Making an issue of CEOs flying private jets is nothing but wealth envy.  Plain and simple.  It is playing into the ignorance of government-educated voters who couldn't make change without a computer.  Here's what brings this to mind.  Private jets are back in the news after a new study found that more private jets were used in 2008 than in any of the previous five years.  Awful, right?  I know ... so just take a look at how ABC presents this story:

As hordes of Americans watched their retirement savings disappear and their home values plunge after the economic crisis started in September, many corporate CEOs rode high, literally ...

So how much do these fancy jets cost each company? In 2008, the median value of CEO travel for the year was $141,477, up from $109,743 a year earlier. Equilar notes that high fuel prices might have contributed to part of that increase.

But apparently, more CEOs took advantage of the jets last year. Equilar said 79.2 percent of those Fortune 100 CEOs got jet benefits last year, up from to 74.7 percent in 2007. Some companies have since announced plans to cut back on jet use.

These big companies often argue that it is necessary to fly executives and their families around on private jets. This is not a lavish perk, they say, but a safety and security requirement as well as a time-saving tool for the busy leaders.

Tell you what.  Commercial aviation only services about 500 airports in this country.  General aviation .. and this includes these private jets .. serve about 5000.   I don't own a private jet, but I am a Marquis Jet Card holder, and I'll jump in that Citation Encore at a moment's notice if I have a good reason to do so.  Those of you who don't like it can drip crocodile tears on your People magazines.

Here's an idea.  Let's tax private business aviation right out of business.  The immediate result would be the loss of over ten thousand jobs in places like Wichita, Kansas and Savannah, Georgia.  That would just be the beginning.  With executives unable to access their facilities in areas unserved by major airports, those facilities would begin to shut down.  A corporate executive is not going to fly commercial from New York to Atlanta, and then drive four hours to get to his plant in South Georgia.  Those out-of-the-way facilities will simply close and relocate closer to major commercial airports.  Tens of thousands of more jobs lost in rural areas.  Sounds like a plan, doesn't it? 

We can say goodbye to the Corporate Angel Network too.  This network of corporate aircraft owners have provided over 20,000 free flights to cancer and other patients needing treatment in faraway places.  Real bad dudes, these corporate executives.  Let's get these corporate jets away from these pigs. 

Isn't it odd that you haven't heard of the Corporate Angel Network?  Now just why do you think that is?

Holy flying pasture fritters! I don't think I've ever stood quite as alone as I did yesterday on this AIG bonuses thing. I don't think I had one call yesterday from one single person who agreed with me on this issue. That's fine. I believe I'm right .. and not being on the side of the majority won't bother me.

Here's the point I was trying to make yesterday. The American people have $165 billion invested in AIG. We don't have the money, so we are going to have to borrow it. From who? Well, perhaps from China! Maybe China will buy the treasury notes issued to back up this newly printed currency. So ... who do you want to pay this money back? How about your children and grandchildren? That would be just swell, wouldn't it? AIG fails, the $165 billion is shot to hell, and there's nobody around to pay it back except for future generations of Americans through increased taxes.

There is another option. Why don't we let AIG pay it back? Why don't we stand back and let AIG take reasonable steps to turn its fortunes around and once again become a profitable financial powerhouse? Certainly you see no problem with that! The question, of course, is just how do they do that? They do it with management expertise, that's how. They do it by retaining the best minds they can and putting those minds to work on solving AIG's problems. There is no shortage of competition for the type of business minds that can change the fortunes of AIG. There are other companies out there who could use that help .. and who aren't under Barney Frank's thumb. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the efficacy in allowing the best financial minds out there to gravitate toward companies that haven't received TARP funds while the companies that have borrowed so heavily from the taxpayers make do with second-rate executive talent. So how do the companies with the bailout funds keep the executive talent that will likely lead them to profitability? Well, they pay them! That's how. They live up to their contractual obligations. If they don't pay them, someone else will.

