Senate battle won

[RV10Rob]

Just got this email...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Notice from AOPA President Phil Boyer September 21, 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------

==> ATTENTION PILOTS <==

SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE SETS STAGE TO ELIMINATE USER FEES

I apologize for the intrusion of another e-mail this week, but this one is to not only convey GREAT news, but also to truly thank those of you who made phone calls or communicated in any fashion with your Senator. This morning the Senate Finance Committee passed the ?American Infrastructure Investment and Improvement Act? ? the Baucus/Grassley bill? and by doing so they have endorsed a tax-based system of funding the Aviation Trust Fund, and set the stage for eliminating User Fees.

As you know, I called on you mid-afternoon Wednesday to contact your U.S. Senator, and in retaliation to our efforts, subsequently Senators Trent Lott (R-MS) and John Rockefeller (D-WV) wrote seven amendments to attack general aviation. Your calls not only secured the vote on the Baucus/Grassley bill, but the calls also assured that the committee would not adopt those seven amendments. Great work!

This is a significant victory for general aviation. We still have challenges ahead but with the continued support from you, I am confident we will be successful!

Thanks so much,

Phil Boyer
AOPA President

P.S. Your Senator, Maria Cantwell, voted Yes on the bill ? make sure to call or email her for supporting general aviation. Check out the full story on the AOPA Web site at www.aopa.org .

[Mike S]

Wow, you really can fight the big guys and win.

Thanks for the update.

[frankh]

I don't know much about American politics (except having lots of money helps you get your way) but I thought this was only phase 1...I.e everything has to be ratified thru a few steps before its signed into law.

Am I off base here?

Frank

[grover]

you are correct - - this is one committee. the house will cook up their version, then more committees will hammer out the differences between the two versions. many important issues have taken drastic changes after a favorable outcome in committee. we have cause to celebrate this outcome, but not to leave these ****** politicians to their own devices. it isn't dead til it's dead. politicians warrant constant scrutiny.

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office."
Aesop

[lsu-rv]

Sad to say, but it is never dead... Here in Austin TX we had a BIG vote a few years back on "Light Rail", (putting in a commuter rail system to remove all the drivers off the highway) Much was spent on both sides in ads.... It came to a big public vote.. It DID NOT PASS... what happened next.. About a year later, we are getting Light Rail, and toll roads. I don't think the general public ever voted on it again. We voted NO to it, so now we are getting it anyway... I may be a little off here and can be corrected, but point is; This will keep coming up and we must ultimately have ALL the general public on our side.
They (the general public) are fed up with the airlines poor service and pushing for a passenger bill of rights. The airlines don't want that either, but if the right lawmakers put userfees in with some type passenger rights bill and make the general public believe that this will "fix" the airlines, then it will pass.
I don't claim to be an expert here, just thought i would rant a little.

jeff h
austin tx

[c177tx]

RE: Austin Tx

And how many times did we vote to NOT move Robert Mueller Airport???

[jdmunzell]

I think it boils down to stamina here! The very thought of big politicians like Senators Lott and Rockefeller ruining our very passion and the very real big business of general aviation, just scares me to no end!

This isn't like some pasttime that I could easily change motivations for! This IS my life and a lot of yours as well! We just have to keep it up to prevail....
...period!

[frankh]

They make it sound like a done deal.

Right there at the bottom it say...Oh yeah and the White House has threatened to veto any bill that shows up without user fees in it.

In other words if this happens while our current administration is in power...we're screwed, end of story! If you take that to its logical conclusion the best we can hope for is to delay this until the other bunch of crooks get in there.

Note I am not particularly partisan but the whole system stinks to high heaven.

Frank

[Ironflight]

Originally Posted by frankh

Right there at the bottom it say...Oh yeah and the White House has threatened to veto any bill that shows up without user fees in it.

No ethical problem for el presidente'....the user fees ARE there - every time you buy AvGas, you pay the tax to fund the system!

Politics is all about the language of compromise...

[RVbySDI]

Originally Posted by frankh

They make it sound like a done deal.

Right there at the bottom it say...Oh yeah and the White House has threatened to veto any bill that shows up without user fees in it.

In other words if this happens while our current administration is in power...we're screwed, end of story! If you take that to its logical conclusion the best we can hope for is to delay this until the other bunch of crooks get in there.

Note I am not particularly partisan but the whole system stinks to high heaven.

Frank

The threat of veto is still looming for this user fee bill (whichever version it ends up being). That is why we are still in jeopardy of seeing user fees in the future. Once a politician sees things from a specific perspective it becomes very difficult to get him/her to see the issue from any other perspective (honestly are they any different than any human in this regard?).

The most powerful politicians will vote with whomever they are in bed with (read, provides them with the money to support their personal causes) so that does not bode well for our cause.

The reality is the general population thinks the large passenger jets they ride on are the only airplanes of importance and that any other airplane out there needs to fall under the same scrutiny and control as they do. This is the true problem with convincing politicians, and the general public, that our needs are not the same as the large jetliners.

How many times have you seen the media cover a light plane accident such as the Steve Fossett disappearance and begin the story with "He did not file a flight plan!" The general public believes that every flight regardless of its purpose or path should be under direct, constant and vigilant scrutiny by the government. I heard an audio on PBS a week or so ago where a man somewhere had called 911. He wanted the police to come and arrest a helicopter pilot who had flown less than 50 feet above his house as the pilot approached a landing on a soccer field where he was dropping off his son for a game. The caller was up in arms that this pilot was putting him and his property in danger for flying over it. He could not fathom why this pilot was allowed to fly over his house and to land on a field just to drop off his kid for a soccer game. He was further taken aback by the 911 operator's reply that this was not a matter for the police and that the caller should contact the FAA to file his complaint. He truly thought this pilot should be arrested or at the very least have his pilot's license revoked.

This call shows that the majority of the non-aviation general public individual views any and all aircraft as dangerous and potentially threatening to their very existence. These are the people the large airlines have on their side and along with those large airlines the ones most politicians end up listening to.