: in Iwrech's analysis of the impact of private jets in NYC, one wonders how many private jets service the United Nations. If you're going to subject corporations who haven't had any of that ridiculous bail-out or TARP money, isn't it then a good idea to ban private jets entirely for every entity in this country, including government--which is 100% taxpayer-funded, by the way.

Let's shake off the dust off the old 14th amendment if we're really to start holding folks who get our dollars accountable, eh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I like that idea . . . Posted by: dustdevil
I've said it before
Posted by: linecrosser on Feb 21, 2009 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FREEZE, SEIZE, AND STERILIZE. Why anyone would treat any of these people with any more respect than a dog fighting, serial killing, pedophile, is beyond me. Why the rest of the world would look to America as a beacon of anything but corruption in both the business and political arenas. Our leaders have dug this hole and the best way to end this insanity would be for everyone to grab a shovel and fill in the hole. I'd be happier if we emptied the prisons of all non-violent convicts and filled them with these idiots. They're all at least guilty of conspiracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A better idea ...
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 21, 2009 10:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GROUND their jets?!

A lot of these companies' executives should be "cooling their jets" in prison cells somewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many of these trips are an excuse to party
Posted by: Rod on Feb 21, 2009 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The execs come to visit your facility and you are expected to provide hookers for them, Or you visit a vendor and they have a "girl" for you just in case you want one. It happens. Not talked about.

Can't do that by teleconferencing can you, well not yet anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let them have the jets!
Posted by: AJR Journal on Feb 21, 2009 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As President Obama said "Spending money? What do you think a stimulus is?"
There are much bigger and important issues facing us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The further left you go, the further right you get
Posted by: YogiBear on Feb 21, 2009 1:22 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as Britain's anti-terror chief has warned, private jets pose an unacceptable security risk, since there's nothing to stop passengers from carrying weapons aboard

Yes, let's ban private jets altogether, so we can get one step closer toward a surveillance state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Let them fly coach."
Posted by: beffie on Feb 21, 2009 1:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe we'll finally grab a ride on the clue train and realize that we're being f-ed. I'm not getting optimistic or anything, but I am sharpening my guillotine just in case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

abusedbypenguins
Posted by: abusedbypenguins on Feb 21, 2009 7:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Private jets; one of the reasons stinger missiles were invented. Knock down a few and the rest will stay on the ground.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look at the ads next to the story
Posted by: Beck on Feb 22, 2009 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of them are for private business jets!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Use the jets to dispose of the evil corporate planet-killers
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Feb 22, 2009 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Use the jets to dispose of the evil corporate planet-killers. Fly them over the melting polar caps and throw them out...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is America. Land of *coughwheeze* Opportunity.
Posted by: Longdream on Feb 22, 2009 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So if zillionaires want to run around in private jets, it's cool. I wouldn't even think of nixing the new American Dream.

But if they're using my air up, and if my kid's going to have asthma because he lives near that golf course, then limitations need to be applied. And I love Barbara's idea of a stiff charge to be applied to counter-pollution measures and real viable transportation for the rest of us. How about making them pay for some health care, too?

There's a difference between corporations owning a fleet of jets themselves--I can't even get my mind around that--and using charter services, which are separate businesses made up of specialists who probably fly and run planes more efficiently by doing more of it, and which employ more people.

In terms of tax treatment, a corporation owning its own planes gets to deduct the expenses of amortization and usage, and can write off as depreciation 100% of the purchase price in five years. In December, a bonus depreciation schedule which allowed for 60% of the purchase price to be written off in the first year will expire. THIS is why megacorps love their corporate jets. They're brilliant write-offs. All that is money that the US Treasury DOES NOT GET.

In 2004, the Job Creation Act threw us a bone: corporations who allow corporate jets in use exclusively for the recreation of the corporate kings and their families can only write off usage expenses for said recreational trips to the tune of the cost of first-class air transportation. Wow. I feel better now. HOW ABOUT THIS: YOU GO ON VACATION OR NEED TO FLY FOR NON-BUSINESS RELATED REASONS, WITH YOUR WIFE YOUR FIVE KIDS TWO NANNYS AND YOUR DOG, YOU BUY YOUR OWN TICKET AND USE THE PUBLIC AIRLINES INSTEAD OF SPONGING ON ALL OF US??!!

I think private jet ownership is fine, with the aforesaid restrictions. I think corporate jet ownership is too damned easy, cheats the tax base, and should be outlawed. Either that, or the tax treatment needs to be modified so severely that ownership is no longer attractive. Corporate muckety-mucks can use charter services if they must travel privately, and put people to work that way, not to mention contribute to the economy.

By the way--I'm still working on why GM needs umpty more billion dollars to CLOSE some plants and LAY OFF some more people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ba
Posted by: mnstra on Feb 22, 2009 9:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about that Gunia in congress who goes to Italy on a pvt jet paid for by the taxpayers to do some personal family business. How crazy is that/ A slap in the face to Americans taxpayers/

She clearly is the Marie Antoinette of today. Let them eat jet fuel!!!!!!!!!!
What a pig.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pelosi needs to go! Posted by: 2thepoint
Corporation laws
Posted by: tatamchwh on Feb 22, 2009 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of all fifty states must be revised if our economy is to be strong again. First, compensation packages must be determined by the shareholders and not by the boards of directors. Second, shareholders must be allowed some level of say in just who is to be hired in the positions of CEO and CFO. Democratizing our corporation laws is just one measure that must be taken to restore our economy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Hope Remains.
Posted by: Longdream on Feb 22, 2009 2:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know where you got that "1'. Your statement seems like a very good one to me.

