---------------------------------------------------------- TeamGrumman-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 04/06/07: 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:08 AM - Re: CE-04-34, Horizontal support (teamgrumman@aol.com) 2. 12:10 AM - User Fees (teamgrumman@aol.com) 3. 04:44 AM - Re: User Fees (Bruce Smith) 4. 12:03 PM - Re: User Fees (teamgrumman@aol.com) 5. 12:44 PM - Re: User Fees (Stephen Meyers) 6. 12:48 PM - Re: User Fees (Rick) 7. 12:51 PM - Re: User Fees (A1ynk@aol.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:08:15 AM PST US Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: CE-04-34, Horizontal support From: teamgrumman@aol.com Thanks Gil. -----Original Message----- From: gilalex@earthlink.net Sent: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:37 PM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: CE-04-34, Horizontal support Gary ....I'll dig 'em out and mail them..... gil A At 11:32 PM 4/5/2007, you wrote: Thanks for the update Gil. I'd love to borrow the drill guides and reamers. I'm having some special braces made and I'm not sure when I'll have them. Plus, there is a lot of other work I'm doing on the plane. But, yes, if you don't mind, I'd love to borrow the drill and ream. Thanks Gary -----Original Message----- From: gilalex@earthlink.net To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com Sent: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 9:02 PM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: CE-04-34, Horizontal support At 08:14 PM 4/5/2007, you wrote: I tried scraping it with several different types of scrapers, even an exacto. I finally used an duel action orbital sander. I never did get any to chip off. It took about two hours to sand down all of the rough edges. That includes all the hand work in the corners. Looks pretty good now. Hope you didn't take too much of the 0.025 off...:^) - or is 0.032 there? As for drilling and shimming to make the stub spar fit the vertical braces, I plan on clamping the vertical braces in place with the horizontal and stub spar installed before I drill any holes. That way, the braces will be tight against the stub spar. Yes.. but it's hard to hold the verticals in alignment while the glue dries... at least to the accuracy to not have anything under stress in the final assembly. Once the verticals are bonded and riveted, then it's easy to use C-clamps and get levels on the horizontal for alignment... as well as tip measurements to the fus. centerline to get no sweep forward/sweep back.... My plane had shims on one side - I think the fus. side - already... Do you want the drill guide and reamer for the two big holes? That seemed to be the hardest part to me - I bet most folks would just use a big drill bit and screw up the existing hole in the stub spar...:^( I like all my bolts to be a nice slip fit if possible...:^) gil A -----Original Message----- From: gilalex@earthlink.net To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com Sent: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:43 PM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: CE-04-34, Horizontal support I'll ask Bill S for round cylinders... The removal is below.... the adhesive was quite brittle.... ------------------------------------ When I did it, I seem to remember it chipped off fairly easily... Of course, use an aluminum scraping edge so the base material isn't gouged. And a final clean up with scotchbrite disk. gil in Tucson ... did that.... At 11:16 AM 4/5/2007, you wrote: The one I've got has the vertical braces buckled about twice as much as yours. So, how did you clean up the residual adheasive? I have a customer who got some cylinders done by BS. Two of them always used a lot of oil. We removed them and had LyCon go over them. When BS overhauled them, they were honed out-of-round. Lycon recut the cylinder (it only took less than .002) and installed some new rings. All is well now after 400 hours. Just a heads up. -----Original Message----- From: gilalex@earthlink.net To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com Sent: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 8:23 AM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: CE-04-34, Horizontal support Boy ... the SAIB is old enough I thought they would have all been found by now...:^) No photos of the repair, but the damage is here... Check the little bend of the verticals that goes under the top plate... that seems to be a real weak point... upper left and upper right in the pics. I have a couple of drill bushings and a reamer that will help you drill the new bolt hole in the vertical webs... want to borrow them? I think that is the most critical part of the process.... fore and aft location can be fixed with shims with a Tiger part number... I have those drawings too, JPG copy attached... Pics are in this directory.... http://home.earthlink.net/~gilalex/Tiger/ ....hope this helps gil A ... waiting for cylinders to to arrive at Bill Scott's place...:^) At 07:10 AM 4/5/2007, you wrote: Gil, I have a Tiger in the shop right now with a crack from the attachment bolt hole to the edge of the angle on the RH side. The bonding of the other leg is fine and there is virtually not deformation of the angle. Do you have some photos of your plane and the repair you could email me? Cliff ----- Original Message ----- From: Gil Alexander To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:06 PM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: CE-04-34, Horizontal support Gary, When I did it, I seem to remember it chipped off fairly easily... Of course, use an aluminum scraping edge so the base