User fees in Obama's budget proposal

[RotorAndWing]

Here's some more "Change you can believe in".






User fees in Obama's budget proposal

By Warren D. Morningstar
President Barack Obama’s proposed budget is calling for aviation user charges starting in 2011. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the proposal Feb. 26, and although there is not much detail, the document makes it clear that the administration wants to replace some of the aviation excise taxes with “direct user charges.”
“It is often said the devil is in the details, but even with only a few details, we are concerned,” said AOPA President Craig Fuller. “We have been working constructively with the Obama administration and Congress about moving forward with air traffic control modernization and airport development. However, the warning light went on with the budget briefing documents and the plan for imposing billions in user fees on the aviation community.”
The budget “proposes repealing some aviation excise taxes and replacing these taxes with direct user charges.” (See page 129 of the budget proposal.)
“Direct user charges are just another name for user fees,” noted Fuller.
User charges would total some $7 billion in 2011, or about half of the FAA’s total budget.
“We don’t know what kind of user charges the Obama administration would propose to implement, but the previous administration wanted to raise about $7 billion through air traffic control system user fees,” Fuller said.
The Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), who has been a staunch opponent of user fees, released a statement saying, “I note that the budget appears to propose some type of aviation user fee. Aviation user fees have been proposed several times in the past by OMBs of various administrations, and have not been adopted by Congress.”
Earlier this month Fuller testified in support of Chairman Oberstar’s bill, H.R.915, to finance the FAA through the current system of aviation excise taxes.
“We have already contacted White House officials to express our concern and to reiterate the negative effects that user fees would have on the general aviation industry. We look forward to an open dialogue with the president on the best way to finance the modernization of our air traffic control system and the FAA’s continued operations.”
February 26, 2009

 

[flyersfan31]

Ahhh, yes, let's drop the most efficient tax collection system out there and replace it with a new bureaucracy.

 

[steingar]

I feel betrayed.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I feel betrayed.

As do I.

Not that it will do any good, but whitehouse.gov is getting an e-mail from me.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I feel betrayed.

LOL!!! Get use to it.

 

[Trapper John]

Here's some more "Change you can believe in".






User fees in Obama's budget proposal

By Warren D. Morningstar
President Barack Obama’s proposed budget is calling for aviation user charges starting in 2011. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the proposal Feb. 26, and although there is not much detail, the document makes it clear that the administration wants to replace some of the aviation excise taxes with “direct user charges.”
“It is often said the devil is in the details, but even with only a few details, we are concerned,” said AOPA President Craig Fuller. “We have been working constructively with the Obama administration and Congress about moving forward with air traffic control modernization and airport development. However, the warning light went on with the budget briefing documents and the plan for imposing billions in user fees on the aviation community.”
The budget “proposes repealing some aviation excise taxes and replacing these taxes with direct user charges.” (See page 129 of the budget proposal.)
“Direct user charges are just another name for user fees,” noted Fuller.
User charges would total some $7 billion in 2011, or about half of the FAA’s total budget.

It's funny how it's redistrubution of wealth until it affects you personally. Then the proposed user fees are so terribly unfair, as if the long held system of GA being subsidized by airline ticket fees is somehow a fundamental right.


Trapper John

 

[Ted]

Obama made no promises to help GA that I saw. When I read the bit on AOPA about how Obama and McCain felt about GA, they both seemed to have responses of "Yeah yeah, planes. Whee."

This is pretty much what I've expected. Hopefully AOPA can fight it off, but that's just my selfish desire to not have to pay user fees. I'm a lot more annoyed with proposals of things like TSA presence at GA airports. Part of the reason I love GA flying is that I don't have to deal with TSA. Every time I fly commercial I'm reminded of why I try to fly myself places as much as possible.

 

[RotorAndWing]

It's funny how it's redistrubution of wealth until it affects you personally. Then the proposed user fees are so terribly unfair, as if the long held system of GA being subsidized by airline ticket fees is somehow a fundamental right.


