Bush proposes 120% tax increase on security fee for airline tickets.

PsychoSword

Moderator
Security fee on plane tickets may double
Hike part of Bush's Homeland Security budget
Friday, January 28, 2005 Posted: 2:18 AM EST (0718 GMT)




WASHINGTON (AP) -- A fee charged to airline travelers to help pay for airport security would more than double under President Bush's spending proposal for the Homeland Security Department.

Bush's plan calls for boosting the security fee from $2.50 to $5.50 for a one-way airline ticket and from a maximum of $5 to $8 for multiple legs. The hikes are expected to generate $1.5 billion.

Debby McElroy, president of the Regional Airline Association, criticized the proposal as taxing an industry that already carries one of the highest tax burdens.

"This could put further pressure on airline revenues at a time when many carriers are struggling for their very survival," McElroy said.

James C. May, president and CEO of the Air Transport Association, said the proposal "demonstrates a complete failure to comprehend the economics of a crippled industry."

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse declined comment before the budget is released. "We are confident that it will contain the resources we need to continue to do our job," he said.

Bush plans to submit his budget proposal to Congress on February 7. Portions of the Homeland Security budget were obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

The White House wants to spend $41 billion on the agency in fiscal year 2006, which begins October 1. That's nearly the same amount as the current year. However, the department would see a 7 percent increase in money earmarked for specific security programs, from $32 billion to $34.2 billion.

The Bush plan calls for $100 million to be spent in the next two years for new equipment to detect explosives on airline passengers. Most U.S. airline passengers aren't screened for explosives before boarding a plane. The commission that investigated the September 11 attacks called that a vulnerability that Congress must address.

Another budget provision would set aside $174 million to complete installation of high-speed computer connections to replace dial-up connections used by about half of the nation's airports.

Officials of the Transportation Security Administration have said the upgrade is needed because some of the nation's largest airports do not have telephone or computer connections among administrative, screening and baggage areas. That poses a security risk because a problem could occur in one area of an airport and another area may not learn of it right away.

The spending proposal also calls for creating an office to coordinate programs that collect information about foreign visitors, airline and ship crews, and hazardous materials workers.

The plan would provide more money for authorities to crack down on undocumented workers and arrest and deport illegal immigrants, but it would fund only 210 more Border Patrol agents. A bill signed by Bush last year called for 2,000 additional agents.

Customs and Border Protection would get $125 million to buy equipment to detect radioactive materials in trucks, trains, cars, air freight, packages and people, including a new generation of monitors that detect gamma and neutron radiation.

A new Domestic Nuclear Detection Office would develop a system that tracks attempts to bring nuclear or radioactive materials into the country or to assemble them for illegal use.

At a Senate hearing Wednesday, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said programs to secure U.S. borders, ports and rail systems were underfunded.

But Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, told department officials it was unlikely they would receive more money. "I would urge a review of your situation as to how to get the job done better with the money that's there now," he said.

Meanwhile, four unions filed suit Thursday to block new Department of Homeland Security regulations limiting collective bargaining rights of tens of thousands of the agency's 180,000 employees. The regulations replace salaries based on workers' seniority with a merit pay system and give managers broad authority to change employees' shifts and duties without notice.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington. The unions bringing the lawsuit were the National Treasury Employees Union, American Federation of Government Employees, National Federation of Federal Employees and National Association of Agriculture Employees.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/01/27/airline.tix.tax.ap/index.html
 
My own thought would be to add $50.00 to the ticket price and 50 IQ points to airport TSA employees. Can you say AMTRAK? Good, I knew you could! LOL
 
At a Senate hearing Wednesday, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said programs to secure U.S. borders, ports and rail systems were underfunded.
ok, PsychoSword I know you aren't going to name you kids George and Jeb,, ;)

I have to wonder though. Given everything that happened form 09/11/2001 through today,,,, and the statement above by Sen. Lieberman,,,who would have been the Vice President if the election had gone differently,,,, is it Bush or is it "the system"?
 
Most people will go :eek: when they read 120%. We're only talking about $3.00. Oh my God Bush is at it again sticking it to the American people with a 120% tax increase...blah blah blah". It's a politicians way of trying to make the situation seemingly worse than it really is by not necessarily lying, but by twisting facts around to make them sound really bad. Most people won't argue over $3.00 but if you say 120% increase they freek out.

Note: the word "politicians" above, was inserted in place of the word "liberals" :barf: so as not to hurt anyones feelings :( ... :D :D
 
Psycho...
That's an interesting article. I have two questions. Given the current status quo, what would you do to help insure the safety and security of airline travellers. How would you pay for the implementation of your plan?
Hint...something as fascile as 'arm all the passengers'
is not an adequate response. Flight 800 over Lockerbie could have been loaded with folks armed to the teeth and still would have been blown out of the sky. Also 'make the airlines pay for it' is an equally lame response.

