Any true conservative, which tend to be predominantly republican, would feel that anything and everything that is not explicitly enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 should be de-funded. That includes EAS, education, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, obamacare, etc.

If it's not mentioned there, according to Article 4 and the tenth amendment, they are states issues. Nothing stops, other than lack of money, states including Alaska from funding their own EAS program. And if as a society we feel like the federal government should fund all the above mentioned social programs, Article 5 was written specifically for that purpose.

I don't know why any of this is so hard to understand.

Anyways, more of a reason why we all need the FairTax NOW.

But, wasn't the authority to regulate air travel and the airline industry originally based on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution? Whether you agree with it, or not, that was the original constitutional rationale for creating airline regulation to begin with. EAS, in a lot of ways, is just left over airline regulation. Route structures are specified, subsidy is specified, type of aircraft is specified, etc., much like regulation. Rural routes are operated as a subsidized public utility, much like the entire industry was operated, in the not-so-distant past. Even though there is a lot more efficiency to be had with the EAS system, I really don't consider it "unconstitutional". Somewhat wasteful, with greater efficiency needed? Absolutely. It's really a matter of political opinion, though. You can't say I'm wrong, and I can't say you're wrong, because what we're saying can't be quantified, measured, or tested, using the scientific method. It's all belief and opinion. By the way, what you're saying isn't "so hard to understand". I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree. Is that okay with you?

I agree that is their rationale but I also think the interstate commerce clause is the most abused thing in the constitution. Take the Federal Drug Act for example. It says right in the beginning of the Act that basically the reason drugs are illegal is because the government is allowed to oversee the transfer/sale of goods across state lines and because they cannot prove that you did not grow your drugs in Nevada and take them to sell in California, they just make it all illegal. In other words, since they can't prove what you're doing is illegal, they just assume it's illegal...which I thought was the opposite of how this country's legal system works. By that same token they could make the sale of anything from one person to another illegal because they don't know where the item was produced and if it's being sold in the same state or not. I know a lot of people think drugs should remain illegal but that opinion is not the argument here, it's the legal justification the government uses. It's a stretch at best and the use of the interstate commerce clause to justify EAS, while less of a stretch, is still pushing it a bit.

let's not forget that in the neighborhood of 80% of the funding will go to the federal bureacrats - who fulfill a vital role in getting America back to work by inhibiting us from doing our jobs.

I still can"t believe that on a (supposedly) professional aviator's forum half of the posters are essentially saying "what we need around here are less flying jobs!"

For 6+ pages.

Sheesh. Pilots. Never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Guys,

Relax - all of our financial troubles will soon be over with zero unemployment in the good o'le USA. If one billion supports 35,000 jobs then the roughly 800 billion spent on the recent stimulus will support, wait, this is really, really good.... 800 x 35,000 = 28,000,000 jobs.

Yes 28 Million jobs - we will be able to afford EAS to every small town in the country.

Even taking there slightly more conservative (but equally fictional) number of 90,000 current or new jobs from 8 billion you would get 90,000 x 100 (for the 800 billion stimulus) or 9 million jobs supported or created.

What the hell is a job supported anyway? Does the job go away without the support?

This is what is wrong with the EAS (and most other bureaucratic government programs) - originally well intentioned and limited plans morph into self sustaining, bloated, over sized, wasteful programs which the recipients see as entitlements.

And everyone always comments well its only XXX million - not even a drop in the bucket when viewed in the total budget - true but you have got to start somewhere and nothing should be off limits.

Scoop

Whooooosh...

I didn't want to flame on this thread anymore because it's obvious that not everyone feels the same way about this, but I completely agree with you. How could any professional pilot want to cut spending at the expense of eliminating aviation jobs in any sector?! I'll give credit where it's due that I have respect for those able to stand by their political principles regardless of how it affects their own personal livelihood, but I just think it's ridiculous that THIS of all things is what we're talking about cutting. It'd be like a doctor wanting to cut health care spending or a soldier fighting to decrease the defense budget.

Like I said, the people arguing for cutting EAS here have valid, well thought out opinions and are presenting them in a logical and respectable way, but...I just...I don't know. You're all apparently better men, or at the very least more politically oriented than me, because I'd just like to keep my job.

This is an interesting point, it seems like all the wild spending the government does, with the wars being the greatest example, are the symptoms of the govt. ability to manipulate the monetary supply. Without really having to pay for things, it makes decisions by politicians to spend huge amounts of money(war, entitlements) become reality, when in actuality if these things had to be paid for they would never happen. America eliminated the gold standard in 1971 and it seems like that is when the trainwreck began.

The physical backing of u.s. currency was required by the constitution because history had proven by the late 1700s a government couldn't be trusted with the ability to manipulate monetary policy. Reintroducing discipline back into monetary policy may make the symptoms of a greater problem disappear on their own.

[QUOTE=Nevets;950144]Any true conservative, which tend to be predominantly republican, would feel that anything and everything that is not explicitly enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 should be de-funded. That includes EAS, education, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, obamacare, etc.

If it's not mentioned there, according to Article 4 and the tenth amendment, they are states issues. Nothing stops, other than lack of money, states including Alaska from funding their own EAS program. And if as a society we feel like the federal government should fund all the above mentioned social programs, Article 5 was written specifically for that purpose.

I don't know why any of this is so hard to understand.

I do not agree with you completely but I have to say I respect your stand in that your not one of the "conservatives" that wants to cut spending in all areas except for the ones that affect you.