We can't force people to give up their money, but if we just eliminated some of the ridiculously rich tax loopholes and bonuses that corporations and zillionaires get there would be a lot more money in the Treasury to do what we have to do. They want to eat their bread and cake and laugh at people's struggles while they do their part to make things worse? Fine! Just let them pay for the privilege.

But it doesn't only hinge on the zillionaires. Hell, if we're waiting for rich people or corporations to save us, we're going down in a hurry! It's up to us ordinary folks, too. I went to the White House website to send a message to Barack and Michelle, and they have what to do and how to proceed if you want to give them a gift. You send it here or there, and maybe perishables aren't such a good idea, etc., but they also say that they love it that you think of them, but it would be better for you to use the money for the thing you were going to give them to do some good in your own community.

If every one of us who has a tiny bit to spare gave just a little bit of it to help someone who has less, we wouldn't need to worry about the sun and the clouds--we'd have each other, and maybe everyone would have enough no matter what else we can't control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spending fast
Posted by: 2thepoint on Feb 22, 2009 6:13 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congress should curtail their "working vacations" as well. Pelosi, the real chimp, jets off to a work/vaca in Italy. Nice cover and an even nicer way to waste our money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

UNGROUND Business Jets and get the facts straight ...
Posted by: Sapience on Feb 23, 2009 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recently members of Congress have been very critical of business aviation. Their comments and the recent actions by policy makers could be detrimental to my industry. I feel compelled to defend my occupation against this unwarranted attack.

Nearly 70 percent of general aviation flying hours are for business reasons. Most business aircraft are used to boost efficiency and productivity. They are equipped with computer, fax, and telephone work stations ensuring all business communications are conducted in a secure environment. The corporate business jet traveler is productive the entire time they are in the air, unlike those traveling the airlines.

Any proposal in Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) legislation that includes a provision for the divestiture of business aircraft will harm our industry. Banning the use of business airplanes for any company would impact productivity and efficiency and jeopardize high-paying manufacturing, engineering, maintenance, support, accounting and other jobs.

Targeting any industry is a counterproductive response to our nation's economic situation. Congress should not be taking action to weaken an important domestic manufacturing industry (buy U.S.) that contributes more than $150 billion to the U.S. economy annually and employs more than 1,265,000 people.

General aviation is one of the few industries still contributing to the nation's positive balance of trade -- with almost $12 billion in exports (38 percent of sales) in 2007.

General aviation is an important part of the country's transportation system. More than 5,000 communities rely on general aviation for their air transportation needs -- compared to the 500 communities served by scheduled airlines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear Whistlewhat
Posted by: EsquireCA on Feb 23, 2009 1:39 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regardng your Feb 21, 2009 5:35 AM. Is is not enough that your website and blog have been removed/banned and your IP address blocked by the Wall Street Journal (for defamatation), and Wikipedia (for defamation and repeated vandalism? After now having done a modicum of legal research on the tort law, it appears that you might have discovered the ill fate awaiting your highly transparent self-serving defenses in the form of parentheticals regarding "public figure" status and absense of malice--reckless disregard of truth (by posting links and saying "I am right now looking at KPMG emails, etc."). Furthermore, it seems you might have finally realized the foolishness of your attempted absence of malice defense, because if you do, in fact, have such KPMG documents you purport to refer to, you either have reason to know they are not reliable or you are misrepresenting their contents. If not, how are you going to explain how you obtained these confidential client documents from KPMG, how they are currently in your possession notwithstanding your your severance agreement, and how your disclosure of such documents and the information contained therein comports with IRC section 7216?
So, now you have yet another misguided theory to justify your tortious conduct--"MISPRISON."
You now say, "Therefore I must hereby notify all legal authorities that Mike Hamersley a high level Government official in the bankrupt state of California at the FTB (who is nationally known as a tax shelter fighting crusader) is guilty of tax evasion and conspiracy to commit tax evasion as (he defines it); guilty of theft of honest services; conspiracy to defraud creditors; possibly perjury to the Senate and other government agencies: and violation of 7216, disclosure of confidential taxpayer information to third parties. It is indeed a rather long list. . . "
Ironic, isn't it that it was IRC 7216 and attorney/client privilege that you had previously stated prevented you from disclosing any information to the IRS?

The federal crime of "misprison of felony," under 18 U.S.C. Section 4, requires the ACTIVE concealment of a KNOWN felony. So it appears that this attempt to justify your misconduct also has a few flaws: (1) YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT I HAVE NOT COMMITTED A CRIME--that is why you have repeatedly refused my invitation to come forward nd identify yourself and your information; (2) Would you please explain how you are now "actively concealing" knolwedge of a known felony? I, as would KPMG, and their clients, love to see the documents you purport to have that you say are in your possession.