material isn't gouged. And a final clean up with scotchbrite disk. gil in Tucson ... did that.... At 10:12 PM 4/4/2007, you wrote: This is mostly meant for Bob Stewart only because I think he's done this before. And Cliff too, if he's repaired this one. I've got the braces off. They came off fairly easily with a heat gun. Didn't require a whole lot of heat actually. What I need to know is . . . . . How do I get the rest of the adheasive off the skin of the fuselage? Do I sand it off with an orbital sander? Do I reheat it and scrape it? I tried picking at it a bit to see if it will come off. It's stuck pretty well. ________________________________________________________________________ from AOL at AOL.com. -------- te: 4/4/2007 1:09 PM -------- It has remn their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! [Image Removed] ________________________________________________________________________ from AOL at AOL.com. =0 ========== TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List ========== ; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - http://forums.matronics.com ========== ________________________________________________________________________ from AOL at AOL.com. =0 ========== TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List ========== ; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - http://forums.matronics.com ========== ________________________________________________________________________ from AOL at AOL.com. =0 ========== TeamGrumman-List Email Forum - http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?TeamGrumman-List ========== ; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - http://forums.matronics.com ========== ________________________________________________________________________ from AOL at AOL.com. =0 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 12:10:45 AM PST US Subject: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees From: teamgrumman@aol.com Here is something I sent to AOPA. Just in case it doesn't get printed, pass it along. It's in response to a letter about User Fees. Dear Chris Blythe, AOPA 5198042, Ascot, United Kingdom Your defense of $9/gal gasoline when a barrel of oil costs less than it did 25 years ago and oil executives, who do little more than shuffle money around, are paid 10s of millions of dollars more in bonuses than any of their predecessors ever dreamed of, just amazes me. Defending multiple aircraft ownership (seriously, 9 co-owners?) as cost-effective goes beyond anything I can comprehend. Privately owned airfields, as in the U.K., mean that the owners of those airfields can decide to charge whatever fees they deem necessary in order to pay this months mortgage. This only makes the owners, corporations, wealthy at the expense of excluding anything remotely resembling a middle-class. From your letter, it sounds like youve grown accustomed to paying user fees, $9/gal for gas, and sharing your plane with 8 others. Me thinks youve been a British subject a little too long. Which reminds me of a quote, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. The point that you, Europe, and all those who support user fees, are missing, is that fees are only taxes the rich can afford. The rich can afford to pay high fees for what they want because their taxes have been reduced to a very small fraction of their income. For some reason, its become more acceptable to pay fees than it is to pay taxes. The attitude today has become, If its a fee and the middle class or poor cannot afford it, Oh, well. Ill give you an example. There was a time in the U.S., not that long ago, when our National Parks were open to everyone, free of charge. If someone wanted to visit a National Park, all they had to do is get there. Everyone could share the wonder. Park Rangers and Park maintenance were paid for by our taxes. But, politicians found they could win if they promised, No more taxes. Now, there are fees. The cost, the fees, puts visiting the Parks out of reach for an increasing larger percentage of the population. In California, prior to Proposition 13 in 1978, we had a one of the best educational systems in the United States. Inexpensive too; it cost $10 a year to go to a community college. We had a modern, up-to-date infrastructure (road, bridges, waterways). Housing was affordable. Californias budget never operated in the red. A one percent property tax, adjusted for inflation, paid for most of it. Prop 13 froze property tax to the value of the house when it was purchased; no more corrections for inflation or property value increases. Today, Californias education system ranks 49th out of 50. A year in a Community College has an enrollment fee ($480), a Health Fee, a Student Center Fee, an Identification Card fee, a parking fee, and a student body Identification fee. Roads and other infrastructure are stuck in 80s And, guess what, today it costs a minimum of $50,000 in fees just to break ground for a new house. An average 3 bedroom 2-bath house in 1978 was $70,000. That same house costs over $400,000 today. Is that what you, and all of the supporters of User fees, really want? Is not paying taxes more important than closing off all of our airports and making the cost of recreational flying unaffordable to all but the wealthy? Who really wins when the government gets out of maintaining the most affordable, safest, self-supporting aviation system in the world? Do you, or does anyone, really trust private corporations to NOT price gouge? Privatizing the aviation system makes about as much sense as privatizing our highway system. Oh, right, that could never happen. The quote above was from