William Dailey

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Is the new chief of staff the same guy who closed the airport?

If so, what can we expect?
 
Tom-D said:
Is the new chief of staff the same guy who closed the airport?
Click to expand...
No, it's his brother.

Mr. Daley, 62, who is not close friends with Mr. Obama, even though both share a Chicago base, has a well-rounded résumé. It includes work as a lawyer in private practice , a bank president, a telecommunications company executive, a political strategist, fund-raiser and campaign chief, a lobbyist for foreign corporations (he advocated on tax matters for Nestle and a Canadian petroleum company) and a three-year stint as commerce secretary in the Clinton administration. His brother, Richard M. Daley, is departing after six terms as mayor of Chicago, where his family has an almost royal status.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/us/politics/07daley.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
 
It's his brudder.

It was William who was Clinton's Sec. Commerce when Daley first closed Meigs and got the OK letting Chicago weasel out of the Airport Improvement Fund 25 year guarantee by paying the money back.
 
Tom-D said:
If so, what can we expect?
Click to expand...
Chief of Staffs do not set agendas they carry them out. So I would say you should expect nothing different than what you have been seeing from the White House.

I have met the man twice and GA was never mentioned by him nor can I recall any speech he might have made about it. He was recently on the BoD of Boeing and employed by JP Morgan. He has been an advocate of big business and the US overseas.

What you should be more concerned about is that there is a party in control of the House of Reps. It is the House that controls the purse strings and they have made it clear they plan to slash every budget except the DoD's, will privatize as much as possible, and this be prepared for more user fees. Not just for GA but probably for a variety of things.

Recall the old Chinese curse, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
 
dmccormack said:
Good grief, if this isn't SZ, what is?
Click to expand...
Meigs field, FAA user fees, attitude toward GA. HHmmm does not sound SZ to me. Sounds like a question about how the new CoS at the White House may affect GA. As long as the thread stays on target like that it would seem to me to be aviation political. SZ is for non-aviation politics and other things. But this could cross the line pretty pretty quick so I share your concern.
 
Last edited:
ScottM said:
Meigs field, FAA users, attitude toward GA. HHmmm does not sound SZ to me. Sounds like a question about how the new CoS at the White House may affect GA. As long as the thread stays on target like that it would seem to me to be aviation political. SZ is for non-aviation politics and other things. But this could cross the line pretty pretty quick so I share your concern.
Click to expand...

Thank You Scott, but If I got the wrong guy I guess the answer is moot anyway.

OBTW, I am a user fee advocate, I can choose to use or not. I always pay for every thing I use in some way any how, but I don't want user fees and gas taxes too. And you know the Government never give up any tax. So I didn't like user fees, because saying yes would have gotten both.
 
Tom-D said:
Thank You Scott, but If I got the wrong guy I guess the answer is moot anyway.

OBTW, I am a user fee advocate, I can choose to use or not. I always pay for every thing I use in some way any how, but I don't want user fees and gas taxes too. And you know the Government never give up any tax. So I didn't like user fees, because saying yes would have gotten both.
Click to expand...
I do agree if we got user fees but then lost the gas tax it would be a reasonable exchange. But I am under no illusion that if users fees come to be a reality that our avgas taxes will not be reduced one bit.
 
Last edited:
ScottM said:
I do agree if we got user fees but then lost the gas tax it would be a reasonable exchange.
Click to expand...
I think the money needs to come from somewhere and I am not philosophically opposed to fees. I just think the logistics of collecting them would be much more complicated than the current gas tax.
 
ScottM said:
I do agree if we got user fees but then lost the gas tax it would be a reasonable exchange. But I am under no illusion that if users fees come to be a reality that our avgas taxes WON"T be reduced one bit.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for ya.
 
Everskyward said:
I think the money needs to come from somewhere and I am not philosophically opposed to fees. I just think the logistics of collecting them would be much more complicated than the current gas tax.
Click to expand...

Canada doesn't think so. they send ya bill in the mail.
 
Tom-D said:
Canada doesn't think so. they send ya bill in the mail.
Click to expand...

That's only the end result.
Doing a user fee based system requires tremendous numbers of man-hours and systems to track use by aircraft, then to aggregate, then compile, then audit, then bill, plus collections and customer service.
And all those costs are added to the cost of providing the service, driving up the cost of the service that is being billed in the first place.

So, which is more efficient?
Choice #1: Revenue generated through relatively simple fuel taxes (which is a pretty good proxy for system usage, more flying means more services, and bigger planes using more fuel means more services). Using existing billing systems for the purchase of the fuel which need to be processed with or without tax collection.
Choice #2: Revenue generated through the creation an entirely new bureaucracy, with those costs added on top of the cost of services.
 
Tom-D said:
Canada doesn't think so. they send ya bill in the mail.
Click to expand...
Just because Canada does it doesn't make it an efficient system. How long do you think it takes for them to get their money? How much does that system cost to implement? NavCanada probably does it that way because ATC is privatized so they might not be able to collect fees through taxes. I don't know what the laws about that are up there. I think there could be some advantages to privatized ATC though. Funding for upgrades and such would not need to go through the political process like they do here. I have also not noticed any difference in the level of service in Canada.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top