Trapper John

The tax being charged airline passengers goes to the Aviation Trust Fund, the local airports being used and the TSA.

Fuel taxes are suppose to go to the operation of the FAA which is what I feel is the fair way to do it. The airlines just pass that cost to the passengers and GA pays the cost based upon use. GA has never been subsidized by airline ticket fees.


"User Fees" will just be an additional tax to be squandered by our government.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I'm a lot more annoyed with proposals of things like TSA presence at GA airports. Part of the reason I love GA flying is that I don't have to deal with TSA. Every time I fly commercial I'm reminded of why I try to fly myself places as much as possible.

That too is soon coming to an end. And with that expect more "user fees" such as TSA "fees" to be made each time you fly.

The camel has his nose under the tent.

 

[Trapper John]

The tax being charged airline passengers goes to the Aviation Trust Fund, the local airports being used and the TSA.

Fuel taxes are suppose to go to the operation of the FAA which is what I feel is the fair way to do it. The airlines just pass that cost to the passengers and GA pays the cost based upon use. GA has never been subsidized by airline ticket fees.

Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself. What happens to the money that goes into the Aviation Trust Fund?


Trapper John

 

[vontresc]

My main issue with "User Fees" isn't the fact that I am paying for the services I am using. It is the inefficient method of collecting the funds. Imagine all of the recordkeeping etc required to log all of my contact with ATC etc? It would be an accounting nightmare!

 

[Sportpilot]

Change you can believe in....and that's all we're going to have left.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Yes folks, Mr. Obama has managed to have a change that affects everyone productive!

You rich airplane owners shouldn't complain. It's all about fairness. You have money; other people need it more than you. (Considering selling plane or moving to a country where one votes based on societal contribution again like when our nation was founded.)

I've never seen anything that penalizes being productive as much has his new policies.


Best,

Dave

 

[tdager]

It's funny how it's redistrubution of wealth until it affects you personally. Then the proposed user fees are so terribly unfair, as if the long held system of GA being subsidized by airline ticket fees is somehow a fundamental right.


Trapper John

Trapper John....how are we being "subsidized" in the current paradigm? We pay a fuel tax, the more fuel you use, the more you pay. Sure some money comes from the general fund because it is in the best interests of ALL people to have a good airport infrastructure, and yes that includes small GA airports.

 

[Everskyward]

To be entirely fair, I seem to remember the other side being in favor of user fees too.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2000/00-2-042.html

 

[ReverendSlappy]

To be entirely fair, I seem to remember the other side being in favor of user fees too.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2000/00-2-042.html

Precisely. And as I think Ted already mentioned, President Obama made no commitments whatsoever as a candidate to avoid user fees, so I think the feelings of "betrayal" or the sarcastic ripostes about "change" and what have you are a little... out of place, to say the least.

It's also worth noting that, as Rep. Oberstar pointed out, simply because it has been proposed by OMB doesn't mean it's going to happen. Administrations (regardless of party) are always going to try to tuck as much as they can into "user charges" or "user fees" so they can avoid some of the inevitable screeching of the anti-tax ideologues ("Hey... It's a fee, not a tax!" is a pretty effective argument in many people's eyes.)

So call/write your congressman and senators, and involve yourself in the process before getting all up in arms. Overreaction like we've seen here already is only going to be counterproductive.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Sorry, but you're contradicting yourself. What happens to the money that goes into the Aviation Trust Fund?


Trapper John

That money is being held to offset the budget. Very little of it goes to airport upgrades, and very little of it goes to the operation of the FAA.

Go read the history of the Airport Trust Fund and just how bad the government has mismanaged it.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Precisely. And as I think Ted already mentioned, President Obama made no commitments whatsoever as a candidate to avoid user fees, so I think the feelings of "betrayal" or the sarcastic ripostes about "change" and what have you are a little... out of place, to say the least.

