User fees in Obama's budget proposal

[flyersfan31]

I love mandatory volunteerism. It's so uncoerced and natural.

I contribute to this nation through taxes, jury duty, voting, and being a law-abiding citizen, among other things. I don't see why being forced to join the army, change puss-filled bandages, or build a playground in Appalachia is relevant to my being an American. The beauty of this nation, and the ideals upon which it was founded, is that one is enjoys the full benefit of freedom. One freedom is freedom of choice. If I feel benevolent and get my rocks off changing puss-filled bandages, I'll go ahead and do it. Maybe I'll just write a check instead. Making it mandatory smacks of political systems best left in the dustbin of history.

 

[TMetzinger]

So how was the draft law then? That is involuntary servitude?

But lets consider than making it highly encouraged, like if you serve for two years you get a big chunk of college or trade school paid for. It does not have to be military service, it could be any public service.

Hmm - we do. In the military - there's the GI Bill, and various service college funds. I got my instrument, commercial, and multi with 60% paid by the GI Bill.

In the Public Health service, you can go to medical or nursing school or dental school FOR FREE, and get PAID while you go. You then owe them a certain amount of service.

Dunno about the Peace Corps, but wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have similar incentives.

I would actually support some form of public service as a prerequisite for citizenship. See "Starship Troopers" for the socioeconomic justification for why such a system would result in a government that works (note I didn't say "good", I said "works).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I love mandatory volunteerism. It's so uncoerced and natural.

I contribute to this nation through taxes, jury duty, voting, and being a law-abiding citizen, among other things. I don't see why being forced to join the army, change puss-filled bandages, or build a playground in Appalachia is relevant to my being an American. The beauty of this nation, and the ideals upon which it was founded, is that one is enjoys the full benefit of freedom. One freedom is freedom of choice. If I feel benevolent and get my rocks off changing puss-filled bandages, I'll go ahead and do it. Maybe I'll just write a check instead. Making it mandatory smacks of political systems best left in the dustbin of history.

Andrew,

I don't *disagree* with anything you've said - I just think that we've reached a point where we as Americans don't appreciate what we have the way we should. We don't seem to enjoy our freedom or use it to do good things. We are, as a whole, lazy and greedy. Now there are plenty of individuals who are not lazy and are not greedy - But I'd bet that because of that, most of them have done some foreign, military, or volunteer service already.

I just wonder how much more productive a large group of Americans might be if they had their eyes opened to how things could have been for them if they'd been born elsewhere in the world - I bet more than a few would get off their butts and do some good.

And yes, I know that it's not really possible to have forced service. I'd love to see another way to come up with the same result, though.

 

[Everskyward]

And yes, I know that it's not really possible to have forced service. I'd love to see another way to come up with the same result, though.

I could go with some kind of service in exchange for money for your higher education. That would not necessarily mean college, but it could be some kind of trade school or advanced flying ratings.

 

[flyersfan31]

I could go with some kind of service in exchange for money for your higher education. That would not necessarily mean college, but it could be some kind of trade school or advanced flying ratings.

Ahh, but then you'll get the criticism that it exploits the poor, since the rich don't need the help. (that of course assumes that ONLY the poor would opt for such stuff, but such are the assumptions of which class warfare and demogoguery are made of)

Basically, you can never win.

 

[Everskyward]

Basically, you can never win.

True...

 

[Trapper John]

There's about two cents difference between tax on Jet A and Avgas with Jet A being the cheaper tax. If you are paying tax on what you're using regardless of who you are, how is you're not paying your fair share at this point?

Because, as I noted above, fuel taxes only provide 9% of the aviation trust fund revenue. And the trust fund is 82% of the total funding. So, 9% x 82% is about 7.2%. Your fuel tax only pays 7.2% of the cost! Understand now?


Trapper John

 

[Ted]

Basically, you can never win.

That argument does not mean that inaction is the solution, because you don't win by doing nothing, either.

You're right that the poor therefore have more incentive to be in the military than the rich. This is why making it mandatory for all would be worthwhile (I would also then say that all should receive the same benefits - whatever those benefits are). I've found it's frequently the rich who take things for granted the most and would also benefit the most from some time in the military.

Structure and discipline, as a whole, are things that seem to be disappearing in this country. Those are also two things that, from my observations as an outsider, the military is good at.

 

[KennyFlys]

Because, as I noted above, fuel taxes only provide 9% of the aviation trust fund revenue. And the trust fund is 82% of the total funding. So, 9% x 82% is about 7.2%. Your fuel tax only pays 7.2% of the cost! Understand now?

