From: km11480@medtronic.COM (Keith A. Meisel)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Flying saves money (sic)
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:04:19 GMT
Reply-To: km11480@medtronic.COM
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.


>Is it possible that you can post a copy of the editorial?

>		William LeFebvre
>		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
>		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

Having received a couple such requests, I have located the editorial in question
and will reprint it forthright.  It is excerpted from the Minneapolis Star 
Tribune editorial page, Saturday June 27 1992.  The title was
"Get the free riders to pay up".

"Nothing is more irksome than to be charged extra
 so someone else can get a free ride.  Yet according 
to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO), that's the way much of the U.S. transporta-
tion system is financed.  On the highways,  in the
 air and on the waterways, major users pay less 
than their share, so ordinary taxpayers or other
users have to pay more.

"That's unfair.  It's also inefficient.  To get the most 
for the U.S. transportation dollar, user-fees should
more accurately reflect the benefits that different
classes of users get from the transportation system
and the wear and tear they put on it.

"The road-user taxes currently paid by heavy 
trucks, for example, do not cover the cost of the 
pavement damage they cause.  The CBO suggests
taxing all trucks on the basis of axle weight and
distance traveled.  That way, heavily loaded trucks 
would pay more while trucks lightly loaded or with
weight spread over more axles would pay less.  In
the long run, as truckers adjust their rigs to the
new fee schedule, there would be less pavement
damage and lower highway repair and rebuilding
costs for everyone.  A congestion tax might have a
similar effect on car owners, encouraging them to
switch to transit or otherwise make better use of
the existing roadways and thereby reduce the need for
new construction.

"Airlines pay their share of the costs of operating
the air traffic control system, but general aviation
doesn't.  The CBO report cites the example of a 
corporate jet flying from Washington, D.C. to 
Chicago.  For such a trip, the jet now pays $43 in 
fuel taxes; if it were taxed in proportion to the air
traffic-control costs generated by general aviation,
it would pay $445.

"on inland waterways, fuel taxes paid by barges
and pleasure boats account for only 8 percent of
the revenues needed to support the system.  That
means the federal government's general fund pro-
vides a shocking 92 percent subsidy.  The CBO
argues persuasively that users should pay a bigger 
share of the burden.

"The report correctly cautions that such changes
would have to be phased in over several years to
avoid serious hardships for transporters that have
purchased their equipment on the basis of the
present tax and fee system.  All the more reason,
however, to get the process started quickly so that
current inequities and inefficiencies don't drag on 
indefinitely."


As an aside, if I'm not mistaken, this fee structure adjustment
was part of Ross Perot's plan for balancing the budget.  I don't
know where Clinton or Bush stand on this issue.  Is AOPA out front
watching this one?	
Newsgroups: rec.aviation