Thomas Jefferson. He wrote that in our Declaration of Independence. He also wrote, That to secure these rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Gary L Vogt Auburn, CA ________________________________________________________________________ from AOL at AOL.com. =0 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:44:10 AM PST US From: Bruce Smith Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees Gary, Awesome letter. Any chance you'll be forming a presidential exploratory committee? Bruce Smith On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:10 AM, teamgrumman@aol.com wrote: > > Here is something I sent to AOPA. Just in case it doesn't get > printed, pass it along. It's in response to a letter about User Fees. > > Dear Chris Blythe, AOPA 5198042, Ascot, United Kingdom > > Your defense of $9/gal gasoline when a barrel of oil costs less > than it did 25 years ago and oil executives, who do little more > than shuffle money around, are paid 10s of millions of dollars more > in bonuses than any of their predecessors ever dreamed of, just > amazes me. Defending multiple aircraft ownership (seriously, 9 co- > owners?) as cost-effective goes beyond anything I can comprehend. > Privately owned airfields, as in the U.K., mean that the owners of > those airfields can decide to charge whatever fees they deem > necessary in order to pay this months mortgage. This only makes > the owners, corporations, wealthy at the expense of excluding > anything remotely resembling a middle-class. > > From your letter, it sounds like youve grown accustomed to paying > user fees, $9/gal for gas, and sharing your plane with 8 others. > Me thinks youve been a British subject a little too long. Which > reminds me of a quote, all experience hath shown that mankind are > more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right > themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. > > The point that you, Europe, and all those who support user fees, > are missing, is that fees are only taxes the rich can afford. The > rich can afford to pay high fees for what they want because their > taxes have been reduced to a very small fraction of their income. > For some reason, its become more acceptable to pay fees than it is > to pay taxes. The attitude today has become, If its a fee and > the middle class or poor cannot afford it, Oh, well. > > Ill give you an example. There was a time in the U.S., not that > long ago, when our National Parks were open to everyone, free of > charge. If someone wanted to visit a National Park, all they had > to do is get there. Everyone could share the wonder. Park Rangers > and Park maintenance were paid for by our taxes. But, politicians > found they could win if they promised, No more taxes. Now, there > are fees. The cost, the fees, puts visiting the Parks out of reach > for an increasing larger percentage of the population. > > In California, prior to Proposition 13 in 1978, we had a one of the > best educational systems in the United States. Inexpensive too; it > cost $10 a year to go to a community college. We had a modern, up- > to-date infrastructure (road, bridges, waterways). Housing was > affordable. Californias budget never operated in the red. A one > percent property tax, adjusted for inflation, paid for most of it. > Prop 13 froze property tax to the value of the house when it was > purchased; no more corrections for inflation or property value > increases. Today, Californias education system ranks 49th out of > 50. A year in a Community College has an enrollment fee ($480), a > Health Fee, a Student Center Fee, an Identification Card fee, a > parking fee, and a student body Identification fee. Roads and > other infrastructure are stuck in 80s And, guess what, today it > costs a minimum of $50,000 in fees just to break ground for a new > house. An average 3 bedroom 2-bath house in 1978 was $70,000. > That same house costs over $400,000 today. > > Is that what you, and all of the supporters of User fees, really > want? Is not paying taxes more important than closing off all of > our airports and making the cost of recreational flying > unaffordable to all but the wealthy? Who really wins when the > government gets out of maintaining the most affordable, safest, > self-supporting aviation system in the world? Do you, or does > anyone, really trust private corporations to NOT price gouge? > Privatizing the aviation system makes about as much sense as > privatizing our highway system. Oh, right, that could never happen. > > The quote above was from Thomas Jefferson. He wrote that in our > Declaration of Independence. He also wrote, That to secure these > rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), Governments > are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the > consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government > becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to > alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its > foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such > form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and > Happiness. > > Gary L Vogt > Auburn, CA > > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ > from AOL at AOL.com. > =0 > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 12:03:47 PM PST US Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees From: teamgrumman@aol.com Maybe, if I had about 100 million dollars to spend -----Original Message----- From: res02p3h@comcast.net Sent: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 4:43 AM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees Gary, Awesome letter. Any chance you'll