So, when these higher costs are placed on pilots to relieve the "burden" on the general fund, those taxes currently paid into the general fund are going to be reduced, right?

NOT LIKELY! In fact, it will only increase the overall tax burden on Americans. So, I'm opposed to ANY increase in funding by way of taxes, fees or whatever the bureaucrats wish to call them. Enough is enough. Don't have the money? STOP SPENDING!

There is no way in hell I'm going to be for increased taxes or fees of any kind by any agency on any American for any purpose. Never, no way, no how.

As I said before, anyone who favors this is an absolute idiot. If you want to give your money away to a bunch of irresponsible bureaucrats, go for it. But, STOP trying to force me or anyone else to pay. Your arguments fall on deaf ears, particularly those already hemorrhaging the gains from their personal achievement to government.

 

[Trapper John]

So, when these higher costs are placed on pilots to relieve the "burden" on the general fund, those taxes currently paid into the general fund are going to be reduced, right?

If the trust fund were able to fund the expenses fully, then there would be no appropriation from the general fund to make up the shortfall. It's not hard to understand. Then the people who are now paying for something they're not getting could have their money go to something else!

NOT LIKELY! In fact, it will only increase the overall tax burden on Americans. So, I'm opposed to ANY increase in funding by way of taxes, fees or whatever the bureaucrats wish to call them. Enough is enough. Don't have the money? STOP SPENDING!

There is no way in hell I'm going to be for increased taxes or fees of any kind by any agency on any American for any purpose. Never, no way, no how.

Well, if you really want to make a stand, find another line of work. Your current occupation is taxpayer subsidized, you know.

As I said before, anyone who favors this is an absolute idiot.

Of course, anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. You say that a lot...

If you want to give your money away to a bunch of irresponsible bureaucrats, go for it. But, STOP trying to force me or anyone else to pay. Your arguments fall on deaf ears, particularly those already hemorrhaging the gains from their personal achievement to government.

The irony of you railing against government, when you're being subsidized by it, isn't lost on me!


Trapper John

 

[Anthony]

So, when these higher costs are placed on pilots to relieve the "burden" on the general fund, those taxes currently paid into the general fund are going to be reduced, right?

NOT LIKELY! In fact, it will only increase the overall tax burden on Americans. So, I'm opposed to ANY increase in funding by way of taxes, fees or whatever the bureaucrats wish to call them. Enough is enough. Don't have the money? STOP SPENDING!

That is the key. STOP SPENDING!!! And neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are willing to do this.

I am actually more upset at the Republicans. They say they are the party of less spending, less taxes and smaller gov't, etc. However, they have done just the opposite. At least the Democrats admit they are socialists!

 

[tdager]

But isn't user fees, people paying for what they use and not all of us paying a subsidy for what a few may be using?

I simply fail to understand the difficulty in people understanding that some things DESERVE "subsidies" and shared funding.

Roads, bridges, ports, canals, docks, airports, etc. all provide benefit far, far beyond the "immediate" user as we are looking at it, i.e. the pilot.

There is an inherent need to have some sort of subsidy to support this stuff, or am I the only one thinking that?

Should all roads be "user fee'd" now, i.e. toll roads? How about lakes, rivers, heck the ocean, when one goes to a "public" ramp (which is soooo much like a PUBLIC airport).

 

[Trapper John]

I simply fail to understand the difficulty in people understanding that some things DESERVE "subsidies" and shared funding.

Roads, bridges, ports, canals, docks, airports, etc. all provide benefit far, far beyond the "immediate" user as we are looking at it, i.e. the pilot.

There is an inherent need to have some sort of subsidy to support this stuff, or am I the only one thinking that?

Should all roads be "user fee'd" now, i.e. toll roads? How about lakes, rivers, heck the ocean, when one goes to a "public" ramp (which is soooo much like a PUBLIC airport).

I guess the traditional values of hard work and personal responsibility get suspended when it affects your hobby, huh? Then it's OK to be subsidized. Interesting dichotomy...welfare momma, bad, new runway, good.


Trapper John

 

[tdager]

First, a Piper Navajo requires the same effort as a 172 from ATC's perspective (assuming both are talking to ATC). So therefore, a fuel tax from a 172 would be paying less of its share than the Navajo. One could argue the 172 isn't talking to ATC as much as the Navajo and therefore that is fair, but it still stands that the service required of both is the same.

