Last month, when most Americans were waiting for Punxsutawney Phil to see his shadow on Groundhog Day, this Phil — along with everyone in our nation's capital — was scanning the budget that President Clinton had released that morning. Under "Transportation," those of us at AOPA quickly saw a budget proposal that calls for a big increase in the chunk the government takes from our wallets, with no explanation. Groundhogs are afraid when they see their shadow. AOPA members should be afraid when the government wants more of your money but doesn't even bother to explain why.
If you are not planning to fly after October 1999, either in your own or a rented airplane or on the airlines, then there is no need to read further. The president's onerous fee proposal will not affect you before then. After that, watch out.
The administration envisions phasing in new FAA user fees starting in the year 2000. By 2003 — the 100th anniversary of powered flight — the FAA would fund itself entirely through user fees. The administration apparently wants to celebrate the anniversary of flight by "nickel-and-diming" most aircraft out of the sky. Every pilot needs to read what the White House document states: "Beginning in 2000, the excise taxes that are levied on domestic air passenger tickets and flight segments, international departures and arrivals, domestic air cargo, and aviation fuels are proposed to be phased out over a five-year period, and replaced with more efficient, cost-based user fees charged for FAA services. As part of a continuing effort to create a more business-like FAA, the administration will propose legislation by which the FAA would be entirely funded by cost-based user fees by 2003."
This administration has proposed a 100-percent user-fee-funded system before. But this time it didn't stop at 100 percent. The new budget adds an additional $1.7 billion in unspecified new user fees per year beyond what is now collected in excise taxes, without shedding any light on how it would be spent or why it is needed. The only explanation offered is the creation of a "Transportation Fund for America" to receive the new fees. If the unspent balance in the aviation trust fund wasn't bad enough, now the administration proposes another way to divert our aviation dollars.
It gets worse. The budget shows only $600 million in new spending for aviation in 2000. Where did the additional $1.1 billion go? Is the "Transportation Fund for America" going to be a slush fund for nonaviation projects?
It seems that the principle of dedicated taxes paid by aviation users to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and spent only for aviation purposes, may be thrown out the window. With it will go the stable, reliable source of revenue that aviators and airline passengers have provided for 30 years. Even the National Civil Aviation Review Commission (NCARC), the panel that last December also called for FAA user fees, would exempt general aviation from the fees in favor of keeping the fuel tax — but not the White House.
The White House carefully crafted the short term to look very good, assuming that we wouldn't look at the Analytic Perspectives beyond fiscal year 1999. The administration is asking for a record $9.7 billion for the FAA, which is a 7-percent increase over the current year. To aid modernization efforts, spending on facilities and equipment would increase 14 percent to $2.1 billion. The budget would keep funding for Airport Improvement Program grants at a healthy $1.7 billion, the amount Congress set last year. And no new user fees would fund this spending in 1999.
But your association has thrived for 59 years by looking forward. When AOPA scans the horizon and sees hostile conditions for pilots, we speak up. We are already working against this proposal.
The battle will be waged on many fronts. The administration will send to Congress its user-fee proposal as part of a package to reauthorize the FAA and its programs. Congressional budget committees will have a chance to give their input when they set overall spending goals this spring. And the tax-writing committees in the House and Senate will get a piece of the action — the same committees that, with AOPA's support, just reinstated the aviation excise taxes for 10 years.
Throughout the process, AOPA Legislative Action will be there to challenge the administration and the authors of its user fee/tax increase proposal. We will challenge them to justify replacing a reliable system of taxation with inefficient and unfair user fees. We will challenge them to justify charging the aviation community an additional $1.7 billion per year, totally eliminating the general fund contribution. We will challenge them to say why the alternatives that AOPA has presented for funding FAA modernization aren't better, quicker, and cheaper. We will challenge them to show why they haven't taken full advantage of the reforms AOPA lobbied so hard for, like the FAA Management Advisory Council that the administration is now 16 months late in appointing. And, all through this process, AOPA will continue its proactive stance by offering alternatives, such as our call for an evolutionary, not revolutionary, air traffic control system modernization.
Finally, we will continue to make the case that Congress should restore the FAA to independent agency status. With the user fee and tax increase proposals, the FAA has gotten wrapped up in the administration's gimmicks to fund billions of dollars in new programs while balancing the budget. Do we need any more evidence of the need to free the FAA from politics?
When the timing is right and there are specific House and Senate bill numbers, we will call on the power of you, our members, to assist us in the effort to avoid these aviation funding nightmares. With more than 340,000 AOPA members as voters, and this being an election year, your voice will be extremely effective in achieving a positive end result.
