Bush Budget

All the ground work is laid for user fee proposal by the summer (opinion).


Facts:
White house proposed $2.75 bn funding for AIP program amounts to $765mm
cut over 2005.

This figure is $1 bn below the $3.7bn aurhtorized in Vision 100 (Century
of Aviation Reauth. Act).

White House said it intend to unveil a plan to fiance the FAA as part of a
proposal to reauthorize Vision 100, which expires in 2007.

End Facts.

Question: Where will the other $1 billion come from?

A snow and water tax for skiers and boaters?

wrote in message
oups.com...
A snow and water tax for skiers and boaters?

Plus boaters would need to pay for most of the Coast Guard, locks on rivers,
bouyage, movable bridge maintenance, bridge tenders salaries, and the list
goes on and on.

by " Feb 7, 2006 at 01:14 PM


A snow and water tax for skiers and boaters?

;-).

AOPA is late reporting on this one, so I thought I would fill in while
they are busy giving away the refurbished Commander. (Are they really
gonna give away a 1960s plane next year?? Cheap *******s could at least
give away a NEW $175K Cessna 172 or something....)

There may be some good news for GA in the budget: I know that part of the
$1bn FAA funding shortfall will come from another fee increase (federal
security fee) on commercial passengers. Of course the ATA is already
screaming bloody murder on this one, and is trying to get the user fees
put on "business GA." Lets see what happens....

Fees for boating or skiing are not in the budget proposal, at least not
this year's budget. But the way the budget deficit is climbing, I think
they might put a fee on just about anything in the future. How about a tax
on shotguns, or usenet access (just to **** me off, even though I don't use
the newsreaders)?

Or, to take care of the entire budget deficit in one fell swoop, how about
a tax on internet porn? Or legalizing certain drugs like pot, and taxing
the hell out of it?

Mr. Sky-Loon's handle is live, ski or die. The recreational
skiing/snowboarding industry is heavily subsidized via extremely low
lease rates on US Forest Service and/or Federal BLM land. If Skylune
(and all skiers) were forced to pay the real cost of their hobby, they
would be sitting at home.

Al

Skylune wrote:
All the ground work is laid for user fee proposal by the summer (opinion).


Facts:
White house proposed $2.75 bn funding for AIP program amounts to $765mm
cut over 2005.

This figure is $1 bn below the $3.7bn aurhtorized in Vision 100 (Century
of Aviation Reauth. Act).

White House said it intend to unveil a plan to fiance the FAA as part of a
proposal to reauthorize Vision 100, which expires in 2007.

End Facts.

Question: Where will the other $1 billion come from?

When it comes to Forest Service or BLM land, don't forget the huge
subsidies for cattle or lumber. The lumber companies don't pay nearly
what it costs for forest roads, and SOME ranchers routinely overgraze,
or understate herds, etc. Even when done right, it's a bargain.
Then there's the off-roaders, who cause a tremendous amount of
damage--much of it already illegal--with desires to put tracks and
mudpits where they didn't exist yesterday.

It was some years ago that some dimwit wanted to have a "photography
permit" for taking pictures on public lands. Back in the James Watt
days, IIRC.

(Are they really gonna give away a 1960s plane next year?? Cheap *******s could at least give away a NEW $175K Cessna 172 or something....)

They've done that already. The 1967(?) Cheroke Six sweepstakes plane
will be as good or better than new when it is refurbished. Kinda like
the Commander that was just given away.

by Al Gilson Feb 7, 2006 at 05:48 PM


Mr. Sky-Loon's handle is live, ski or die. The recreational
skiing/snowboarding industry is heavily subsidized via extremely low
lease rates on US Forest Service and/or Federal BLM land. If Skylune
(and all skiers) were forced to pay the real cost of their hobby, they
would be sitting at home.

It is true that some ski areas sit on federal lands. So what? You fly
in federally owned airspace, should you lease that?

The point: Direct tax subsidies (the AIP capital grants or the $150K
operating subsidy) go to GA airports, because the airports revenues don't
cover expenses. Can't really blame the airports for that, as that was how
the system was designed -- federally subsidized. That is what is now under
discussion in the budget.

So, your argument holds no water. Sorry. When federal tax revenues go to
bolster ski area operations and build lifts (using AOPA logiic, this would
be very justified by huge economic benefits --- you can determine this
benefit by adding up the payroll of every employer for 50 miles around),
then you can make a comparison.

So, No, I will not worry that the price of lift tickets will be at all
affected by the federal budget. Since you think skiing and GA are equally
subsidized, you should also have no concern that the price of flying will
go up.


Anyway, FAA has heard all the arguments. Now, they will decide. Soon.
I'll be skiing.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
So, No, I will not worry that the price of lift tickets will be at all
affected by the federal budget. Since you think skiing and GA are equally
subsidized, you should also have no concern that the price of flying will
go up.


Anyway, FAA has heard all the arguments. Now, they will decide. Soon.
I'll be skiing.

Break a leg! : )

Allen

Scooped the AOPA by a few days!