Does it really? While someone filing is someone filing, once that is done, any similarity between a C172 "in the system" and a B737 ends, period.

Most of us in our little flivers can barely, if ever, reach the flight levels. Even those of us that can fly slower and lower than our jet-strapped brethren. It is MUCH easier to have someone flying along slowly, just ambling along, especially a VFR FF in the mid 5K range, than a bunch of jets moving 400mph+ in the flight levels. Not too mention what occurs at Bravo and Charlie (some Charlie's anways) airports when the "big iron" comes in.

Sorry but we do NOT require the same level once the plan is filed.

 

[tdager]

Who should we have voted for, to avoid this?
-harry

I will say it, John McCain, but NOT for the reasons some may think.

If he would have won, but the D's would have kept the House and Senate (and they would have), they would have fought him tooth-and-nail on most things, kinda like the R's in the Senate are doing now.

So the D's such as Oberstar, would have gleefully struck down the user fee's and talked about the "evils" of privatization and how the NAS/airports serve the public good, yada, yada, yada, because it would have made good politics.

Now we have the D's (or at least the President) pushing for user fees and the R's that support them. So for THIS issue, yes John McCain would have been the better choice.

 

[KennyFlys]

Well, if you really want to make a stand, find another line of work. Your current occupation is taxpayer subsidized, you know.

The irony of you railing against government, when you're being subsidized by it, isn't lost on me!

Since when did the students I have become federally subsidized. Let's see... I have a lawyer, three business owners and the wife of a petroleum company owner as students. I don't believe any of my fees are coming from the government. Unless, you're one of those liberals who think it's the government's money these people are "allowed" to keep? Two other students are working for the funds or using loan proceeds by a privately-owned loan company (Not one that will be bailed out).

Nothing that I do is subsidized by the government. Not one thing. It's entirely privately funded.

Given most liberals who want the wealthy to pay more taxes have little of their own, I'll side with my students on any day. I don't know where you fall since you're so secretive so I'll assume you fall into this classification.

 

[tdager]

I guess the traditional values of hard work and personal responsibility get suspended when it affects your hobby, huh? Then it's OK to be subsidized. Interesting dichotomy...welfare momma, bad, new runway, good.


Trapper John

Sorry...but I am not biting your bait, it is laced with way too much emotional rhetoric and assumption.

I will say this however, if you READ my post, you would see I was talking about ALL infrastructure, of which airports are one part.

No amount of "personal responsibility or hard work" is going to have me building a port, or a road, or an airport, that IS one of the actual functions of government, and paid, at least in part, through our tax dollars.

 

[Trapper John]

Since when did the students I have become federally subsidized. Let's see... I have a lawyer, three business owners and the wife of a petroleum company owner as students. I don't believe any of my fees are coming from the government. Unless, you're one of those liberals who think it's the government's money these people are "allowed" to keep? Two other students are working for the funds or using loan proceeds by a privately-owned loan company (Not one that will be bailed out).

'Ya think?

Nothing that I do is subsidized by the government. Not one thing. It's entirely privately funded.

Uhhh...no. You use government services and facilities in the course of your vocation, that are insufficiently funded by your fuel tax. That means it costs more to provide the services and facilities than you pay. Which means you are subsidized. End of story.

Given most liberals who want the wealthy to pay more taxes have little of their own, I'll side with my students on any day. I don't know where you fall since you're so secretive so I'll assume you fall into this classification.

Uh-huh.


Trapper John

 

[KennyFlys]

'Ya think?



Uhhh...no. You use government services and facilities in the course of your vocation, that are insufficiently funded by your fuel tax. That means it costs more to provide the services and facilities than you pay. Which means you are subsidized. End of story.



Uh-huh.


Trapper John

Wrong!

I pay taxes, my students pay taxes, my school's owner pays taxes. EVERYONE on this airport pays taxes. This is NO freebie.

 

[Trapper John]

Wrong!

I pay taxes, my students pay taxes, my school's owner pays taxes. EVERYONE on this airport pays taxes. This is NO freebie.

And to apply your logic, I should be able to go up to the local ANG squadron and demand some F-16 stick time because I pay taxes! Or, at least be able to sit in the driver's seat of the ladder truck at local FD and make vroom-vroom sounds...


Trapper John

 

[mantakos]

I pay taxes, my students pay taxes, my school's owner pays taxes. EVERYONE on this airport pays taxes.

