Avp
- Thread starter c172
- Start date
Andy Neill
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,293
- Total Time
- 6200
I voted yes because the funds are available from the Aviation Trust Fund. Each year, the federal government takes in more money than it spends from the aviation trust fund. When the government reports a balanced budget or budget surplus, it is beacasue of the surplus funds generated by Social Security and the Highway and Aviation Trust Funds. Whichever district has the best bargainer, can get the most (or MORE) of their taxes back through highway and airport projects.
[Rant mode ON]
I would support a reduction in aviation and highway taxes (gas taxes) to the levels that will support the minimum return that a state is now getting from each of the programs. Anything above that would have to be funded closer to the taxpayer.
For instance, if a state is now getting only 30% of the money they pay into the Aviation Trust Fund back in airport funding, then the federal tax on aviation gas should be reduced 70%. If the states need more money for airport projects, let them get it from within the state instead of robbing someone from another state.
[Rant mode off.]
[Rant mode ON]
I would support a reduction in aviation and highway taxes (gas taxes) to the levels that will support the minimum return that a state is now getting from each of the programs. Anything above that would have to be funded closer to the taxpayer.
For instance, if a state is now getting only 30% of the money they pay into the Aviation Trust Fund back in airport funding, then the federal tax on aviation gas should be reduced 70%. If the states need more money for airport projects, let them get it from within the state instead of robbing someone from another state.
[Rant mode off.]
generaltso
Marcy Projects
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2002
- Posts
- 653
- Total Time
- 500hrs
Maybe it is because Scanton/Wilkes-Baare is the armpit of the nation?
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
- Total Time
- 1634
I'm happy to say that my experiences with AVP have never been anything less than acceptable. When I pass through their airspace at night while returning from Utica to Reading, their radar guys (and girls) are always friendly and sharp, just like at Reading. OK, there is a curmudgeon working at Reading, but he retires soon. The FBO at AVP waives landing fees for solo students, and Damon's sells a nice plate of ribs. I hope they re-opened after the fire.
As Andy said, I have no problem with airport improvements, as the money in the trust fund comes from the taxes I have paid on fuel. Airports like AVP will become major reliever airports for the New York area. I can see the value of a high speed rail link from AVP to Manhattan to reduce hold times and congestion at TEB and EWR. That's 50 or so years down the road, though.
Remember, things are probably worse at several fields, whatever your problem with the Authority.
As Andy said, I have no problem with airport improvements, as the money in the trust fund comes from the taxes I have paid on fuel. Airports like AVP will become major reliever airports for the New York area. I can see the value of a high speed rail link from AVP to Manhattan to reduce hold times and congestion at TEB and EWR. That's 50 or so years down the road, though.
Remember, things are probably worse at several fields, whatever your problem with the Authority.
bobbysamd
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 5,710
- Total Time
- 4565
Government funds
The point that is overlooked about government funds is the bureaucrats in charge of them WANT the funds to be used. If monies in the funds are left over, the bureaucrats have a tougher time justifying to Congress why they need more funds for the next fiscal year. They are afraid that if the funds aren't used Congress will feel there is no further use for the funding and end their empires. Therefore, municipalities aren't using their heads when they do not apply for federal funds that can improve their infrastructures, e.g. airports.
Two more examples are mass transit funds and Medicaid. There is a free bus shuttle service in the office complex area where I work. It connects with the main city bus lines. Paid for, at least in part, by federal monies.
Medicaid is a welfare program. I won't get started on how some elderlaw attorneys work the system so that some well-off people can have nursing home or at-home healthcare paid for by Uncle Sam. I will say that localities who administer Medicaid want eligible people to apply for and receive it, and SSI. Otherwise, their reserves will diminish.
The point that is overlooked about government funds is the bureaucrats in charge of them WANT the funds to be used. If monies in the funds are left over, the bureaucrats have a tougher time justifying to Congress why they need more funds for the next fiscal year. They are afraid that if the funds aren't used Congress will feel there is no further use for the funding and end their empires. Therefore, municipalities aren't using their heads when they do not apply for federal funds that can improve their infrastructures, e.g. airports.
Two more examples are mass transit funds and Medicaid. There is a free bus shuttle service in the office complex area where I work. It connects with the main city bus lines. Paid for, at least in part, by federal monies.
Medicaid is a welfare program. I won't get started on how some elderlaw attorneys work the system so that some well-off people can have nursing home or at-home healthcare paid for by Uncle Sam. I will say that localities who administer Medicaid want eligible people to apply for and receive it, and SSI. Otherwise, their reserves will diminish.
