Recently, government agencies and Congress have focused intently on the federal budget. As many of you are aware, our politicians and government officials are working seriously toward reducing the annual budget deficit. This is, of course, a welcome change for all of us and could ultimately be an important component in restoring the health of the national economy as a whole, along with the flight training environment and the aircraft manufacturing industry. As in any serious effort, however, there are some ideas that, while well-intended, do not truly contribute to establishing a productive path toward the future. In the case of the current proposals, aviation would be affected by some of the ideas that seem to have an immediate benefit but would be potentially destructive for the industry in the long run. AOPA, as your general aviation voice in the nation's capital, is diligently working to separate those issues that bring "true" savings from those that work only on an accountant's spreadsheet. We take this role seriously and encourage government reductions in spending when there is no long-term effect, or when false savings are promised.
One of the more visible proposals would affect the airlines by implementing a new fuel tax that would be deposited in the general treasury. Unlike the fuel tax we pay in general aviation, the proceeds would not go into the Aviation Trust Fund to build new capacity, but rather would be diverted to reduce the national budget deficit. While this may have appeal to some, it will do nothing to accelerate needed modernization of the aviation system and treats the airlines as a "cash" vehicle for budget purposes. This move would challenge the longstanding principle that taxes paid by the users should be directed into building and improving the systems for future use. When Congress established the Aviation Trust Fund it was for the primary purpose of using those dollars to build and maintain the airport and airways infrastructure.
Secondly, there is a proposal to rescind the "premium pay" increase given to air traffic controllers during the rebuilding of the system following the strike. This reduction would amount to five percent and could also be accompanied by reductions in retirement benefits. At a time when air traffic control modernization is under way and new operating efficiency is sought, it could be very shortsighted to lose controllers' commitment to improvement by de-motivating the workforce. Any of us spending time in a busy tower, tracon, or en route center certainly appreciate the high- pressure workload these carry in providing for our safe air travel. In most cases, the busiest of facilities are located in cities with the highest costs of living. It took a government "demonstration program" to allow these controllers to be paid more for higher housing and other costs.
The most alarming deficit reduction proposals are those calling for annual registration fees on general aviation aircraft and a possible privatization of the air traffic control system. As you have read previously in these pages, AOPA has been active on both these issues during the past three years. Many in Washington believe that these proposals would directly diminish aviation safety.
Finally, there are proposals to dramatically reduce the funding for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) that invests in building new runways, taxiways, and airports. AIP dollars are also used for the continued maintenance of existing facilities. These funds are especially critical to future capacity development and are needed to support general aviation reliever airports. David Hinson, the FAA administrator, has stated publicly that, in light of all the technology and air traffic modernization under way, the only true capacity increase in this country will come from having more asphalt or concrete at our primary airline hub and general aviation airports.
Overall, these proposals demonstrate once again that there is in Washington an urgent need for truth in budgeting. As a user- supported transportation system, aviation must not have its tax revenues diverted into the general budget to mask the size of the true deficit. And, aviation must not be used as a cash cow to address shortfalls in other program areas.
Through the summer, your elected federal representatives will be at home, giving them an opportunity to meet with voters at fundraisers, town meetings, and speeches. Be sure to register, in person or by personal letter, your recommendation to defeat proposals that are short-sighted and lack solid financial footing. It is up to you to remind your legislators that aviation funds should remain committed to aviation projects. Short-term measures that reduce the resources and commitment available to improve the aviation system are not in the national interest.
The 104th Congress affords this nation the opportunity to set a new course towards fiscal responsibility, without dismantling or destroying the safest and most efficient air transportation system in the world. But we must do this with "real dollars" spent wisely on the correct projects and personnel, not by chasing impossible dreams for aviation with "fool's gold."
Related Articles
