ICW may be shut down.
 

unbelivably, there is now NO funding for the Atlantic ICW. If this continures
there will soon be no ICW, it shall be impassable.

If you care act now. go to http://www.atlintracoastal.org/index.htm, read the
article, write you congressmen, fight for one of our few remaining freedoms.

Sterling Kennedy

ICW may be shut down.
 

Or, you could go outside?? That's REAL freedom.

IMO, only the commercial interests have any chance of convincing congress to
continue to spend tax dollars on the ICW. Spending a huge amount of money for
recreational use by a very small(relatively) number of perceived fat cat yacht
owners is a very hard sell.

I kinda sorta agree with the congress on this one. CUT SPENDING!!!

Butch

Sterling wrote: unbelivably, there is now NO funding for the Atlantic ICW. If
this continures
there will soon be no ICW, it shall be impassable.

If you care act now. go to http://www.atlintracoastal.org/index.htm, read the
article, write you congressmen, fight for one of our few remaining freedoms.

ICW may be shut down.
 

Florida Keyz wrote:

unbelivably, there is now NO funding for the Atlantic ICW.

Actually, this isn't quite true. A small amount of money (a paltry few
million) was allocated to Florida.

.... If this continures
there will soon be no ICW, it shall be impassable.

Oh, I dunno, it will be there for a long time to come, it just will be
"impassable" to boats over 3' draft.

But the issue is a fairly serious one. The economic impact of the ICW
includes a few billion doallars for commercial traffic, probably ten
times that for recreational boaters. Think of all the marinas and gas
docks and visitors centers along the ICW.

Also, if there is little or no money for maintenance along the ICW,
think what would be allocated for rescue of boaters trying to go outside
around Cape Hattaras.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

ICW may be shut down.
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Florida Keyz wrote:

unbelivably, there is now NO funding for the Atlantic ICW.

Actually, this isn't quite true. A small amount of money (a paltry few
million) was allocated to Florida.

.... If this continures
there will soon be no ICW, it shall be impassable.

Oh, I dunno, it will be there for a long time to come, it just will be
"impassable" to boats over 3' draft.

But the issue is a fairly serious one. The economic impact of the ICW
includes a few billion doallars for commercial traffic, probably ten
times that for recreational boaters. Think of all the marinas and gas
docks and visitors centers along the ICW.

Also, if there is little or no money for maintenance along the ICW,
think what would be allocated for rescue of boaters trying to go
outside
around Cape Hattaras.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Maybe we should have tolls or permits or licences to use ICW? Collect
from every boat. $50 for less than 20 feet, $250 for less than 28 feet,
$1000 for 36 feet. Some appropriate price for commercial vessels. Add
daily and weekly options and away you go. Why should the poor folks
money be spent on recreation for the rich? Folks should pay their own
way.

del cecchi

ICW may be shut down.
 

DSK wrote:
Florida Keyz wrote:

unbelivably, there is now NO funding for the Atlantic ICW.

Actually, this isn't quite true. A small amount of money (a paltry few
million) was allocated to Florida.

.... If this continures
there will soon be no ICW, it shall be impassable.

Oh, I dunno, it will be there for a long time to come, it just will be
"impassable" to boats over 3' draft.

But the issue is a fairly serious one. The economic impact of the ICW
includes a few billion doallars for commercial traffic, probably ten
times that for recreational boaters. Think of all the marinas and gas
docks and visitors centers along the ICW.

Also, if there is little or no money for maintenance along the ICW,
think what would be allocated for rescue of boaters trying to go outside
around Cape Hattaras.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King


Major budgetary cutbacks are planned for all infrastructure, and I would
include the ICW, along with bridges, roads, airports, subways, et
cetera. This is all so we can "better sustain" more funds going to the
Department of Defense for Bush's endless, mindless war, a war that will
result in a more dangerous world than we live in now.

Reuters had an interesting article on the problem recently:

Bush Reaches Out to Conservatives to Quell Revolt

Fri Feb 20, 3:45 PM ET

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House has been reaching out to
conservative groups to quell a rebellion over government spending and
budget deficits, hoping to shore up President Bush's political base in
an election year.