Last edited:
c172
Way to much fun
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2001
- Posts
- 84
- Total Time
- noon
OK I SEE YOUR NOT GETTING IT !!!!!!!!!!
AS FAR AS THE FBO&BOYS AND THE GIRLS IN THE TOWER YOUR RIGHT ON THE MONEY!! THIS IS WEAR YOU VEAR OFF THE ROAD A LITTLE BIT. FIRST THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE AIRPORT TO START WITH SO WHY FIX IT?????????? PLUS IS A FOUR LEVEL PARKING GARAGE GOING TO BRING A MAJER AIRLINE TO THE AIRPORT ?(NOT) YOU CAN'T PARK NO MORE THAN TWO WIDE BODYS THERE SO WHY NOT MAKE MORE ROOM FOR THEM ? VERY GOOD IDEA FOR A MAJER reliever FOR TEB.EWR.JFK OR ANY CLASS B-C AIRPORT BUT IT JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN HERE NOT WHEN WILKES BARRY /LACKAWNNA COUNTYS ARE RUNNING THE SHOW HERE ! 50 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WHO CARE'S I'LL BE 85 YEARS YOUNG
AS FAR AS THE FBO&BOYS AND THE GIRLS IN THE TOWER YOUR RIGHT ON THE MONEY!! THIS IS WEAR YOU VEAR OFF THE ROAD A LITTLE BIT. FIRST THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE AIRPORT TO START WITH SO WHY FIX IT?????????? PLUS IS A FOUR LEVEL PARKING GARAGE GOING TO BRING A MAJER AIRLINE TO THE AIRPORT ?(NOT) YOU CAN'T PARK NO MORE THAN TWO WIDE BODYS THERE SO WHY NOT MAKE MORE ROOM FOR THEM ? VERY GOOD IDEA FOR A MAJER reliever FOR TEB.EWR.JFK OR ANY CLASS B-C AIRPORT BUT IT JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN HERE NOT WHEN WILKES BARRY /LACKAWNNA COUNTYS ARE RUNNING THE SHOW HERE ! 50 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WHO CARE'S I'LL BE 85 YEARS YOUNG
bobbysamd
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 5,710
- Total Time
- 4565
Airport Funding 102
I realize that we are not the Principles of Government Message Board. I can appreciate your point if the local City Council put up a referendum to the people to approve a bond issue for airport improvements. Perhaps they had sold the issue to the people on the promise that if they build it, the majors will come (apologies to "Field of Dreams") . But, if the majors don't come and the improvements do not generate income and the bonds lose value or go into arrears, then, clearly, something is wrong.
But what is wrong if federal monies set aside by Congress for airport improvements are used to upgrade the airport? Once again, federal agencies WANT these funds to be used. Think of it in terms of increased landing fee revenues and increased revenues from fuel sales and airport services, at no risk to the taxpayers.
By the way, you can get a great plate of ribs at Bob's Barbecue in Ada, Oklahoma. It's in walking distance from the airport. Bon appetit!
I realize that we are not the Principles of Government Message Board. I can appreciate your point if the local City Council put up a referendum to the people to approve a bond issue for airport improvements. Perhaps they had sold the issue to the people on the promise that if they build it, the majors will come (apologies to "Field of Dreams") . But, if the majors don't come and the improvements do not generate income and the bonds lose value or go into arrears, then, clearly, something is wrong.
But what is wrong if federal monies set aside by Congress for airport improvements are used to upgrade the airport? Once again, federal agencies WANT these funds to be used. Think of it in terms of increased landing fee revenues and increased revenues from fuel sales and airport services, at no risk to the taxpayers.
By the way, you can get a great plate of ribs at Bob's Barbecue in Ada, Oklahoma. It's in walking distance from the airport. Bon appetit!
c172
Way to much fun
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2001
- Posts
- 84
- Total Time
- noon
THAT'S MY POINT!
THERE YOU GO !THAT IS MY POINT! Perhaps they had sold the issue to the people on the promise that if they build it, the majors will come (apologies to "Field of Dreams") . But, if the majors don't come and the improvements do not generate income and the bonds lose value or go into arrears, then, clearly, something is wrong.
THIS IS CRAP THAY ARE SELLING THE PEOPLE AND IT'S NOT TRUE AT ALL
THERE YOU GO !THAT IS MY POINT! Perhaps they had sold the issue to the people on the promise that if they build it, the majors will come (apologies to "Field of Dreams") . But, if the majors don't come and the improvements do not generate income and the bonds lose value or go into arrears, then, clearly, something is wrong.
THIS IS CRAP THAY ARE SELLING THE PEOPLE AND IT'S NOT TRUE AT ALL