In article <i5khh69cl92llehvrge8nso7fiq4m26
...@4ax.com>,
Sir F. A. Rien <jaSP
...@gbr.online.com> wrote:
> Glen Labah <gl4
...@yahoo.com> found these unused words:
> >In article
> ><fc836bbe-4251-4513-94cf-8f39db9e1...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Fart Sumpter <jismqu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do
> >> little else. If states want these projects, they should pay all costs
> >> because there are no meaningful national gains."
> >Stand on the bank of the Lake Washington Ship Canal some day. About 90%
> >of the boats that go through there are huge pleasure craft owned by
> >maybe the most wealthy 1% of residents, and many of them are registered
> >in the Cayman Islands.
> >Maybe one or two per day are commercial craft of some sort.
> >It takes about 10 people or so to operate the locks (all federal
> >employees), plus one person at each of the draw bridges.
> >Yet somehow this all qualifies as vital transportation and worthy of
> >being provided free of charge for those wealthy individuals, who can't
> >even be bothered to register their boats in the USA.
> >At least the high speed rail passengers would buy tickets.
> well, at least these people buy gas or diesel ...
In Venezuela, at $0.40 a gallon.
And even if they did buy it in the USA, my impression is that the marine
fuels are free of taxes, since it isn't a highway vehicle and therefore
there isn't a road fuel tax.
> same validity of 'reasoning'!
The same excuse was raised by the Reagan administration for recreational
use of national forest land (not everyone uses the national forests, so
why should everyone pay for their upkeep?), which is why any of the
parking areas in our national forests now have a user fee drop box. It
used to be you could visit national forests in the USA free of charge.
Natioanl wildlife refuges are frequently the same way, though some of
those are still free of charge. Others are $3 to $5 a visit - because
the Reagan administration wanted to charge those who use federal lands
rather than taxing everyone for their upkeep.
So, charging boaters for using federally owned locks and waterways falls
under the same category: not everyone uses the waterways, so those who
do use them should pay for their use.
> perhaps when you get back from your long vacation and return to mons
> olympia, you can propose a new law that will limit the time in US waters for
> such 'foreign registry' - or would that affect -=your=- boat too?
Olympia doesn't listen to anything I say, because I live in Oregon.
Besides, the Lake Washington Ship Canal, like almost all other
navigation projects, are US Army Corps of Engineers. In other words,
federal projects. They don't listen to Olympia or anyone else for that
matter.
My preference would be to have anything going through any of the
federally maintained waterways, domestic of foreign registry, pay a
toll. At the very least, have them pay a toll for going through the
locks. Those operations are expensive to maintain, and some of them
have had to be expanded over the years. All of that dredging and
maintenance is quite expensive.
Unfortunately, it is doubtful we will ever get that through congress.
The people who pay their bribes (er, campaign contributions) all have
boats.
--
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address
harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.
