Bush Budget

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.

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

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.

Wrong.

AIP grant money does not go into an airport's operating budget to cover
any shortfalls - it is earmarked for infrastructure improvements like
runways, taxiways, ramps or purchasing new equipment like plow trucks,
snowblowers etc.

by " Feb 9, 2006 at 12:59 PM


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.

Wrong.

AIP grant money does not go into an airport's operating budget to cover
any shortfalls - it is earmarked for infrastructure improvements like
runways, taxiways, ramps or purchasing new equipment like plow trucks,
snowblowers etc.

King: I know that. That's why I refered to AIP CAPITAL (as opposed to
OPERATING) grants.

King: I know that. That's why I refered to AIP CAPITAL (as opposed to OPERATING) grants.

Aha. The way you worded it, capital grants & subsidies got lumped
together for GA airports whose revenues don't cover expenses.

The airport I used to work at in CT has lost money ever since the
airlines left in '99 (maybe even before). They still get AIP money (got
a brandy-new snowblower last year) but the city that owns the airport
makes up the diff in their annual budget. If the airport ever made a
profit it would owe taxes to the town in which the airport sits.

When federal tax revenues go to bolster ski area operations and build lifts...

Doubtful, seeing as they aren't part of a national transportation
infrastructure. But, the way global warming seems to be progressing ski
area ops days may be numbered. gasp!

Just got this in the mail from AOPA.

"PRESIDENT'S BUDGET PROPOSES MAJOR CUTS TO GA AIRPORTS

General aviation airports are in for a rough time next year if the Bush
administration gets its way. "The White House is proposing to cut nearly $1
billion from the Airport Improvement Program in 2007 compared to the amount
established by Congress, and almost all of that would come from monies
earmarked for GA airports," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "Congress must
not allow this to happen."

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta released the Department of
Transportation's budget earlier this week, which includes $13.7 billion for
the FAA. DOT claims that the reduced amount for airports is "still robust by
historical standards" and that all major runway projects would be completed.
"There's so much more to the system than runways at air carrier airports,"
said
Boyer. The money the administration proposes to "save" by cutting GA
airport funding would be used to help pay for air traffic control
operations. But the typical GA pilot is only a marginal consumer of ATC
services; some 90 percent of GA flights are flown in VFR conditions. Once
again, the administration is claiming poverty when it comes to the FAA
because the funding system is allegedly broken. "There is general agreement
that our growing aviation system needs a more stable and predictable revenue
stream that creates a more direct relationship between revenues collected
and services provided," Mineta said. "As the representative of more than
407,000 pilots, we definitely do not concur with that statement," said
Boyer. "There's no 'general agreement' from our side--and never will
be--especially for any proposal that includes user fees."

See AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...208budget.html )."