be forming a presidential exploratory committee? Bruce Smith On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:10 AM, teamgrumman@aol.com wrote: > > Here is something I sent to AOPA. Just in case it doesn't get > printed, pass it along. It's in response to a letter about User Fees. > > Dear Chris Blythe, AOPA 5198042, Ascot, United Kingdom > > Your defense of $9/gal gasoline when a barrel of oil costs less > than it did 25 years ago and oil executives, who do little more > than shuffle money around, are paid 10s of millions of dollars more > in bonuses than any of their predecessors ever dreamed of, just > amazes me. Defending multiple aircraft ownership (seriously, 9 co-> owners?) as cost-effective goes beyond anything I can comprehend. > Privately owned airfields, as in the U.K., mean that the owners of > those airfields can decide to charge whatever fees they deem > necessary in order to pay this months mortgage. This only makes > the owners, corporations, wealthy at the expense of excluding > anything remotely resembling a middle-class. > > From your letter, it sounds like youve grown accustomed to paying > user fees, $9/gal for gas, and sharing your plane with 8 others. > Me thinks youve been a British subject a little too long. Which > reminds me of a quote, all experience hath shown that mankind are > more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right > themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. > > The point that you, Europe, and all those who support user fees, > are missing, is that fees are only taxes the rich can afford. The > rich can afford to pay high fees for what they want because their > taxes have been reduced to a very small fraction of their income. > For some reason, its become more acceptable to pay fees than it is > to pay taxes. The attitude today has become, If its a fee and > the middle class or poor cannot afford it, Oh, well. > > Ill give you an example. There was a time in the U.S., not that > long ago, when our National Parks were open to everyone, free of > charge. If someone wanted to visit a National Park, all they had > to do is get there. Everyone could share the wonder. Park Rangers > and Park maintenance were paid for by our taxes. But, politicians > found they could win if they promised, No more taxes. Now, there > are fees. The cost, the fees, puts visiting the Parks out of reach > for an increasing larger percentage of the population. > > In California, prior to Proposition 13 in 1978, we had a one of the > best educational systems in the United States. Inexpensive too; it > cost $10 a year to go to a community college. We had a modern, up-> to-date infrastructure (road, bridges, waterways). Housing was > affordable. Californias budget never operated in the red. A one > percent property tax, adjusted for inflation, paid for most of it. > Prop 13 froze property tax to the value of the house when it was > purchased; no more corrections for inflation or property value > increases. Today, Californias education system ranks 49th out of > 50. A year in a Community College has an enrollment fee ($480), a > Health Fee, a Student Center Fee, an Identification Card fee, a > parking fee, and a student body Identification fee. Roads and > other infrastructure are stuck in 80s And, guess what, today it > costs a minimum of $50,000 in fees just to break ground for a new > house. An average 3 bedroom 2-bath house in 1978 was $70,000. > That same house costs over $400,000 today. > > Is that what you, and all of the supporters of User fees, really > want? Is not paying taxes more important than closing off all of > our airports and making the cost of recreational flying > unaffordable to all but the wealthy? Who really wins when the > government gets out of maintaining the most affordable, safest, > self-supporting aviation system in the world? Do you, or does > anyone, really trust private corporations to NOT price gouge? > Privatizing the aviation system makes about as much sense as > privatizing our highway system. Oh, right, that could never happen. > > The quote above was from Thomas Jefferson. He wrote that in our > Declaration of Independence. He also wrote, That to secure these > rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), Governments > are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the > consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government > becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to > alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its > foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such > form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and > Happiness. > > Gary L Vogt > Auburn, CA > > ______________________________________________________________________> __ > from AOL at AOL.com. > =0 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ from AOL at AOL.com. =0 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 12:44:53 PM PST US From: "Stephen Meyers" Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees Actually, that wouldn't do it... I saw on the news recently, where it's estimated that it will take more than 400 million to get elected president now. That's about what Bush spent in 2004. Stephen Meyers Largo, FL 1969 AA1 N103RG -----Original Message----- From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of teamgrumman@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 3:03 PM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees Maybe, if I had about 100 million dollars to spend -----Original Message----- From: res02p3h@comcast.net Sent: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 4:43 