And yet they all pay different taxes, and meanwhile each uses the airport, FSS, and ATC to varying extents.

So it all just works out perfectly evenly?

If you talked to somebody who paid the same taxes as you, but never uses the airport at all, would they view it the same way?

Are you certain that the value of the resources made available to you is met or exceeded by the amount of taxes you pay?
-harry

 

[Trapper John]

I will say this however, if you READ my post, you would see I was talking about ALL infrastructure, of which airports are one part.

But not all infrastructure is alike! Some has positive economic benefit, some does not.

No amount of "personal responsibility or hard work" is going to have me building a port, or a road, or an airport, that IS one of the actual functions of government, and paid, at least in part, through our tax dollars.

What's wrong with a little privatization here and there?


Trapper John

 

[gprellwitz]

But not all infrastructure is alike! Some has positive economic benefit, some does not.



What's wrong with a little privatization here and there?


Trapper John

Hmmm...

<Big, greedy company starts thinking>Private company does calculation and decides that they won't provide aircraft separation over a slum because the financial benefit just isn't there. I mean, they're Poor People, who can't afford to sue, and even if they could, their future earnings are so much smaller than the Rich People, so the loss would be offset by the increased efficiencies of reducing the separation minima in those areas.

Control of aviation is an inherently governmental function that has benefits to everyone, whether they get on a plane (or fly their own plane) or not. Therefore the costs of it should be spread across all people.

 

[dmccormack]

Hmmm...

<Big, greedy company starts thinking>Private company does calculation and decides that they won't provide aircraft separation over a slum because the financial benefit just isn't there. I mean, they're Poor People, who can't afford to sue, and even if they could, their future earnings are so much smaller than the Rich People, so the loss would be offset by the increased efficiencies of reducing the separation minima in those areas.

Control of aviation is an inherently governmental function that has benefits to everyone, whether they get on a plane (or fly their own plane) or not. Therefore the costs of it should be spread across all people.

Bravo and well said!

 

[Everskyward]

Control of aviation is an inherently governmental function that has benefits to everyone, whether they get on a plane (or fly their own plane) or not. Therefore the costs of it should be spread across all people.

It doesn't need to be one (funded by everyone) or the other (funded by users). There can be a combination of the two. Take the National Parks, which are government administered land. I don't know what proportion of their funding comes from taxes and how much comes from entrance fees, but I don't have any problem paying the fee for using their services. I'm sure there are many taxpayers who will never set foot within a National Park although that land is preserved for the good of the country, their children, etc, etc.

 

[dmccormack]

It doesn't need to be one (funded by everyone) or the other (funded by users). There can be a combination of the two. Take the National Parks, which are government administered land. I don't know what proportion of their funding comes from taxes and how much comes from entrance fees, but I don't have any problem paying the fee for using their services. I'm sure there are many taxpayers who will never set foot within a National Park although that land is preserved for the good of the country, their children, etc, etc.

In a user-only-pays scheme, the per ticket price to see Yellowstone would be about $3500 a head.

 

[RMCN172RG]

In a user-only-pays scheme, the per ticket price to see Yellowstone would be about $3500 a head.

So no one would go, the land would be pristene, so what's the problem

 

[ScottM]

It doesn't need to be one (funded by everyone) or the other (funded by users). There can be a combination of the two. Take the National Parks, which are government administered land. I don't know what proportion of their funding comes from taxes and how much comes from entrance fees, but I don't have any problem paying the fee for using their services. I'm sure there are many taxpayers who will never set foot within a National Park although that land is preserved for the good of the country, their children, etc, etc.

It can be both. You can look at the State of Florida parks for how that is done. But for the National Parks I am pretty sure they get nothing from the entrance fees. The way it is set up is that they collect fees and then pay them to federal government. All the money that comes into the parks is form the feds and what they appropriate to the park service. Rich Moore probably knows for sure and can let us know the facts.

I think we would have this problem with user fees as well. It may just end up being that we have to pay an extra flat fee every years as part of our registration. That money is then thrown in the hopper with the rest of the federal government revenue and then handed back out to all of the agencies. There would be no guarantee that our money would actually directly support our activities.

Now if they use a system like Canada and privatize collection then what has to be collected also has to account for the management of the program. That means the system only gets pennies on the dollars paid. We would end up paying plus having to support a private bureaucracy. That would be even worse.

If we have to pay more, I would much rather it be through higher fuel taxes.

 

[Ghery]

Here's a bit of an explanation of how the fuel tax works...

