Business aviation sector sputters after being dissed by Obama – Unexpectedly!

The Daily Caller’s Caroline May reports that the jet industry is furious over President Obama’s most recent class warfare screed:

Much has been made of President Barack Obama’s repeated demonizing of corporate jets and the people who fly on them in his June 29th press conference.

While pundits and politicians haggle over whether alterations in the depreciation schedule of corporate jets will actually have an impact on the deficit, those in the general aviation trenches are furious.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPO) President Craig Fuller told The Daily Caller that Obama’s comments have cast a pall over the industry, causing many who were considering buying a plane to back away from making a purchase.

“The industry has suffered terribly in the last two and a half years and it has just started to recover. Most of the signs were starting to look good,” said Fuller. “We are so angry as an industry and we have all come together to try to bring a more fair and balanced description to the debate.”

In response to Obama’s press conference, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) issued a letter to the president. The two organizations challenged the administration’s rhetoric and recalled a similar instance in which 20,000 IAM workers were laid off as a result of “ill-informed criticism of corporate jets and business aviation” and the 2008 downturn.

“Words have consequences and, in this industry, a few misguided words can put at risk even the ever-so-modest recovery we have experienced,” said IAM International President Tom Buffenbarger. “What this industry and its workforce requires is more time to recover, a chance to book more orders and the opportunity to recall more workers.”

The president himself saw a benefit in providing tax breaks for corporate jets just in the past couple of years, signing two pieces of legislation that contained such provisions: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the Small Business Lending Fund Act.

Indeed, one of of the greatest perks of being president is flying in the most private jet of all, Air Force One. According to Fuller, Obama has flown Air Force One more than any other president in history.

Indeed, it’s good to be king.  Unfortunately for the rest of us, the Obama Administration has accumulated an extensive and sordid record of picking “winners” (to be awarded crony status and showered with tax credits, subsidies, political influence, regulatory waivers, etc.) and “losers” (to be punished with punitive taxation, increased regulation, government scrutiny, and castigation via popular culture).  And when the President publicly adds an industry  to the “losers” list, people connected to that industry get really scared.  And angry.  Even the unions.  (Are you paying attention here, Mr. President?)

Of course none of this should be “unexpected.” After President Roosevelt emerged victorious in the 1936 Presidential elections, he began to flex his political muscles by introducing a vast array of new government programs, new taxes for business (the Social Security payroll tax and a new “undistributed profits” tax) and expanded government regulatory power.  His National Labor Relations Board oversaw an unprecedented expansion of labor union power and subsequent demands for significant wage and benefit increases.  Together, these new policies and taxes created a very difficult climate for hiring and business investment.  The economy contracted significantly in 1937, culminating in a major stock market sell-off that erased most of the gains made in the modest recovery that had been underway since 1934.  Making matters worse, after the economy faltered Roosevelt began targeting the remaining profitable business sectors with a series of Federal antitrust lawsuits.

Today we are seeing the result of a very obvious pattern that began with the Roosevelt Administration and continues under the presidency of Barack Obama — when the government decides to abandon its Constitutional role as an impartial entity that enforces laws and contracts as fairly as possible, and instead chooses to become a proactive adversary of certain business sectors, the overall economy will suffer.  This is because under such a regime, no one can know for certain who will be the next target in the government’s cross hairs.  Consequently, business managers stop focusing on “how do we grow our business?” and instead make decisions based on their single biggest fear: “how do we avoid being the next government target?”

This is where we are right now.  Where we will be in the near future will be decided on November 6, 2012.

"It's an abysmally weak report"
Romney: Obama has turned the audacity of hope into the audacity of indifference
  • Consequently, business managers stop focusing on “how do we grow our business?” and instead make decisions based on their single biggest fear: “how do we avoid being the next government target?”
    Obviously by giving the right amount of money to the right people.  (Also known as cumshaw, palm greasing, bribery, or ‘a cost of doing business in third world countries’)  And no, there’s no /sarc tag there.  It’s getting plain that the rule of law, the concept that the law applies to ALL without favor or advantage, is being eroded badly.

    Shit.  Look – some regulation is needed.  But there’s a difference between a necktie for appearances sake and a noose.  Calling the second the former doesn’t disguise either the intention or the end result of the intended usage.   

    If Obama wants to strangle the economy in pursuit of his economic fantasies and dreams of Chavez-style patronage, he really needs to consider what the long-term effects are going to be. 

    • Anonymous

      He has, and his fantasy of destroying the country grows realer every day.

      • Anonymous

        “He has, and his fantasy fixation of destroying the country grows realer every day.”

        He’s pissing all his union buddies off along with the GA sector, people who have the wherewithal to actually vote. Jug ears is suffering a very bad case of tin ears, these people don’t forget.

