Democrat assails White House over plans to raise airline ticket fees

[struggle4progress]

LARA JAKES JORDAN

Associated Press


WASHINGTON - New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg blasted the Bush administration Wednesday over plans to raise ticket fees for airline passengers - a budget proposal that would pay for a host of homeland security programs.

The proposed White House budget, released earlier this week, would raise existing ticket fees by $3 to help finance a $2.2 billion increase in the fiscal 2006 budget of the Department of Homeland Security.

"I am one of the strongest advocates for more transportation security resources in Congress," Lautenberg, D-N.J., wrote in a letter dated Wednesday to President Bush. "But we cannot balance the budget on the backs of the traveling public and small business people."

"You campaigned on a message of fear that your opponent would raise taxes upon taking office," added Lautenberg, a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. "However, it turns out that the first act of your new term includes a proposal to raise taxes on millions of American families." <snip>

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/10856476.htm

[Reverend Smoothfield]

1. frank gots to chill

why should someone who never flies pay the cost of x-raying my hand luggage so i can fly to vegas and get all messed up? this isn't a tax, it's a surcharge.

[w4rma]

2. Fees are taxes. That's a fact. This is a tax to pay for the

tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and the copious amounts of corporate welfare for big buisness that the Republican leadership has been porking out.

And another reason you don't want this to be a fee. This security affect you, even though you don't fly, as you should have learned on 9.11. Or maybe you'd like to add a "security fee" as a toll on folks coming in and out of large skyscrapers, also?

[Reverend Smoothfield]

3. fine. it's a tax.

but if people didn't fly, planes wouldn't be available for use as weapons, and we wouldn't need to x-ray any hand luggage. people entering a skyscraper doesn't increase the risk of a terrorist attack. people hiring an airplane to take them somewhere does.

as for where the money's going, this is one of those rare instances where the funds aren't fungible. the government is currently paying about $2.50 per passenger per flight for security. this "tax" will replace that.

[Reverend Smoothfield]

4. or rather

this tax will replace $2.50 of the money the govt currently spends on security per passenger per plane.

[Reverend Smoothfield]

5. fuck

i mean per flight. you know, i'm just not cut out for these fact-intensive debates.

[w4rma]

6. Why do you use quotes around the word tax? government fees are taxes.

Is there some reason you want folks to believe they aren't taxes?

Not only are they taxes, but they also hit folks who work, rather than sitting on their butts collecting dividends from their capital gains managed by someone who works and thinking up ways to divert more money from our pockets, laundered through the government if need be (by "fees" on us and tax cuts on them), into their pockets. Well, actually many of the ultra wealthy pay other folks to think up those schemes, too.

Make no mistake. These tax hikes on regular people are not going to pay for increased security. They are going to pay for the tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. Laundering our money out of our pockets into theirs.

[Reverend Smoothfield]

7. because in this case the money doesn't go to the govt

it goes straight to the working people screening my bags. as i see it, i should be just as liable for the cost of being metal-detected as i am for the fuel in the plane. if i weren't flying, neither would be necessary.

as for the "folks who work"--i'm using quotes because i'm quoting you--how many people on each plane are paying out of their own pocket for a business trip? none? one? you make it sound like people who work at mcdonalds commute by plane. they don't. planes are for businesspeople and vacationers, all of whom can afford an extra $2.50 per flight so we can do something about this deficit.

[w4rma]

9. It does go to the government. That's what taxes are.

And then the government sends an equal amount of money back to the airports to pay for part of the security at airports.

If they are a small buisness owner then they are paying for the trip. And God help America if McDonalds is ever considered to be the average American job, so I won't even go there.

[PaulaFarrell]

10. It's only $3

That small business person paid more for his pre-flight drink in the lounge. But actually, if it discourages anybody from flying, I'm in favour of it. Flying is one of the most global-warming actions available to the average person, and, as other posters have said, it's highly subsidised.

[fleabert]

11. Ummm...I am not a business traveler, and my last

six flights were not for vacation, I live 1700+ miles away from my family. I went to take care of sick relatives, prepare my parents house for sale, and attend two weddings. I scraped together the cash to fly and pay a lot already in fees and taxes, TYVM. When I was a 'business traveler' I was a small business owner and needed every cent I earned. I wonder how much those who own their own jets get taxed on each flight they make, and what about their passengers, who all must go thru security? Same with all the airport employees, they all have to go thru security every time they go from the ticket counter to the gate area.

This is a tax. One I don't support.

Bring back the estate tax at the same time and I would support it!

[TahitiNut]

8. How about a surcharge (fee) on First Class and Business Class only?

Taxpayers pay for airports. Taxpayers pay for Air Traffic Control. Taxpayers pay for the traffic congestion around airports. Even taxpayers who can't afford to fly. The airline industry is heavily subsidized by taxpayers not even counting the billions shoveled out of the public Treasury to bail out the airlines in 2001-02. I'm personally quite tired of corporate welfare to the airlines ... and then watching them try to bust their unions.

[fleabert]

12. That idea seems a good compromise....nt