The ‘Fuel Tax’ – The Most Effective Payment System For General Aviation

There's certainly no "redistribution of wealth" in this system. If you buy aviation fuel, you pay taxes. In fact, I believe jet fuel is taxed at a lesser rate than aviation gasoline. What do the airlines use more of?

And in the state of Washington, some users pay state tax on their fuel and others don't. Who? Commercial operations (you know, the ones making money flying?) pay NO state tax on their fuel. We bugsmasher drivers, on the other hand, do. So, for operating in the state of Washington, who is paying their "fair share" (I HATE that term)? Not the airlines, that's for sure.

The DHS has no love for us, we just make work for them.

Excuse me, but you've mistaken me for someone who cares. They work for me, not the other way around. I honestly don't care if I make work for the government. Maybe they're getting involved in my life more than they should.

Have you not seen where they want to put GPS units in your car and charge you by the mile

Oregon!

That is the key. STOP SPENDING!!! And neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are willing to do this.

I am actually more upset at the Republicans. They say they are the party of less spending, less taxes and smaller gov't, etc. However, they have done just the opposite. At least the Democrats admit they are socialists!

Amen. I was approached a few years back by the Republican Senatorial campaign for a donation. I sent it back with a note telling them that when they quit trying to out-democrat the democrats we'd have a conversation. I haven't heard back from them.

Return to the activities allowed to the federal government by the Constitution and we'd have a lot less need for federal taxes. But, I'm not holding my breath waiting...

 

[flyersfan31]

Return to the activities allowed to the federal government by the Constitution and we'd have a lot less need for federal taxes. But, I'm not holding my breath waiting...

I can guarantee you'd never pass your next flight physical!!!

 

[Everskyward]

But for the National Parks I am pretty sure they get nothing from the entrance fees. The way it is set up is that they collect fees and then pay them to federal government. All the money that comes into the parks is form the feds and what they appropriate to the park service. Rich Moore probably knows for sure and can let us know the facts.

That may have been true in the past but I don't think it is any more according to this. Of course I think it would be better if all the fees stayed within the collecting park.

The National Park Service has been able to take care of some of its operational
needs through an authorization allowing it since FY 1997 to retain entrance fees
and various use fees to fund mostly maintenance (58% of these fees have been
allocated for this purpose), interpretation, habitat restoration, and law
enforcement projects. Similar authority was provided to retain concession
franchise fees in FY 1998. In FY 2009 these two fee sources are estimated to
provide parks a total of $234 million. Most (80%) of the money from these fees
remains with the collecting park, while the remainder (20%) is distributed at the
discretion of the NPS director for servicewide priorities; this means that not all
of these funds necessarily go to where the greatest servicewide needs exist.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So, when these higher costs are placed on pilots to relieve the "burden" on the general fund, those taxes currently paid into the general fund are going to be reduced, right?

NOT LIKELY! In fact, it will only increase the overall tax burden on Americans. So, I'm opposed to ANY increase in funding by way of taxes, fees or whatever the bureaucrats wish to call them. Enough is enough. Don't have the money? STOP SPENDING!

Yeah, that's the problem. We would be paying increased taxes in the form of user fees, but our taxes would not go down otherwise.

Oooh, I get it - "taxes" are bad, politically. Now I see how "everyone that makes less than $250,000 a year is going to get a tax cut." We're not gonna be paying any less to the gov't, though.

There is no way in hell I'm going to be for increased taxes or fees of any kind by any agency on any American for any purpose. Never, no way, no how.

That seems a little shortsighted. Some gov't programs are good, and I'd rather have them be taxed and paid for now rather than borrowing even more money we don't have.

If the trust fund were able to fund the expenses fully, then there would be no appropriation from the general fund to make up the shortfall. It's not hard to understand. Then the people who are now paying for something they're not getting could have their money go to something else!

I think what Kenny was saying is that the user fees will shift the costs to the pilots, but the money "saved" by the general fund isn't really saved, it's just thrown away on something else - So this hurts the aviation industry, while helping nobody. That's not a good sound plan, in my book.

That is the key. STOP SPENDING!!! And neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are willing to do this.

I am actually more upset at the Republicans. They say they are the party of less spending, less taxes and smaller gov't, etc. However, they have done just the opposite. At least the Democrats admit they are socialists!

What Anthony said. Why do we keep sending the big spenders to Washington? They wouldn't spend the way they do if it didn't get them votes.