  • Anonymous

    impartial  entity that enforces laws and contracts as fairly as possible, and instead (the federal government) chooses to become a proactive adversary of certain business sectors
     Sounds like an advert for fox news and we know how fair and impartial Murdoch´s organization is. THEY WILL HACK ANYONE´S TELEPHONES ESPECIALLY REAL VICTIMS OF CRIME But

    .But back to  your post..Since when did any federal administration, all of whom are dependent on campaign contributions, to obtain power, not do that..tilt?

    It is just that Obama favors some industries that your side doesn´t. Follow the money.

    And when Cheney set up a secret energy task force, was there any griping  from conservatives. Of course not? BIg pharma, Big oil, big tobacco, big mining have always contributed heavily to Republicans so they they can have their own” too big to fails”· that spawn tax subdies, farm allowances, pharma tax breaks oil depletions, environmental waivers, and so on including (a war of choice for oil) from a GOP administration. Bush delivered early on in his payback for his corporate contributors and appointed several lobbyists to key positions..

    Obama is doing the same. for his side and contributors, hence he is very soft on the banking industry, not as soft as the Republicans would have been.

    • I thought bankers gave to the GOP and not the Dems …  its so confusing, especially if you are ignorant …

  • Anonymous

    Steve, Steve, Steve… you read about Obama wrecking yet another American industry — it’s questionable whether or not it was deliberate — and that makes you think of how you can blame Fox News for the actions of a British tabloid?

    Man, the way your brain is wired is something else.

    Have you thought about working for Media Matters? They seem to be your kind of obsessed/crazy/stupid…


  • Steve, I think most of us see a big distinction between R and D special interests, which perhaps you are missing.  The difference is, the policies that favor the demands of special interests of the Democratic party (labor unions, environmentalism, trial lawyers, civil rights activists, big government, etc. and now big banking) all tend to create heavily bureaucratic, enormously expensive, perpetually subsidized outcomes that in turn precipitate detrimental economic effects when they are enacted.  Whereas the private sector special interests supported by the GOP (domestic energy production, domestic mining and manufacturing, private healthcare providers and insurers, tax reductions and investing incentives for businesses, etc.) tend to promote economic growth.

    We can afford to be a little “wasteful” so to speak and cater a bit to the demands of environmentalists, labor unions, and so forth when the country has a strong economy and can afford the costs of doing so.  But President Obama deliberately chose to head full-throttle into policy decisions historically proven to be job killers and economy crushers, at a time when our economy was headed into one of the most serious recessions on record.  That’s why there has been no real recovery, and why we are curently looking at the very real possibility of a double dip recession. 

  • Anonymous

    Reminds me of the time that a big hue and cry was made about those evil yacht owners and their expensive toys.  How they should be taxed for their sins.  And lo, the Democrats passed a luxury tax……..and the yachting industry went off-shore.  So government lost the revenue it had been collecting and workers lost their jobs.  Ain’t BIG GOVERNMENT great?

  • Anonymous

    Where is the GOP with a commercial showing all the people hurt by this, against the backdrop of a corporate jet:  pilots, co-pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, schedulers, line workers, designers, etc.  Get with it; work with all we have on Obama.

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    Like the Vegas Mayor said, “Obama’s a real slow learner.”

  • Anonymous

    jay, I don´t blame the tabloid only. Let´s see if like Watergate if the public inquiries prove the  cover-up goes right to the most powerful… the Murdoch corporation which owns Fox News and behooves so many of the British and   American establishment, (including Hillary) to seek Murdoch´s approval see video

    • Jeff Blogworthy

      right to the VERY most powerful, including… George Soros perhaps?

  • Anonymous

    Corrected hyper link on hacking scandal and how it effects Murdoch.

    • Anonymous

      Steve, I wasn’t asking you to connect the British tabloid mess to Fox News, but the British tabloid mess to Obama screwing over the aircraft industry. Which do you think is far more relevant to Americans?

      Oh, great, that was another mistake. I can only imagine the convolutions you’ll go through to show how it actually is more important than a major American industry, with real American jobs at stake.


    • Anonymous

      Steve will probably recognize this familiar friend right away. For others, it’s called a red herring.

    • Jeff Blogworthy

      Steve will probably recognize this familiar friend right away. For
      others, it’s called a red herring.

  • Anonymous

    Jay my observation on Murdoch was just an aside to Michael´s fair and impartial,lofty not picking winners and losers  governance philosphy.We are doing that already.if you want to continue to give tax breaks to corporate jet owners,.picking winners and losers  There seems to be some inchorence here.Your side wants tax breaks for corporate jet owners and (ethanol in Iowa..and coal mining and oil and gas depeletions and so on ) and not for wind and solar,or rapid light rail Then we would picking winners and losers,and we can´t do that..mnnnnnnnnnnnn…