Unless well up into their years, not many Americans
remember when Washington was enjoying budget surpluses, and certainly not in trillions of
dollars.
So, as congressional committees debate whether to throw a few hundred
billion here and a few hundred billion there, why not dispense with one of the most
odorous and onerous penalties slapped on taxpayers in recent years—the so-called
"users fee" for relaxing in the nation’s public lands.
To pay for their profligate ways, both parties have turned to "users
fees." The lawmakers use regular tax revenues for budgeted programs, then double-dip
on taxpayers with "fees" to pay for federal services that politicians
insufficiently fund the first time around.
Is it possible a "users fee" for paying taxes to the Internal
Revenue Service is just around the corner?
To consider how users fees are out of hand, look to the Airports and
Airways Trust Fund, now bloated with some $8 billion. Yet, the Federal Aviation
Administration still presides over an antiquated and unreliable nationwide radar system.
Why is the "users fee" for strolling on public land so
outrageous?
Not only have taxpayers already paid for acquisition and maintenance of
the public lands, but for politicians to then demand that owners of the land pay an
additional "fee" to enjoy their holdings is arrogant.
The Forest Service and Parks Service can’t be held responsible. They
have the thankless task of managing lands being used by more people for more activities
while Congress provides inadequate funding.
With trillions of dollars in surplus to play with, surely Washington can
afford a break for taxpayers who want to enjoy the premiere American treasure—parks
and forests—without paying twice for the privilege.