We need the benefit of your 25 years of life experience here. The travelling public is depending on you!
 
PsychoSword said:
Bush proposes 120% tax increase on security fee for airline tickets.
Security fee on plane tickets may double

*yawn*

So it costs me another couple of bucks to fly. Big deal. :rolleyes:



Wait a minute... I don't *have* to fly anywhere. This won't cost me anything.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: **YAWN** :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Mr. Bluesman,

You make an excellent point. For you, me and many folks like us, flying is not a necessary requisite for our private or professional lives. However, millions of Americans depend on airline travel to expedite both personal and professional obligations. Business commuters make up a sizeable percentage of the American travelling public. For them, not flying is not an option.

I'm still interested in some concrete feedback from Psycho as to how he would address the issues in my previous post.
 
Given the current status quo, what would you do to help insure the safety and security of airline travellers. How would you pay for the implementation of your plan?

Boy, that's an easy question....spend on airline security the hundreds of billions of dollars saved from eliminating the utterly failed War On Drugs, and therefore about 3/4ths of the alphabet soup fed LEOAs, the Dept. of Education, the zillions of pork projects that the rupukelicans just voted themselves, completely unnecessary wars that have zero to do with terrorism or our national interest (Iraq). You'd have enough to make it the safest system in the world, repair Medicare and SS, and give the American people back about half of their hard-earned, now-taxed income.


something as fascile as 'arm all the passengers'
is not an adequate response.

Why not, it would work to make us all much safer, coupled with the above.

So it costs me another couple of bucks to fly. Big deal

Yap, it's only 1/4 of a degree warmer in this here pot..feels good actually eh?
 
As someone who flyes about 10 times a year.

I have no problem with it in fact, I think its a good idea. If this minor increase will help to make thing move along more smoothly in our nations airports... :)
 
I have to wonder though. Given everything that happened form 09/11/2001 through today,,,, and the statement above by Sen. Lieberman,,,who would have been the Vice President if the election had gone differently,,,, is it Bush or is it "the system"?

It's most certainly the system, which is all I have ever argued.

Psycho...
That's an interesting article. I have two questions. Given the current status quo, what would you do to help insure the safety and security of airline travellers. How would you pay for the implementation of your plan?
Hint...something as fascile as 'arm all the passengers'
is not an adequate response.
Flight 800 over Lockerbie could have been loaded with folks armed to the teeth and still would have been blown out of the sky. Also 'make the airlines pay for it' is an equally lame response.

We need the benefit of your 25 years of life experience here. The travelling public is depending on you!


What FreedomFirst said. And...


They already scan for bombs no??? Lockerbie has nothing to do with arming or disarming passengers.

I have a response. But you can't say it's wrong unless you give me a 200 page report on why.

Why can't the airlines pay for security with their billions? They pay to maintain the planes, don't they??? :confused:

Arming the passengers is exactly what needs to be done.
 
It's a politicians way of trying to make the situation seemingly worse than it really is by not necessarily lying, but by twisting facts around to make them sound really bad.

What facts were twisted? Seems like you have a misunderstanding of what facts are. The thread title is 100% accurate.
 
The thread title is 100% accurate.
Yet it is very inflammatory unless you read the thread. I was worried that the tax would be something like $50 more until I read it. Then I failed to see the big deal. If three bucks extra means you can't afford a ticket, you should be seeking alternate forms of transportation instead of wasting all that money on a plane ticket.
 
No, it's about the opportunity for someone to jump up and down screaming, "Look, look, Bush is raising your taxes!" to inflame the public when it is no big deal. When it is a 120% increase on my income tax, then I will get mad. Until then, I'm not going to care because road trips are more fun.

P.S. You violated the copyright law at the bottom of that article.
 
PsychoSword said:
Why can't the airlines pay for security with their billions? They pay to maintain the planes, don't they???
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6865852/
The airline industry's pretax loss for 2005 is expected to be more than triple the previous estimates of one investment bank. The culprit: rising fuel prices.

Merrill Lynch analyst Michael Linenberg believes that the industry's losses for 2005 will balloon to $3.4 billion from $1 billion.
They're not going to be able to pay for much of anything with negative billions! :rolleyes:
 
So fuel prices have tripled since 2003? :confused:

Not to mention, we all know that we can trust the books and what the CEO's say....

Then I guess they get bought out or go out of business! To bad for them. :barf:
 
Psycho...
We stillhaven't seen a detailed response from you, just you parroting what one of your fringe friends said. You're so quick to damn America, how about some original thoughts from you as to how to successfully address this issue?
 
gburner, if you believe that the solution is to raise taxes rather than arm passengers, you're going to continue to believe it. I can't state my position in any other ways than it already is. We need to arm the passengers. What is so original about your thoughts?
 
Back
Top