Jose wrote:
http://www.reason.org/ps332.pdf#sear...tion%20exempt%
20user%20fees%22 "We recommend that only that small segment of
general aviation which makes extensive use of air traffic control
services—jets and turboprops—pay fees under the new system and be
represented on the stakeholder board..."

So now he advocates that small GA not be represented? We'll continue
to pay fuel tax, but won't have any say in ATC services. That looks
like the first step in a freeze-out.

Poole mentions representation later in the document (pgs 31 & 32):

"In Canada, where GA activity looks a lot more like American GA flying
than European flying, Nav Canada decided to implement a form of GA user
fee when it took over air traffic control as a user-controlled nonprofit
company. The underlying rationale was, as noted earlier, the principle
of “user pay means user say.” As an important category of airspace user,
GA wanted a place at the table (i.e., a seat on the board), and you did
not get to say unless you agreed to pay. But for a variety of reasons,
including concerns about both safety and affordability, the type of
charge agreed upon for most GA aircraft is a flat annual charge
proportional to the weight of the plane (ranging from C$60 for a plane
of less than two metric tons to C$210 for one weighting three metric
tons). That approach has been generally accepted by the Canadian GA
community.

On the other hand, since a large proportion of GA flight activity does
not make use of ATC services, a fairness question arises about charging
such a fee to all GA aircraft. The GA fuel tax goes into the Aviation
Trust Fund, which supports the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) in
addition to the ATC system. Since all public-use airports are eligible
for AIP grants, most GA pilots do benefit from AIP even if they do not
benefit from ATC. This provides an argument for retaining the GA fuel
tax, as providing a better nexus between payment and benefits received
for the average GA pilot than would an annual ATC fee."

I would assume from the above that since Poole advocates GA paying a
portion of its way, it still gets a say.

Unfortunately the Reason paper doesn't touch on the issue of whether the
FAA's current expenditures are reasonable. It does mention that Canada's
switch allegedly prompted a tight fiscal policy and also mentions
advanced technology promises dramatic productivity increases - with
presumed cost reductions. But that's about it.