It's also worth noting that, as Rep. Oberstar pointed out, simply because it has been proposed by OMB doesn't mean it's going to happen. Administrations (regardless of party) are always going to try to tuck as much as they can into "user charges" or "user fees" so they can avoid some of the inevitable screeching of the anti-tax ideologues ("Hey... It's a fee, not a tax!" is a pretty effective argument in many people's eyes.)

So call/write your congressman and senators, and involve yourself in the process before getting all up in arms. Overreaction like we've seen here already is only going to be counterproductive.

The "Change you can believe in" quote has been over used to an extent it's just another joke.

Sure the last administration proposed user fees, as did previous administrations before that. The point being nothing has changed, it's just the same old government, just a different set of players.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

The "Change you can believe in" quote has been over used to an extent it's just another joke.

Sure the last administration proposed user fees, as did previous administrations before that. The point being nothing has changed, it's just the same old government, just a different set of players.

Perhaps nothing has "changed" with this particular issue, but it'd take a pretty significant effort at ignoring a whole ton of current events to support your larger claim.

Again, sarcastic, seemingly-witty ripostes serve no purpose when actually trying to affect the outcome of legislative issues like this one, so if it's all the same to you, I'd say it's wise for all of us to move on to discussing the meat of the issue and skip the attempted claptrap.

 

[SkyHog]

Barrack Obama is an ass.

I was on his side, cautiously. If this passes, he returns to ass-dom.

BTW - I'm with Ted, User Fees suck, but the real killer to GA will be the TSA. And that's why I was so against AOPA for so long....lets see what the new pres does.

 

[Ted]

If they turn GA into having the same hassles as commercial aviation, I will either:

1) Buy my own airport
2) Stop flying

Time to write some letters...

 

[Trapper John]

That money is being held to offset the budget. Very little of it goes to airport upgrades, and very little of it goes to the operation of the FAA.

The majority of FAA's funding comes from the Aviation Trust Fund. You may want to read this:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/01airex.pdf

and this:

http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/cc2005033.pdf

Go read the history of the Airport Trust Fund and just how bad the government has mismanaged it.

You're changing the subject. The point is non-users of GA facilities, specifically airline passengers, pay fees that are used to improve GA facilities and provide services used by GA.


Trapper John

 

[Trapper John]

Trapper John....how are we being "subsidized" in the current paradigm? We pay a fuel tax, the more fuel you use, the more you pay.

See this:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=416763&postcount=22

Sure some money comes from the general fund because it is in the best interests of ALL people to have a good airport infrastructure, and yes that includes small GA airports.

And once again, GA is not self-sustaning, and takes money from other sources, i.e, it's subsidized. Whether the economic benefits outweigh the costs for a given airport requires a rational analysis.


Trapper John

 

[Bob Noel]

long held belief GA is being subsidized.

if all of GA went away, exactly how much money would the FAA save?

if small GA went away (ya know, like the C-172 and PA-28-161), exactly how
much money would the FAA save?

 

[RotorAndWing]

I'd say it's wise for all of us to move on to discussing the meat of the issue and skip the attempted claptrap.

Guess you're the self appointed moderator. Garbage like the condescending diatribe above is why you can't be taken seriously.

 

[steingar]

I thought the change was to wise and intelligent government policy. The TSA and user fees are neither.

 

[RotorAndWing]

It's funny how it's redistrubution of wealth until it affects you personally. Then the proposed user fees are so terribly unfair, as if the long held system of GA being subsidized by airline ticket fees is somehow a fundamental right.


Trapper John

So tell me, where did I state "GA being subsidized by airline ticket fees is somehow a fundamental right"?

My beef with the Federal government is their waste and total mismanagement of our (the US) budget, and their only way to "fix it" is to install yet more taxes which they will still squander away. Where does it end?

 

[KennyFlys]

The TSA is trying to take our freedom to exercise this privilege. It only makes sense for for the executive branch and FAA take our money to limit it further.