 

[Trapper John]

I think what Kenny was saying is that the user fees will shift the costs to the pilots, but the money "saved" by the general fund isn't really saved, it's just thrown away on something else - So this hurts the aviation industry, while helping nobody. That's not a good sound plan, in my book.

You're an exceptionally brave man for trying to interpret! That said, if an increase in fuel tax (you can call that a user fee if you want) collected enough that the general fund no longer had to supplement the Aviation Trust fund, one of two things could happen:

1. The money no longer having to go to subsidize GA could be used for something else useful, like, I dunno, adult education programs for Texans, maybe.

2. The income tax rates could be reduced to reflect the lesser need.

Number 2 is unlikely, but before you say, "I told you so", think about how road diesel and gasoline taxes work. We don't go reducing the income tax rate when people drive more, more fuel is burned and thereby more fuel tax revenue is collected. Sometimes we get lucky and an administration balances the budget. We could take the money and reduce the defecit by the amount raised by the increased aviation fuel tax.


Trapper John

 

[ScottM]

That may have been true in the past but I don't think it is any more according to this. Of course I think it would be better if all the fees stayed within the collecting park.

Thanks Mari. I was not sure it was still like that. I do recall a bunch of years ago the NPS complaining they spent more collecting fees than they did actually getting them back in the appropriations and were going to stop collecting them. Seems like the got a better solution, a real fix.

 

[ScottM]

That is the key. STOP SPENDING!!! And neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are willing to do this.

And if they were, what should they stop spending on first?

If you can get any two people in Congress to agree on what I would be surprised. Every special interest group, of which pilots would be one, would be screaming to not cut spending on their interest.

 

[ScottM]

1. The money no longer having to go to subsidize GA could be used for something else useful, like, I dunno, adult education programs for Texans, maybe.

Hoosiers might actually be the higher priority!

 

[Clark1961]

Hoosiers might actually be the higher priority!

Ok...but which would have a higher chance of sucess?

 

[ScottM]

Ok...but which would have a higher chance of sucess?

Wow that is a tough call.

 

[spiderweb]

does anyone know how much the fees will be?

For what it is worth, I am an ardent supporter of Obama (but don't vote straight-up democratic all the time--maybe 75%). I want to know how much and how this would work.

and to you haters out there, just remember that user fees were suggested during Mr. Bush's admin.

Here's some more "Change you can believe in".






User fees in Obama's budget proposal

By Warren D. Morningstar
President Barack Obama’s proposed budget is calling for aviation user charges starting in 2011. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the proposal Feb. 26, and although there is not much detail, the document makes it clear that the administration wants to replace some of the aviation excise taxes with “direct user charges.”
“It is often said the devil is in the details, but even with only a few details, we are concerned,” said AOPA President Craig Fuller. “We have been working constructively with the Obama administration and Congress about moving forward with air traffic control modernization and airport development. However, the warning light went on with the budget briefing documents and the plan for imposing billions in user fees on the aviation community.”
The budget “proposes repealing some aviation excise taxes and replacing these taxes with direct user charges.” (See page 129 of the budget proposal.)
“Direct user charges are just another name for user fees,” noted Fuller.
User charges would total some $7 billion in 2011, or about half of the FAA’s total budget.
“We don’t know what kind of user charges the Obama administration would propose to implement, but the previous administration wanted to raise about $7 billion through air traffic control system user fees,” Fuller said.
The Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), who has been a staunch opponent of user fees, released a statement saying, “I note that the budget appears to propose some type of aviation user fee. Aviation user fees have been proposed several times in the past by OMBs of various administrations, and have not been adopted by Congress.”
Earlier this month Fuller testified in support of Chairman Oberstar’s bill, H.R.915, to finance the FAA through the current system of aviation excise taxes.
“We have already contacted White House officials to express our concern and to reiterate the negative effects that user fees would have on the general aviation industry. We look forward to an open dialogue with the president on the best way to finance the modernization of our air traffic control system and the FAA’s continued operations.”
February 26, 2009

 

[spiderweb]

Well, I can't disagree with you, but it is true that the average airplane owner has more income, on average, than the average income earner in America. on average.

Yes folks, Mr. Obama has managed to have a change that affects everyone productive!

You rich airplane owners shouldn't complain. It's all about fairness. You have money; other people need it more than you. (Considering selling plane or moving to a country where one votes based on societal contribution again like when our nation was founded.)

I've never seen anything that penalizes being productive as much has his new policies.


Best,

Dave