Senators still demand user fees

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...712senate.html

The United States Senate is a disgrace. The vast majority of
them are career politicians... old _farts_ that haven't ever
held a real job in their life.

It's disgusting that such a once great country is so often
held hostage by this treasonous bunch of wothrless blowhards.
They should be all terminated. Lets get some qualified honets
Americans in there make some good statesman-like decisions
for a change.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:56:15 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote in
:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...712senate.html


Bloody hypocrites:

"Commercial airline passengers shouldn't continue to subsidize
corporate jets," said aviation subcommittee Chairman John D.
Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) during a Senate Finance Committee hearing.
"If we don't restore equity, then as chairman of this aviation
subcommittee, I will address the equity issue by looking for ways
to limit general aviation access to congested airspace."

And while neither Rockefeller nor Lott mentioned that S.1300 would
eliminate the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax the airlines currently
pay, it didn't slip past Roberts or Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)

"I don't think that giving the airlines a tax break is the best
way to start modernization," said Roberts.

Sen. Bingaman questioned, with all that the FAA was trying to
accomplish, "why would you eliminate the fuel tax on the
airlines?"

And while Sen. Lott chastised most of the aviation community for
being unwilling to pay more, Sen. Roberts said that wasn't the
case for GA.

"The general aviation community is not unreceptive to an increase
in the gas tax," said Roberts. "They're for modernization as
well."

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:56:15 -0400, Peter Clark
wrote in
:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...712senate.html


Bloody hypocrites:

"Commercial airline passengers shouldn't continue to subsidize
corporate jets," said aviation subcommittee Chairman John D.
Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) during a Senate Finance Committee hearing.
"If we don't restore equity, then as chairman of this aviation
subcommittee, I will address the equity issue by looking for ways
to limit general aviation access to congested airspace."

And while neither Rockefeller nor Lott mentioned that S.1300 would
eliminate the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax the airlines currently
pay, it didn't slip past Roberts or Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)

"I don't think that giving the airlines a tax break is the best
way to start modernization," said Roberts.

Sen. Bingaman questioned, with all that the FAA was trying to
accomplish, "why would you eliminate the fuel tax on the
airlines?"

And while Sen. Lott chastised most of the aviation community for
being unwilling to pay more, Sen. Roberts said that wasn't the
case for GA.

"The general aviation community is not unreceptive to an increase
in the gas tax," said Roberts. "They're for modernization as
well."




UPS has paid for ADS-B setups in many of their planes and they are already reaping the benefits of the reduced fuel
consumption, etc. There is no reason the other majors cannot do their own modernization also.

Most of the ADS-B requires very little FAA ATC and puts control with the flight crew. I for one am NOT willing to give
more taxes to the bureaucracy to they can blow it all on some boondoggle 'modernization' system. We do not need more
traffic controllers, we need more airports in more cities to relieve the congestion at the major hubs. ABS-B should be
implemented now, not later, and except for the equipment cost in the airplane, it can be basically cost free...

Larry Dighera wrote:
Bloody hypocrites:

"Commercial airline passengers shouldn't continue to subsidize
corporate jets,"

Given that commercial passengers are now paying less, equivalently
speaking, than they ever have before, yes, yes they should continue to
subsidize corporate jets.

"If we don't restore equity, then as chairman of this aviation
subcommittee, I will address the equity issue by looking for ways
to limit general aviation access to congested airspace."

"If we can't make sure that the dinosaurs maintain their monopolies on
the routes and airports, then we will have to look for other ways of
eliminating our fertile tax base".

Do these guys even listen to themselves when they're speaking?

S.1300 would
eliminate the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax the airlines currently
pay,

Oh yes, I must have forgotten that day in economics where eliminating
the tax on your LARGEST consumers, and placing the burgeoning debt on
the SMALLEST contingent fixes all of your budget concerns.

"The general aviation community is not unreceptive to an increase
in the gas tax," said Roberts. "They're for modernization as
well."

If by "modernization" they mean "pay more and fly less", then ****
modernization. The system works now. Just because the big airlines find
themselves consistently outpaced by smaller and newer competitors
doesn't make the best solution taxation of a community admittedly unable
or unwilling to pay. Southwest and the other regionals continue to
happily do business while the government spends millions bailing out the
dinosaurs, and the whole absurd ruckus rolls on.

Ridiculous, it is.

TheSmokingGnu

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, kontiki posted:


The United States Senate is a disgrace. The vast majority of
them are career politicians... old _farts_ that haven't ever
held a real job in their life.

It's disgusting that such a once great country is so often
held hostage by this treasonous bunch of wothrless blowhards.
They should be all terminated. Lets get some qualified honets
Americans in there make some good statesman-like decisions
for a change.


Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?

Neil


Yup... you have to a slick talking panderer who never answers a
direct question. I think that characteristic is mandatory entrance
requirement for the Senate.

Recently, kontiki posted:

The United States Senate is a disgrace. The vast majority of
them are career politicians... old _farts_ that haven't ever
held a real job in their life.

It's disgusting that such a once great country is so often
held hostage by this treasonous bunch of wothrless blowhards.
They should be all terminated. Lets get some qualified honets
Americans in there make some good statesman-like decisions
for a change.

Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?

Neil

Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?

I'm trying to remember the last straight-talker in the Presidency.
Was it:

Kennedy? Nope
Johnson? Nope
Nixon? Nope
Ford? Yep - but he was appointed.
Carter? Yep -- but no one liked what he said.
Reagan? Yep -- but only if it was good news.
Bush I? Yep -- but booted after one term.
Clinton? Nope
Bush II? Yep -- but no one likes what he says.

As you can see, the straight talkers aren't very popular with the
unwashed masses. Perhaps it's because no one wants to hear the truth
from their leaders, preferring the smoothly reassuring upbeat tones of
Reagan over the lectures of Jimmy Carter?

I dunno -- but this is shaping up to be the first election in my
lifetime that I will sit on my hands rather than vote for any of
them. I've never seen a more conniving bunch of slick salespeople
running for office in my life.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

I dunno -- but this is shaping up to be the first election in my
lifetime that I will sit on my hands rather than vote for any of
them. I've never seen a more conniving bunch of slick salespeople
running for office in my life.

Montblack for President!

He's being coy, but I know he'll run if he finds out he can sit up front in
Air Force One.

--
Dan

"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
-Jiminy Glick

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

Don't you find it at least curious that the straight-talking, honest
politicians are those considered non-contenders for higher office?

I'm trying to remember the last straight-talker in the Presidency.
Was it:

I recall Ike, and liked his no-BS, direct approach. Of course, most folks
didn't get it, which contributed strongly to where we are now w/r/t
military involvements in inappropriate ways.

Kennedy? Nope
Johnson? Nope
Nixon? Nope
Ford? Yep - but he was appointed.
Carter? Yep -- but no one liked what he said.
Reagan? Yep -- but only if it was good news.
Bush I? Yep -- but booted after one term.
Clinton? Nope
Bush II? Yep -- but no one likes what he says.

As you can see, the straight talkers aren't very popular with the
unwashed masses.

Oh? And the "washed masses" feel differently? I don't think so.

I dunno -- but this is shaping up to be the first election in my
lifetime that I will sit on my hands rather than vote for any of
them. I've never seen a more conniving bunch of slick salespeople
running for office in my life.

Well, it seems that even you are discounting the few candidates that are
straight-talkers. If you really want such a person, then there are a few
to choose from; on the Democratic side there's Dennis Kucinich, and on the
Republican side there's Ron Paul. Both are pretty much dismissed by the
masses, washed or otherwise.

Neil