The ATA and airlines are pushing this under the guise it's going to "spread the cost" over "users" of the NAS. Does anyone really believe the airlines are going to get a break on the costs they pay? They are, of course, part of that evil corporate empire.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

It's funny how it's redistrubution of wealth until it affects you personally. Then the proposed user fees are so terribly unfair, as if the long held system of GA being subsidized by airline ticket fees is somehow a fundamental right.


Trapper John

I heartily agree. It may not be in my financial best interests - but I fail to see how it's unfair to require users of a service, that is used by less than a significant majority of the population, to pay for said service.

 

[Trapper John]

So tell me, where did I state "GA being subsidized by airline ticket fees is somehow a fundamental right"?

With the eye-rolling response to the proposition of user fees:

Here's some more "Change you can believe in".

My beef with the Federal government is their waste and total mismanagement of our (the US) budget...

It's waste if it's something you don't want. And global hyperbole about mismanagement really doesn't hold water. Look at the overhead associated with administration of Medicare and Medicaid compared to the overhead of private insurers, for instance.

...and their only way to "fix it" is to install yet more taxes which they will still squander away.

I didn't see anywhere in the budget proposal about "more taxes", only a difference in the way the revenue is collected to provide the services. Did I miss something?

Where does it end?

When people decide they don't want the services any more, the government won't provide them.


Trapper John

 

[steingar]

Actually, I agree with an earlier post. It isn't the money. I really don't mind paying more. If they want to boost the gas tax and can put up numbers to justify it, you won't hear a peep out of me. But user fees have an easily demonstrable precedent of reducing aviation activity, and we don't need no more stinkin' reductions.

The TSA, jeeze let's not go there.

 

[KennyFlys]

Here's a bit of an explanation of how the fuel tax works...

The ‘Fuel Tax’ – The Most Effective Payment System For General Aviation

There's certainly no "redistribution of wealth" in this system. If you buy aviation fuel, you pay taxes. In fact, I believe jet fuel is taxed at a lesser rate than aviation gasoline. What do the airlines use more of?

 

[Everskyward]

I heartily agree. It may not be in my financial best interests - but I fail to see how it's unfair to require users of a service, that is used by less than a significant majority of the population, to pay for said service.

I agree with you but wouldn't a fuel tax do the same thing without all the added burden of creating a bureaucracy to collect all these user fees?

 

[Trapper John]

But user fees have an easily demonstrable precedent of reducing aviation activity, and we don't need no more stinkin' reductions.

Didn't the increase in fuel prices over the last couple of years reduce aviation activity? Wouldn't a fuel tax increase also reduce activity, since the fuel price would be higher?

Just as a thought exercise, what's wrong with a per-function fee? For instance an IFR flight plan. A C-150 burning 5 gph, a Baron burning 30 gph and a King Air burning 80 gph all create a similar impact on the system. But the way it works now, the more fuel you burn, you pay disproportionately to the service you use.


Trapper John

 

[KennyFlys]

I agree with you but wouldn't a fuel tax do the same thing without all the added burden of creating a bureaucracy to collect all these user fees?

When I saw Phil Boyer speak a couple years ago, he was saying it would take six months or longer before the billing would catch up to him for user fees he incurred while flying in Europe.

Imagine a US Treasury where there is six months or more in delays before it receives the revenue to fund government services. Ya think government is slow now? Hang on for the ride.

 

[Trapper John]

There's certainly no "redistribution of wealth" in this system.

Sure there is. Read this:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/01airex.pdf

and this:

http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?fi.../cc2005033.pdf

If you buy aviation fuel, you pay taxes. In fact, I believe jet fuel is taxed at a lesser rate than aviation gasoline. What do the airlines use more of?

From your source: general aviation pays a 21.9 cents-per-gallon tax on jet fuel and a 19.4 cents-per-gallon tax on aviation gasoline.

And the fuel taxes don't come close to paying the entire cost.