Conservative leaders who have taken part in *private* White House
meetings in recent weeks said on Friday officials have *promised to all
but freeze non-defense spending,* and assured them Bush will follow
through on his threat to veto major highway legislation if Congress
refuses to scale it back.

The price tag on a six-year highway and transportation bill stalled in
the House of Representatives is $375 billion while a Senate highway bill
calls for spending $318 billion. The White House has proposed a $256
billion measure.

"Bush has been very attentive to the critique from the right," said
Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a politically powerful
conservative group -- offering tentative praise where once he talked
openly of a brewing rebellion.

But if the White House does not follow through, said Heritage Foundation
vice president for government relations, Michael Franc, "all bets are off."

ICW may be shut down.
 

del cecchi wrote:
Maybe we should have tolls or permits or licences to use ICW? Collect
from every boat. $50 for less than 20 feet, $250 for less than 28 feet,
$1000 for 36 feet. Some appropriate price for commercial vessels. Add
daily and weekly options and away you go. Why should the poor folks
money be spent on recreation for the rich? Folks should pay their own
way.

Well, we already do. If the fiscal burden of paying for the ICW is
levied specifically on users, all other taxes should go down, right?

The problem is that the gov't is already collecting the money and
spending it on something else... now they have to go and collect more money.

Check on the Wallop-Breaux fund, it's sources and disposition.

Personally, I wouldn't mind paying a user fee for the ICW if that meant
1- it would actually be maintained to a consistent and reliable standard
and 2- my fee also entailed a license to plunder anybody using the ICW
who had dodged paying it.

DSK

ICW may be shut down.
 

Subject: ICW may be shut down.
From:

Spending a huge amount of money for
recreational use by a very small(relatively) number of perceived fat cat
yacht
owners is a very hard sell.

Subject: ICW may be shut down.
From: "del cecchi"

Why should the poor folks
money be spent on recreation for the rich? Folks should pay their own
way.

I kinda sorta agree with the congress on this one. CUT SPENDING!!!

You two really should get get a clue.

The the so called "rich" folks who travel the ICW spend a LOT of money with the
"poor" folks as they move up and down the ICW.

In fact a lot of the "poor" folks have become "rich" over the years because of
the ICW.

If either of you had spent any time traveling on the ICW you would see just how
much business is generated and has been created due to the ICW.

My guess is that not funding the ICW would cost more in the taxes lost due to
loss of business and employment then the money "saved" by cutting the money
spent on ICW funding.

Much like what happened with the luxury tax.

Capt. Bill

ICW may be shut down.
 

....If the fiscal burden of paying for the ICW is
levied specifically on users, all other taxes should go down, right?




Gene Kearns wrote:
You could make the same argument for hard surfaced roads. Would you?

Absolutely. Are you suggesting that we should pay for things twice?

FWIW I agree with your other posts stating that the ICW benefits all and
thus a wide based tax support is fair. My post quoted above was a
specific reply and may not have been worded very clearly.

It doesn't change the issue as I see it: the gov't has already levied &
is already collecting tax money intended to support the ICW (and other
infrastructure); the problem is reallocation of these resources.

Maybe if Halliburton picked up the dredging contract, Bush & Cheney
would the ICW a much higher priority ;)

DSK

ICW... Halliburton
 

That was a *joke* Harry. Surely you are familiar with the concept, even
if you don't have an actual sense of humor?

DSK

Harry Krause wrote:


Halliburton is advertising heavily on TV in the DC metro area, trying to
convince everyone it is a patriotic company, only interested in service
our national interests, and hiding the fact it is a war-mongering,
taxpayer cheating tool of the neocon fascists who currently control our
government. Or is the government a tool of Halliburton?

ICW... Halliburton
 

DSK wrote:

That was a *joke* Harry. Surely you are familiar with the concept, even
if you don't have an actual sense of humor?

DSK

Harry Krause wrote:


Halliburton is advertising heavily on TV in the DC metro area, trying to
convince everyone it is a patriotic company, only interested in service
our national interests, and hiding the fact it is a war-mongering,
taxpayer cheating tool of the neocon fascists who currently control our
government. Or is the government a tool of Halliburton?


Of course I got it. But the Halliburton ads running on TV now in my
metro market are an even funnier joke.