Originally written by David Kallans on January 28, 2009 4:00 PM  "Love of neighbor" is not a corporate mission

You know, David, this is as witty a maxim as could be! I`d like to borrow it.

This corporate jet issue is shere demagoguery.  Private jets are not a luxury for corporations, they are a necessity.  High-level executives need to be taken to far-flung meetings quickly, and having a private jet is often the quickest and most cost-effective way to get them from place to place.  This is like saying that unemployed people who go on job interviews shouldn't be allowed to buy the "luxury" of a suit.  It's just populist nonsense that exploits class envy and ignorance.

Full disclosure:  I did once get to fly in a client's corporate jet in my lawyer days, and it was, I must admit, really, really cool.

Originally written by David Kallans on January 29, 2009 8:50 PM   This corporate jet issue is shere demagoguery.  Private jets are not a luxury for corporations, they are a necessity.  High-level executives need to be taken to far-flung meetings quickly, and having a private jet is often the quickest and most cost-effective way to get them from place to place.  This is like saying that unemployed people who go on job interviews shouldn't be allowed to buy the "luxury" of a suit.  It's just populist nonsense that exploits class envy and ignorance. Full disclosure:  I did once get to fly in a client's corporate jet in my lawyer days, and it was, I must admit, really, really cool.

Well, if you go by the tens of millions that top executives in U.S. are paid, the time saved would probably pay off the corporate jet but that is of course assuming that they put that time to good, productive, and profitable use. This is not for me to judge.

It was only not too long ago that China got its equivalent of Air Force One (unfortunately engulfed in electronic spying device controversy, that finally seems to point to internal affairs rather than planted U.S.) and there are many other countries in the world where the head of sate still flies the scheduled commercial airlines.

BTW, Obama seems to look stressed out at times compared to the always relaxed appearance of Bush.

Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew there are many other countries in the world where the head of sate still flies the scheduled commercial airlines.

Care to name some?  I find this claim highly dubious.

Originally written by David Kallans on January 29, 2009 9:18 PM   Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew there are many other countries in the world where the head of sate still flies the scheduled commercial airlines. Care to name some?  I find this claim highly dubious.

Put it this way: Many countries still do not maintain a dedicated plane for the head of state and many of this countries do not have business jet hiring business within the country or in neiboring countries.

Singapore does not maintain a dedicated plane for its head of state (as far as I know) and it is not unusual for the ministers to travel on commercial airlines (the Prime Minister salary can beat that of U.S. presidentail salary (official salary only) hands down). A bit of tidbits:

makati.blogspot.com/2007/06/singapore-to-krabi-for-20-sgd.html June 29, 2007. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong flew Tiger Airways back from Hanoi last November. I wonder how much he paid for his fare, if he ordered any of those cup noodles, and whether he paid to request more leg room. Not that he would have had to worry about depleting government funds by opting for an exit row seat - Temasek Holdings, the Singapore Government’s investment arm, owns 11% of Tiger Airways.

Originally written by John Bunch  Obama didn't screw U.S. workers by having Treasury pressure Citi to cancel their jet, they screwed the French worker:

 

Well Obama has pretty much already demonstrated that he is just another say-one-thing-and-do-another politician, despite all of his false talk of "change."  His new man at Treasury, Timothy Geitner, didn't think he himself had to follow the tax laws, but he was deemed "too important" to be held to the same laws that all other Americans are (he failed to pay taxes he owed when he was employed at the IMF, and his "explanations" have been, in my view and those of many others, woefully inadequate).  To top it off, Geitner and Obama now want to hire as Geitner's chief deputy a former lobbyist, and they are asking for a waiver from the policy of no lobbyists in federal jobs that they just announced, with smug self-satisfaction, just days ago.  Change, indeed.  The policy really is "we believe in ethics, except when other considerations are more important," which is really the same policy Bush had.