Trapper John

 

[KennyFlys]

I said there's nothing in fuel taxes that are a redistribution of wealth. If you buy aviation fuel, you pay taxes. It's no less true for those paying it to both the federal government and to states be it for airplanes or autos.

We pay enough dang taxes. Government needs to get more efficient. It's anything but that.

From your source: general aviation pays a 21.9 cents-per-gallon tax on jet fuel and a 19.4 cents-per-gallon tax on aviation gasoline.

And the fuel taxes don't come close to paying the entire cost.

No, some of it comes from the "general fund" as it should. It's well contributed to by individuals and corporations surrounding aviation in the way of income taxes.

Want to save more money? Get rid of some of the dead weight at the top of government levels, the FAA included.

We don't need more bureaucratic BS.

 

[AdamZ]

If they turn GA into having the same hassles as commercial aviation, I will either:

1) Buy my own airport
2) Stop flying

Time to write some letters...

Option #1 is not an option for most and only really works if you don't intend to fly anywhere but just bore holes in the sky.

Option #2 mmmm well that will show them. The could care less if we stop flying. Sadly though you are on to what a good portion of the flying community will do because they have no other choice and then only the super wealthy will fly because if enough folks get financially forced out of flying then the cost will soar even higher. The A&P who could rely on 4 planes amonth for annuals can only now rely on perhaps 2 in a good month. Wow the cost of that annual just went up a lot. same thing applies to AV fuel and Pilot supplies etc.

Your right its time to right some stern letters.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Didn't the increase in fuel prices over the last couple of years reduce aviation activity? Wouldn't a fuel tax increase also reduce activity, since the fuel price would be higher?

Sure, but not in the same way. Let's say we were charged a per-landing fee like they are at most places in Europe, and that fee went to maintaining runways. How many people would go out and practice touch-and-goes if every single one cost them $10? Your hour of T&G's in the pattern just cost $200 instead of $100. Practice goes down, landing accidents go up.

Just as a thought exercise, what's wrong with a per-function fee? For instance an IFR flight plan. A C-150 burning 5 gph, a Baron burning 30 gph and a King Air burning 80 gph all create a similar impact on the system. But the way it works now, the more fuel you burn, you pay disproportionately to the service you use.

Not really. A C-150 is very unlikely to file a lot of IFR flight plans. For every hundred C-150 flights, there may only be one IFR plan filed. For every hundred King Air flights, there will be 95 IFR plans filed, for every hundred Baron flights there may be 70 IFR plans filed. So if you look at it strictly in terms of ATC used, the C-150's of the world are getting screwed!

But look at the rest. The King Air is heavier than the Baron and will cause more wear and tear on runways, taxiways and ramps. It's got greater range and is faster, and thus will generally go on longer trips where it communicates with more controllers.

The fuel taxes are not only very closely aligned with the amount of services used, they are VERY efficient from a collection perspective.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Sure there is. Read this:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/01airex.pdf

and this:

http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?fi.../cc2005033.pdf




From your source: general aviation pays a 21.9 cents-per-gallon tax on jet fuel and a 19.4 cents-per-gallon tax on aviation gasoline.

And the fuel taxes don't come close to paying the entire cost.


Trapper John

Of course the fuel taxes don't pay the entire cost.

You are forgetting one of the biggest users of the National Airspace System is the military. At Lincoln, NE the ANG runs more take-offs and landings that the commerical air carriers. Atlantic City, NJ- I almost always was sharing the sky with the Air Force or ANG. I was in a C172practicing approaches with a C-130 and an F-16- an interesting mix of aircraft. I was always seeing aircraft from Dover AFB, McGuire AFB, and the ANG at Wilington, DE. I often saw Army helicopters flying around too. I have seen Army helicopters do a VOR approach into Solberg, NJ (a small privately owned strip).

We all pay the price (as we should) for supporting our military and part of this cost is FAA and ATC support. They use the same ATC and NAVAIDs that commercial and GA uses. They use the same approaches in IFR. some of the cost should come from the general fund.

This is not subsidizing me and my little plane.