Okay, so we will stick to the national issues and drop the developer issue.
We both agree that the local pols are bought and paid for by whichever
party. In my opinion, this is the biggest political issue for pilots by
far. The national stuff just doesn't seem to be fixable through voting.

After writing my response, I am coming back to the top here to perhaps save
you time, and because I realize a key point. We are mostly in disagreement
based on my belief that you cannot fairly account a pro rata share to GA
users because most of what we use is forced on us due to the needs of other
users of the airspace. Since we are being accepted into the airspace as
secondary users, it is only appropriate that the accounting of costs keep
this in mind.

You can read the rest to get an idea what I mean, but we cannot have a
fruitful discussion without a mutual understanding of this concept.


I think its not the wealth, but the amount of independence and self
determination that skews this group towards Conservative and Libertarian
beliefs.

There's that denial again. Given how much our government actively spends
and regulates to make GA as we know it possible, and given how heavily
GA pilots depend on government services and subsidies, it's just
laughable to say that GA pilots' Republican leaning comes from being a
more independent and self-determining group. Pilots are a wealthier
group who use their wealth to buy themselves some measure of
independence and self-determination, not to mention influence over how
government policies and spending are carried out to their benefit. But
we are no more independent and self-determining than the farmers who
collect their subsidy and price support checks and benefit from
market-limiting laws while calling themselves independent and
self-determining.

(and I will resist going into how silly it is to say that Republicans
are more self-determining, given their party's views on social issues
and regulation of private, personal behavior).

Pardon my overzealous snip, but...

It's not denial, its a disagreement on what the real costs are that are
PROPERLY attributal to GA. Your statement as "how we know it" is quite
telling. How we know it is as a system within a system that is preferential
to other users. Not as a system that treats each user as an equal.
Seriously, make a list of all the items and services that you do not pay for
that would not be there except for GA (No class B space, fewre towers,
smaller runways, less jetways, less need for Class A services, less need for
radar coverage at all, reduced frequencies, reduced radio coverage, etc.) .
Now, add the MARGINAL costs of your VOLUNTARY use of other services
(weather, IFR service, etc.). Unfortunately, government accounting will not
let you come close to figuring this out, but take an honest SWAG. If you
are a VFR pilot, you use almost ZERO other than weather. I would be happy
to have weather privatized (please no stones) as it can be had pretty
cheaply. Much of what we use as GA is a must have for military and
commercial flight. It's not fair, under the current preferential
environment to account to GA a prorata share. Period. I will not change my
mind until someone comes up with some numbers that do not represent the cost
of keeping me out of the way of Delta's airplanes.

Since you did not resist telling us about self determmination... throwing in
social issues is a straw dog, especially since I said that the people here
leaned conservative AND libertarian BECAUSE of those traits. Obviously, us
Libertarians's are all about self determination and independence. I think
you have different meanings in mind than I do for those words.

Besides, BOTH parties are now in a race to legislate values, and the left is
winning due to control of the courts.

Wow, that was a lot.



but the reality is that
GA is a pretty heavily subsidized activity that we would not be able to
enjoy without significant government subsidy and intervention.

This is a whole nother ball of wax. Is it really denial? My position
is
that the only reason GA is dependent on the government is government
control
and interference put in place to favor the airlines. If our airspace
were
more like our highways (idiotic HOV lanes aside),

Driving on highways? Well, there's another heavily subsidized activity,
and using that as a model does not do much to make your case that GA
could be successful without govt subsidy.

My understanding is that the transportation fund is kept in surplus to help
balance the budget. At any rate, the transportation system could easily be
self sufficient if it is not already, simply by curbing pork transportation
projects in favor of needed ones. This being a side issue, I doubt either
of us is running to find the numbers.

You can fly a piper cub off your farm to your
friend's farm at no cost to anyone else. Privately owned and publicly
open
airports can and do make profits,

And how many of our Republican rec.aviation.owning pilots fly
exclusively into and out of airfields that are built and operated
without government subsidy, huh? Would there be such a market for GA
without thousands of subsidized airports to fly into and out of? Could
buddies' farm patches really sustain this industry that we depend on?


HA! I got you! You assume that those airports only exist due to subsidy.
However, small privately owned, public use airports are common. It is only
government interference and subsidized fields that compete for the business
that keep more private fields from being in existance. At any rate, if
properly managed, these airports are self sufficient. Otherwise, there
would not be any private, for profit, airports would there?

That said, this wouldn't be enough to make me a Democrat if I weren't
already one though. I just wouldn't fool myself into thinking that I'm
not being a hypocrite by partaking of such massive government subsidy
and support while proclaiming that we need less government.


Seriously, I think the 'massive' part of the subsidy is really related
to
the national and major carriers.

I disagree. I do agree that the national and major carriers are
subsidized, but so is GA if not more so on proportional basis. After
all, the national carriers pay ticket taxes and rent to airport
authorities and landing fees that GA generally doesn't pay. I would
gess that less than 10% of the airports in this country that are
federally subsidized will ever see a major commercial carrier land there.


So we are guessing differently, that is fair enough. Lets look at some of
the examples.


Don't blame me for using class B radar
service.

Do you get weather briefings?

Yes, but I can get much of that info free, or for a small charge. My use of
the system is more often than not due to a need to avoid weather AND
controlled air space. If it was not available, I might cancel a couple more
flights a year. I would be willing to pay a fee for it - now that it is
voluntary.

Do you use radio navaids?

Yes, when I am not allowed to fly direct. Get rid of the airspace controls,
and you can get rid of the navaids in my opinion. I am likely in the
minority here. I also use them for training, ad for IFR. I would be
curious what the costs of maintaining the VOR system is. Private airports
do pay for some or all of the costs of NDB and ILS.

Do you listen
to AWOS/ASOS broadcasts?

I heard about a local municipal airport that didn't have the budget for a
new unit. Some local pilots simply pulled out their checkbooks when the
council was finally cornered into admitting the amount. The city refused do
to legal concerns, and later came up with the funds. These are worthwhile,
but once again, private airports have them, and I don't think the Feds are
paying for them.


Do you receive GPS signals, or have equipment
that reads GPS databases which are based on data that the U.S. Govt
provides free of charge to equipment manufacturers? Do you buy
navigation charts for a whole lot less than it costs to compile and
maintain them? Etc. etc.

An interesting question, and one worth looking into. How often do we REALLY
need new charts and updates? How accurate do GA pilots REALLY need them to
be? These costs are skewed by decisions made based on the needs of
commercial and military users. We are getting a free ride, but we pay in
other ways than cash - we get less priority in the system. If you want to
charge a pro rata share to GA, then you should make a product that meets our
needs, and tell the other users that they can pay more, or get it privately.


At any rate GA is one of very many issues I base my vote on, and it's
not even in the top 10 of importance.

I have to agree with you on national offices. However, local candidates
had
better pay attention to GA issues if they want my support.

On this we clearly agree.