Yeah, ha ha, whatever.
Wait — really?
Two tiny constituencies of the super-rich are locked in a Titanic Clash (verily, a Clash of the Titans). Our stinkin’ hippie President, a red-diaper baby if we ever saw one, has courageously sided with the guys whose limos do not include wet bars.
And on this issue, we stand with the President of the United States (by God).
Airline CEO’s (a well-to-do lot) and private-jet owners (themselves generally able to afford a nice down-payment) are fighting over how they’ll split gummint taxes that pay for air traffic control. Right now big planes pay a lot, maybe a couple thousand bucks each flight, while private smaller planes pay a few hundred, tops.
What’s wrong with that? Well, to the ATC boys, a plane is a plane, so regardless of the size, each bird in the sky takes the same amount of time and stress to herd through the airport. So the airlines are upset about what they think is a “free upgrade” given to private jets who pay pennies on the dollar for equivalent service.
(Get it? free? upgrade? Cause it’s airplanes? Tell your mom that one; she’ll laugh so hard she won’t even be upset you forgot to call her on Mother’s day.)
Considering airline managers have been losing hair by the fistful ever since 9/11, and private planes are profit-makers or silly expensive perks, the resentment gets understandable.
The President wants to shift some of those taxes to private jets, and so do we.
You see, there’s really no better way to be a part of the climate-change problem than to fly around in private jets. The CO2 emissions per mile travelled dwarf those of an SUV, and the CO2 emissions per person are much worse than those of a commercial-flight passenger.
The President’s idea, to shift some of the tax burden off of commercial jets and onto private planes, carries a lot of parallels to the agenda that environmentalists have about ground transportation — i.e., fund mass transit and keep it cheap, while not forcing the taxpayers to subsidize roadbuilding projects, which increase sprawl and emissions while supporting drivers who often don’t pay their fair share of the costs.
We’re confident he’s just tending to the needs of an ailing industry (cutting taxes for a struggling sector is the chest pass of supply-side economics) but it’s entertaining to find Dubya coincidentally mirroring the green agenda.
Unrelated serious point: we hope they find those 3 missing GI’s soon.