The issue here is not that AIG paid bonuses ... bonuses that amounted to less than 1/10th of one percent of the bailout money it received. The issue should be to whom those bonuses were paid. If they were paid to the perps who put AIG into this mess - and that's supposing the mess was caused by AIG execs and not by the federal government essentially forcing AIG investors and subsidiaries into making and buying hideously bad mortgages - then we have a problem. If the bonuses were paid to people who are working hard to solve AIG's problems and achieving some success, then no problem.

Let's take this angle. When was the last time you looked at the retirement plans for members of Congress? Some of these congressmen created the Community Reinvestment Act monster that coerced banks and lending institutions into making many of these subprime mortgages. These congressmen urged Fannie and Freddie to reduce their credit guidelines so that these quasi-government agencies to buy most of those bad loans. These congressmen and senators are going to retire with fat retirement funds that are completely safe while tens of millions in the private sector will retire with retirement funds decimated by this economic meltdown. Much of the problem was caused by the Barney Franks in Washington .. why aren't they paying the price like the rest of us?

New York Attorney General Cuomo (No relation to Perry) wants a list of people who got those AIG bonuses. What? Now we have crimes being committed here? The attorney general is going to investigate people who receive payments pursuant to a contract? Cuomo - clearly playing to the political message here -- says that "we owe it to the taxpayers to take every possible action to stop unwarranted bonus payments to those who caused the AIG meltdown in the first place." Cuomo is going to investigate who received the bonuses and who developed the bonus plans.

What in the hell is going on around here? Are we going to adopt a standard where contracts are only enforceable if they're popular with political class and the public? If that contract is unpopular what are we going to do? Sic the attorney general after the parties if they live up to its terms? Do you know where this is going to go? Well, what if you were some sort of a financial genius, and AIG or some other institution receiving bailout funds wanted to hire you to help turn them around. You're going to think: "Hmmm ... sounds like a nice opportunity. I can help those people and make some pretty good change in the process .. but do I want to be the subject of a criminal investigation by the attorney general if I accept a bonus? Do I want the president calling me greedy and telling the congress to pull out all of the stops to take the money I have earned back? I think not. I'm going to stay right where I am."

A lot of what we're seeing here is the anti-capitalist, pro-government left seeing an opportunity to demonize the private sector. The same politicians who are so adept at getting the public whipped into a frenzy over these bonuses seem somehow unable to gin up any degree of outrage over taxpayer money being spent on lobster sex and tattoo removal. At least there's a chance AIG is going to pay the money back. Let's see if some gang-banger gone straight offers up the money spent to remove his tats.

I, for one, am a lot more curious as to what Barney Frank's lover was up to at Fannie Mae while he was busy protecting that institution from President George Bush's attempts at reform, than I am in sending the New York Attorney general on a witch hunt for executives who received bonus payments pursuant to a contract.

Yesterday, President Obama and tax cheat Tim Geithner outlined their plan for small businesses. But before doing that, Obama wanted to make sure he had his say about these AIG bonuses. And not surprisingly, he believes that they are outrageous. Not only that, but he wants tax cheat Tim Geithner to "pursue every single legal avenue" to block the payments.

Obama, of course, just had to use this occasion to play into the wealth envy. He used one of my favorite words ... "greed." He said, "This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed ... This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents. It's about our fundamental values ... All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multi-million dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules." What rules would that be, PrezBO? Abiding by your contractual obligations? That rule?

Here we have Obama wants to worry about fundamental values. Where were those values when he nominated a tax cheat to be the Secretary of the Treasury and the head of the IRS? Willfully cheating on your taxes is OK. Getting a bonus for the work you've done pursuant to a contract is not.

The White House says that the Treasury Department will use a planned $30 billion infusion into AIG as leverage in order to compel the company to repay the bonuses of financial-products group employees. The infusion won't be final until the company and the Treasury figure out some sort of repayment options. OK .. here's an idea. The bonuses, as I've said, amounted to 1/10th of the amount of the bailout funds. So take this new $30 billion and reduce it by 1/10th of one percent. That would be $27 million Then everything will be square.