AM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees Gary, Awesome letter. Any chance you'll be forming a presidential exploratory committee? Bruce Smith On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:10 AM, teamgrumman@aol.com wrote: > > Here is something I sent to AOPA. Just in case it doesn't get > printed, pass it along. It's in response to a letter about User Fees. > > Dear Chris Blythe, AOPA 5198042, Ascot, United Kingdom > > Your defense of $9/gal gasoline when a barrel of oil costs less > than it did 25 years ago and oil executives, who do little more > than shuffle money around, are paid 10s of millions of dollars more > in bonuses than any of their predecessors ever dreamed of, just > amazes me. Defending multiple aircraft ownership (seriously, 9 co-> owners?) as cost-effective goes beyond anything I can comprehend. > Privately owned airfields, as in the U.K., mean that the owners of > those airfields can decide to charge whatever fees they deem > necessary in order to pay this months mortgage. This only makes > the owners, corporations, wealthy at the expense of excluding > anything remotely resembling a middle-class. > > From your letter, it sounds like youve grown accustomed to paying > user fees, $9/gal for gas, and sharing your plane with 8 others. > Me thinks youve been a British subject a little too long. Which > reminds me of a quote, all experience hath shown that mankind are > more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right > themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. > > The point that you, Europe, and all those who support user fees, > are missing, is that fees are only taxes the rich can afford. The > rich can afford to pay high fees for what they want because their > taxes have been reduced to a very small fraction of their income. > For some reason, its become more acceptable to pay fees than it is > to pay taxes. The attitude today has become, If its a fee and > the middle class or poor cannot afford it, Oh, well. > > Ill give you an example. There was a time in the U.S., not that > long ago, when our National Parks were open to everyone, free of > charge. If someone wanted to visit a National Park, all they had > to do is get there. Everyone could share the wonder. Park Rangers > and Park maintenance were paid for by our taxes. But, politicians > found they could win if they promised, No more taxes. Now, there > are fees. The cost, the fees, puts visiting the Parks out of reach > for an increasing larger percentage of the population. > > In California, prior to Proposition 13 in 1978, we had a one of the > best educational systems in the United States. Inexpensive too; it > cost $10 a year to go to a community college. We had a modern, up-> to-date infrastructure (road, bridges, waterways). Housing was > affordable. Californias budget never operated in the red. A one > percent property tax, adjusted for inflation, paid for most of it. > Prop 13 froze property tax to the value of the house when it was > purchased; no more corrections for inflation or property value > increases. Today, Californias education system ranks 49th out of > 50. A year in a Community College has an enrollment fee ($480), a > Health Fee, a Student Center Fee, an Identification Card fee, a > parking fee, and a student body Identification fee. Roads and > other infrastructure are stuck in 80s And, guess what, today it > costs a minimum of $50,000 in fees just to break ground for a new > house. An average 3 bedroom 2-bath house in 1978 was $70,000. > That same house costs over $400,000 today. > > Is that what you, and all of the supporters of User fees, really > want? Is not paying taxes more important than closing off all of > our airports and making the cost of recreational flying > unaffordable to all but the wealthy? Who really wins when the > government gets out of maintaining the most affordable, safest, > self-supporting aviation system in the world? Do you, or does > anyone, really trust private corporations to NOT price gouge? > Privatizing the aviation system makes about as much sense as > privatizing our highway system. Oh, right, that could never happen. > > The quote above was from Thomas Jefferson. He wrote that in our > Declaration of Independence. He also wrote, That to secure these > rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), Governments > are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the > consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government > becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to > alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its > foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such > form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and > Happiness. > > Gary L Vogt > Auburn, CA > > ______________________________________________________________________> __ > from AOL at AOL.com. > =0 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ from AOL at AOL.com. =0 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 12:48:46 PM PST US From: "Rick" Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees Gary for president? Well that would make a very interesting world indeed. I would love it and never stop smiling. I don't think he would ever invade a country unless it was named Hooters. We would all parachute in from Grummans with cocktails in our packs. -----Original Message----- From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of teamgrumman@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:03 PM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees Maybe, if I had about 100 million dollars to spend -----Original Message----- From: res02p3h@comcast.net Sent: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 4:43 AM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees Gary, Awesome letter. Any chance you'll be forming a presidential exploratory committee? Bruce Smith On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:10 AM, teamgrumman@aol.com wrote: > > Here is something I sent to AOPA. Just in case it doesn't get > printed, pass it along. It's in response to a letter about User Fees. > > Dear Chris Blythe, AOPA 5198042, Ascot, United Kingdom > > Your defense of $9/gal gasoline when a barrel of oil costs less > than it did 25 years ago and oil executives, who do little more > than shuffle money around, are paid 10s of millions of dollars more > in bonuses than any of their predecessors ever dreamed of, just > amazes me. Defending multiple aircraft ownership (seriously, 9 co-> owners?) as cost-effective goes beyond anything I can comprehend. > Privately owned airfields, as in the U.K., mean that the owners of > those airfields can decide to charge whatever fees they deem > necessary in order to pay this months mortgage. This only makes > the owners, corporations, wealthy at the expense of excluding > anything remotely resembling a middle-class. > > From your letter, it sounds like youve grown accustomed to paying > user fees, $9/gal for gas, and sharing your plane with 8 others. > Me thinks youve been a British subject a little too long. Which > reminds me of a quote, all experience hath shown that mankind are > more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right > themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. > > The point that you, Europe, and all those who support user fees, > are missing, is that fees are only taxes the rich can afford. The > rich can afford to pay high fees for what they want because their > taxes have been reduced to a very small fraction of their income. > For some reason, its become more acceptable to pay fees than it is > to pay taxes. The attitude today has become, If its a fee and > the middle class or poor cannot afford it, Oh, well. > > Ill give you an example. There was a time in the U.S., not that > long ago, when our National Parks were open to everyone, free of > charge. If someone wanted to visit a National Park, all they had > to do is get there. Everyone could share the wonder. Park Rangers > and Park maintenance were paid for by our taxes. But, politicians > found they could win if they promised, No more taxes. Now, there > are fees. The cost, the fees, puts visiting the Parks out of reach > for an increasing larger percentage of the population. > > In California, prior to Proposition 13 in 1978, we had a one of the > best educational systems in the United States. Inexpensive too; it > cost $10 a year to go to a community college. We had a modern, up-> to-date infrastructure (road, bridges, waterways). Housing was > affordable. Californias budget never operated in the red. A one > percent property tax, adjusted for inflation, paid for most of it. > Prop 13 froze property tax to the value of the house when it was > purchased; no more corrections for inflation or property value > increases. Today, Californias education system ranks 49th out of > 50. A year in a Community College has an enrollment fee ($480), a > Health Fee, a Student Center Fee, an Identification Card fee, a > parking fee, and a student body Identification fee. Roads and > other infrastructure are stuck in 80s And, guess what, today it > costs a minimum of $50,000 in fees just to break ground for a new > house. An average 3 bedroom 2-bath house in 1978 was $70,000. > That same house costs over $400,000 today. > > Is that what you, and all of the supporters of User fees, really > want? Is not paying taxes more important than closing off all of > our airports and making the cost of recreational flying > unaffordable to all but the wealthy? Who really wins when the > government gets out of maintaining the most affordable, safest, > self-supporting aviation system in the world? Do you, or does > anyone, really trust private corporations to NOT price gouge? > Privatizing the aviation system makes about as much sense as > privatizing our highway system. Oh, right, that could never happen. > > The quote above was from Thomas Jefferson. He wrote that in our > Declaration of Independence. He also wrote, That to secure these > rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), Governments > are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the > consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government > becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to > alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its > foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such > form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and > Happiness. > > Gary L Vogt > Auburn, CA > > ______________________________________________________________________> __ > from AOL at AOL.com. > =0 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ from AOL at AOL.com. =0 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 12:51:45 PM PST US From: A1ynk@aol.com Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: User Fees I like your piece there Gary. You have my vote. Mind if I forward it to someone? Bill Hatton the worthless helicopter mechanic ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message teamgrumman-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/TeamGrumman-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/teamgrumman-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/teamgrumman-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.