So, let me be very clear with you. If you persist in posting such patently false, malicious, and defamatory comments, you do so at your own peril. There is simply no defense or justification that is going to protect you from legal liability when THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT THE INFORMATION YOU ARE POSTING IS FALSE AND YOU KNOW IT, AND YOUR MOTIVES IN POSTING THIS INFORMATION IS SO PATENTLY OBVIOUS MALICOUS MERELY FROM READING THE INFORMATION IN YOUR BLOG COMMENTS. Finally, I reiterate my invitation to you to discuss this issue and any such documents you cliam to have with you at any time. If you really believe this information could have some basis in reality and your goal is anything other than to defame me, why do you continue to refuse to identify yourself? Why hide in the shadows with anonymous blog handles taking pot shots at me and all you of those you seem to think have "ruined your life?" Please also be aware that in addtion to being defamation per se defamation in California, it is also a felony to falsely report to law enforcement that antoher person has committed a felony when you know that information to be false. I SUGGEST YOU TAKE A MOMENT TO REFECT ON YOUR BEHAVIOR AND GET AHOLD OF YOURSELF.

Michael Hamersley

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gimmie shelter
Posted by: gimmie shelter on Feb 23, 2009 8:17 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think you guys should get a room, maybe a courtroom. Pssst......no only can tax cheats get top jobs in government these days but also throughout history, along with many other undesirable personal defects. Even at times of extreme change our government remains all to much the same. Forgive me if I am not shocked that anyone in government can be less than accountable for actions both known and unknown to the public.But if your virtue is true and not just winnable in a mislead court, then have at it,good luck and let the honest man win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NBAA employee
Posted by: danhubjr on Feb 27, 2009 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No Plane No Gain: Sizzle Trumps Truth in Recent Oped

Lost in all the factual errors and sensationalist rhetoric of "Corporate America, Ground Your Jets" - a shrill play on the recent negative news coverage about business aviation - is any understanding of the critical role business aviation plays for citizens, companies and communities all across America.

While going after these small aircraft may be an easy ploy for getting attention, the truth is that the majority of companies that rely on an airplane to compete, especially in this tough economy, are small to mid-sized businesses.

Let's shed some light, instead of only heat, on some of the other facts about business aviation in America today.

First, business aviation means jobs. The manufacture and use of a general aviation airplane for business contributes more than $150 billion annually to the U.S. economy and provides 1.2 million skilled, high-wage jobs. The vast majority of general aviation aircraft worldwide are manufactured, operated, serviced and maintained in America.

Even the companies that manufacture planes abroad "complete" the planes here. American companies of all sizes install avionics, electronics, automation systems, engines, paint, interiors and other aircraft components manufactured in the U.S. by American workers. These are jobs we can keep here in the U.S.

Second, business aviation provides a lifeline to communities across the U.S. In the past year alone, nearly 100 towns have lost some or all of their airline service. For the businesses located in these communities, business aviation is often not just the best option, it's the only option available for serving existing facilities and clients, finding new ones, or delivering resources, products and tools so that companies can survive and jobs can be preserved. Business aviation is also often the means by which medical care, organ-donor transport and humanitarian relief is provided for the people in these towns.

Third, denying America's companies the ability to use a business airplane takes away a proven productivity tool for American business. Among the many prudent, cost-effective missions for business airplanes are those that require multiple stops in a single day, or the transport of equipment that cannot be shipped or checked on a commercial flight, or the dispatch of teams to meet with customers that involves doing business en route.

Of course, along with all the hyperbole in the oped, there were all manner of misleading claims put forward. For example, in contrast to what the authors would have readers believe, general aviation airplane emissions account for less than one percent of all transportation emissions (and declining). General aviation flights are not the major drivers of cost or congestion in the nation's aviation system, because they don't need or use the costly "hub-and-spoke airport" system the airlines require. The FAA's own data have shown that it's the scheduled airlines that account for the cost of the aviation system.

These are the facts; this is the history. If an honest discussion of business aviation is to be had, it should not be reliant on symbols or over-heated rhetoric, but should instead acknowledge the valuable role it plays in providing American jobs, service to communities across the country and growth opportunities for business in tough times. And it's why business aviation is so essential in America today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wake up American's get smart about business aviation
Posted by: mikewitt on Mar 9, 2009 3:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know it is just like the unknowing to spout off about something they totally do not comprehend.
Not many of us can afford a private jet or can work hard enough and smart enough to have our company own one either.
Wake up and smell the roses. Hundreds of thousands of people are employed because of the business jet. Me for one. Our company is 95% in business because of this industry. Stop and think... look around. Get your head out of the sand.
Did you know more corporate aircraft fly middle management people into more places without scheduled airline service than are dedicated to top management? There are whole towns and communities with industry that would not be successful if it were not for the business aircraft.
What is happening to our country anyway? Make your own discoveries and do your own research. Please do not go socialist on me, my fellow American's. Capitalism is the backbone of our culture and strength. How else can we continue to protect and feed the rest of the world?
Mike from Van Nuys

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement