President Obama’s core message in his Wednesday press conference, his first since March, could be found in his advice to Republicans. “You go talk to your constituents and ask them, ‘Are you willing to compromise your kids’ safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?’”
This was just one of six shots the president took at corporate-jet owners. A novice might be forgiven for thinking that the president really doesn’t like corporate jets or that the Republicans cared so much about the darn things that they had proposed crossing out “arms” in the Second Amendment and replacing it with “corporate jets.” Where’s Charlton Heston to proclaim, “From my cold dead hands you can have my Learjet 85 . . . ”?
Advertisement
A novice might also think that tax status of corporate jets is of disproportionate significance in how to move this country toward a balanced budget.
But the novice would be wrong. For starters, Obama’s most recent budget calls for adding $9.5 trillion in new debt over the next decade. If you got rid of the “accelerated depreciation” of corporate jets, Reuters economics columnist James Pethokoukis calculates, it would save a whopping .03 percent of that total.
Sadly, the room was full of journalists who do not consider themselves novices but who nonetheless let Obama get away with this demagogic dishonesty. No one asked the president why he suddenly cares so much about getting rid of a tax break he himself was for before he was against it. Indeed, no one asked why, if it is such an affront to the liberal conscience, it was part of Obama’s stimulus bill, which was passed without any Republican votes in the House and only three in the Senate (which means Nancy Pelosi voted for special tax breaks for corporate jets and the GOP didn’t).
More broadly, no one threw a flag on his claim that “every single observer who’s not an elected official, who’s not a politician,” agrees with him on the burning need to raise taxes as part of any budget deal. This is a good example of Obama’s most grating tic, his need to claim that all reasonable and serious people agree with him and anyone who disagrees must be doing so for base or ideological motives.
No one queried why he talks about the need to raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” but the fine print of his proposals defines millionaires and billionaires as people who make $200,000 a year as individuals or $250,000 as joint-filing couples. Jay Duckson at Central Business Jets tells the Wall Street Journal that the starting price for a private jet is $10 million dollars. Annual upkeep and fuel is about $500,000. You do the math.
This points to what is most offensive about Obama’s focus-grouped class-warfare rhetoric: the total incoherence of the underlying policies.
The day before his press conference, Obama was in Bettendorf, Iowa, at the Alcoa Davenport Works plant to highlight his economic vision for manufacturing. “Alcoa is showing us the future we can build here in eastern Iowa and across the country,” he proclaimed.
“The idea is to create jobs now, and to make sure America stays on the cutting edge of manufacturing for years to come,” Obama declared.
The factory Obama visited, however, isn’t a generic aluminum plant. It is, according to Alcoa, the “premier aerospace supply plant and is today the hub of Alcoa’s $3 billion aerospace business.”
That includes the general aviation industry, which is centered in Wichita, Kan., where they make private jets “right here in America” as Obama likes to say. The upshot: Obama says that Alcoa must lose business among American customers to repeal a tax break Obama and the Democrats supported because Republicans want to balance the budget.
To be fair, Alcoa’s biggest customers aren’t manufacturers of private jets but the big manufacturers of commercial jets — you know, like Boeing. Well, that company is being told by Obama’s union-hack-packed National Labor Relations Board that it cannot open a new manufacturing plant in South Carolina, because to do so would offend Obama’s beloved unions in Washington State.
The point isn’t that there’s no merit to any of Obama’s positions (personally, I’m all for clearing the junk out of the tax code). The point is that at this point merit simply has nothing to do with the positions Obama takes.
This column points out the general hypocrisy of nearly all of bho's policies and speeches. There is either a total disconnect between one day's comments and the next, or, there is some connection to the administration when pushing his ideological theories (green jobs).
This occurs for a couple reasons. First, since the potus has never had a real job, he sees no connection to theory and reality. Second, he is campaigning for more re-election funds (crony companies, unions).
In addition, this man seems so disconnected from anything not related to being sent back for a second term that he appears to be going through the motions. When he doesn't remember the dead MOH recipients from the deceased, he isn't paying much attention to detail (or doesn't care).
While I don't remember the exact context, bho himself talked about speeches being just words. Inference being that it doesn't really matter what is being said, just that something is being said.
As Jonah points out, it's disgusting to watch the " journalists" sit there like a room full of star-struck teenaged girls at a Justin Bieber concert.
That's his biggest edge heading into 2012--his absolute confidence that he will never face scrutiny from the MSM.
Mr. Goldberg, you can't seriously be so shocked by his speech. I don't think Obama took "demagogic dishonesty to a new level": he talks like every other Democrat or Republican politician. Plus, when Bush was in office, liberals complained about how the media gave him free passes on stuff he said (Iraq comes to mind). What Obama said is standard political rhetoric, nothing more and nothing less.
Putting aside his nitpicking on corporate jets, his main point is the U.S. should raise taxes on the "rich" in addition to spending cuts if we are to get out of our deficit/debt hole. He was using those as examples of places where taxes could be increased. As I have said before, the only SENSIBLE path is to cut spending AND raise taxes on almost everyone (not just the rich) in order to fix our finances.
No I'm not kidding. Just do a Google search on it. There are many sites that discuss how they feel the media did not question Bush enough about Iraq. Though, I think the media greatly increased its criticism of Bush during his final years.
But, my point was not about whether Bush or Obama should or should not have been questioned. It's that whatever party not in power complains that the President is not challenged enough by the media on his assertions.
"Do a Google search on it." Seriously? I can do a Google search and find complaints the media is biased towards pedophiles, ganja smokers, and the left-handed, too.
If we're talking about accelerated depreciation, then we're not talking about a reduction in tax receipts over the useful life of the jet, but simply a deferral of those receipts. The only impact on the national debt would be the interest incurred on the debt necessary to finance that deferral.
I wonder if one 'journalist' in a hundred understands that.
Bravo! Politicians speaking about basic economics make my hair hurt. And journalists explaining it is like Elmer Fudd discussing the Theory of General Relativity.
Making the tax code simpler is an admirable goal. But do we really want to discourage capital investment? BTW, how is a machine that allows upper management to produce more efficiently any different from a machine that allows a line worker to produce more efficiently?
And speaking of simplification, why are corporations taxed at all. Profits are taxed when distributed to shareholders. Why is there DOUBLE TAXATION?
It's such an absurd screed that the GOP should (read "won't") take full rhetorical advantage.
I'd be fine with changing the acceleration back to 5 years and capping a host of deductions for "millionaires & billionaires" if we change SS to price indexing and extend the retirement age from 65 to 70 (gradually one year per decade for people 55 and under).
If Dems agree, we win some real concessions and have "compromised".
If Dems recant then we've proven how ridiculous Dear Leader's rhetoric is.
Why isn't "depreciation time" determined by how long the asset is designed to last. If the design time is 10-years then there is a 10-year depreciation cycle. If it is less then 1-year (say a computer) then it gets a 1-year depreciation (if any at all).
How long something is designed to last should be agreed upon by the industry and the government. One an item is depreciated, that's it.
Or, we could just scrap all the nonsense between the pages of the tax code and stop "picking winners" (or at least the most effective lobbyists). 3-individual tax rates, folks making less than minimum wage (based on 40-hr week and 50-week year) don't pay any taxes at all. Say tax rates of 10%, 15% and 20%. A corporate tax rate of 10%. Oh yeah, no deductions because it is through deductions that they try to control our behavior. The tax code should be about revenue generation, not social engineering.
I find it interesting that BHO attacks the oil companies for legitimate earnings and depreciations but says nothing against GE for not paying any taxes on billions of earnings .Once again like all companies they are dealing with the tax code that is dealt them . However could it be he spares GE because they are invoved with clean energy and Jeff Immelt is a pal? Ah crony capitalism.
The really sad thing is that Obama is lying when he claims that this change in the depreciation schedule will result in additional taxes collected.
It will result in more taxes collected this year, but at the expense of fewer taxes collected in future years. In total, no new taxes will be collected.
Matt. So you can find a couple of far left sites that feel that media wasn't mean enough. That's like a far right site complaining that the media didn't do enough grill Obama over his birth certificate.
So what? Exactly. The opposition ALWAYS complains the media doesn't grill the President enough, so therefore Mr. Goldberg should not include himself with that complaining majority. He should just focus on the substance in Obama's speech. Like whether or not we should only cut spending, or do a mix of spending cuts and tax increases.
Maybe I'm too cynical these days, but there may be another reason the President focused on "Corporate Jet" owners for particular scorn.
Whose Jet is among the most visible symbols of his corporate empire, and who has been a most blunt and outspoken critic of the President in the last several months?
Donald Trump. The President's lash out of jet owners wasn't just class warfare language, it was a petulant strike at the Donald.
The only merit Obama recognizes in any position is its value in helping him gain or maintain power. In that much, at least, he has been frighteningly consistent.
Follow
