Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

President Obama Starts New Bizav Flame War

By Robert Goyer / Published: Jul 06, 2011
Rate it! or
Flying Magazine | The World’s Most Widely Read Aviation Magazine

Air Force One Shrouded in Fog

Photo: White House/Pete Souza

Last week President Obama touched off a new series of high-level flame wars with aviation industry leaders by calling for new taxes on bizjet owners while at the same time seeming again to call into question the legitimacy of bizjet use. In remarks during a press conference on June 29, the president focused on the need to eliminate tax breaks, referring specifically on more than one occasion to accelerated depreciation, a tax incentive that the administration embraced as part of its stimulus package in 2009. The speech came as a broader national debate on debt, revenue and taxes heats up this summer.  

Obama outlined the proposal as a tough choice to cut tax breaks but lumped together hedge fund managers and bizjets owners to make his point: “There’s been a lot of discussion about revenues and raising taxes in recent weeks,” the president said, “so I want to be clear about what we’re proposing here. I spent the last two years cutting taxes for ordinary Americans, and I want to extend those middle-class tax cuts. The tax cuts I’m proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires; tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners.”

President Obama presented the choice as a dilemma between continuing funding for popular programs and tax breaks for the very rich. “It would be nice if we could keep every tax break there is, but we’ve got to make some tough choices here if we want to reduce our deficit. And if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners, if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means we’ve got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship.”

The response from the industry was swift and unified.

Ed Bolen, president of the National Business Aviation Association, said that "the president has inexplicably chosen to vilify and mischaracterize business aviation, an industry that is critical for citizens, companies and communities across the U.S. and one that can play a central role in the economic recovery he says he wants to promote." Bolen also pointed out that the remarks fly in the face of the president’s recent strong support of the very incentive he is now attacking. "Nine months ago, this president extolled the virtues of shortening depreciation schedules to stimulate jobs," Bolen said in a press release. "Now he seems to want to reverse course and push ahead with punitive treatment for general aviation, an industry that creates jobs, helps companies succeed and serves communities all around America."

In a prepared response, Craig Fuller, president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, reminded the president that "the use of GA aircraft creates and sustains thousands of American jobs, and GA manufacturing is one of the few sectors that produces much needed U.S. exports – a fact the President himself acknowledged in the same news conference where he derided the use of those aircraft."

For a different view of President Obama’s about face on business aviation, read Robert Goyer’s Going Direct.

Comments (9) Post a comment

All Comments

Vicious's picture

I'm surprised that obama would make public comments so critical of business aviation. Isn't he the same dude who gets transported around in a Marine Corps helicopter and a USAF 747? He'll probably never fly in a commercial airliner again "due to security." He is completely out of touch with business in the United States and working Americans. I think that all future presidents should be required to have had a real job and haved served in the military. Everytime he opens his mouth he's critical of people who have been successful. He just doesn't get it!

KingsleyHill's picture

Last year we heard a presentation about presidential travel and were told that an international trip by the President of the United States uses as many as 80+ aircraft, from the helicopters, the multiple 747's, miltary transports for the limos and helicopters, etc. This really puts the "high" in hypocrisy! Spending tax payers money on jets for the President and members of congress is ok...but spending money that a person has earned himself for a jet is wrong. Interesting!

airsteve172's picture

It seems to me that Mr. Obama's logic to keep this boat afloat is to drill more holes in the bottom (to let the water out).

SocalFlyer's picture

Our fearless leader stokes the fires of class warfare because it is among the few aspects of our out-of-control society he can easily manipulate to his advantage. Progress on the real problems we face would require leadership far beyond his capabilities.

Jdevine's picture

Ugg, here we go again, I suppose we should cut and paste our comments from Monday's "Obama Duplicitous about Bizav", Now we have "President Obama Starts New Bizav Flame War". How many more articles can we expect on Obama's comments from last week. I suppose tomorrow we'll have "Obama Pursues The Utter Elimination of Bizav".

Without accelerated depreciation (writing off around 80% of the aircraft cost in year 1), corporations and self-employed users can still depreciate it to Zero in five years. Besides, the whole issue of depreciating an asset faster than actual depreciation is just a loan from the IRS because you have to pay it back (recapture) when you sell. So, if I depreciate an aircraft to zero in 5 years, then sell it for %60 of what I paid, I realize every dime of that selling price as income.

Lastly, can we get over the "Prez flies on AF1 so he's a bizav hypocrite" meme. Give me a break. Presidential travel is based on a standard of practice this country has developed since the dawn of jet travel. Every President does it as part of the job and the outlay of resources is primarily dictated by the military and the Secret Service. Ex-president benefits are a matter of law and if one is curious can be read at http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-249.pdf

KingsleyHill's picture

I am not ready to get over the "Prez flies on AF1 so he's a bizav hypocrite" I understand the need for the President to have private jet transportation as I do other executives. I can however be confident in saying that NO other corporate jet user in the world comes close to using 80+ aircraft for each trip.

As to the military and secret service dictating how he "needs" to travel, it is called "leadership" when the executive counsels restraint on the part of his people who would spend infinite (taxpayer) dollars to wring out every fraction of probability of a mishap -- which by the way is impossible.

prophetca's picture

I completely agree with Jdevine's comments. President Obama is not proposing raising taxes on business aviation. He's proposing eliminating a tax loophole. Anyone who wants a jet is still going to buy one. At worst the effect would be to buy the G450 rather than the G550 to save a few dollars that the buyer was previously being given for free by tax payers. Are we really going to have a debate about defending tax loopholes?

Jdevine's picture

@ KingsleyHill

"80+ aircraft for each trip". That's TOTAL BUNK. Not even Michelle Bachmann would spout such a ridiculous number.

Your number is more that twice the number peak number that are only rarely used when the president travels overseas to dangerous parts of the world. (i.e. the Middle East), and even that lower number includes several short hop fighter escorts in foreign airspace. That vast majority of Presidential trips are domestic and involve a handful of aircraft.

FlightTekE's picture

1) Whether Republican or Democrat, the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America rightly receives transportation privilege not available to every mainstreet American, so to cry "hypocrisy" is simply foolish bloviating.
2) The President's essential point is (and I whole-heartedly agree), while struggling to better balance income against expenditures by the Federal government, if a company (public or private) can afford to buy a private jet, then that company can afford to pay additional Federal taxes. Period. There is no reason why the most financially needy U.S. citizens (those receiving Medicare and MedicAid) should have their benefits cut while those wealthy enough to afford a private jet continue to receive a tax break that subsidizes their purchase.
Certainly U.S. busineses need to grow their markets, but let's get some perspective here, folks! Multiple analyses have confirmed that it will be IMPOSSIBLE to even approach a balanced Federal budget with spending cuts alone. There MUST BE revenue increases. While every industry would like to protect their sacred cow(s), the sacrifice should and must be carried by all segments of society. It is ludicrous to argue that the most wealthy and privileged members of society should not be required to contribute more (as a percentage) than those least able. [Remember, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are "persons", so it stands to reason that they should be taxed at least as heavily as "persons" with similar incomes.]
I recently heard that IF the Bush-era tax breaks were allowed to expire (as scheduled!), the national debt (as a percentage of GDP) would drop to around 2% within 10 years.
It is unconscionable and morally bankrupt to try to balance the Federal Budget on the backs of America's children, elderly, poor, clean and safe food, air and drink water while subsidizing millionaires and billionaire corportions.

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use