Re: Mike Castro

Katrina, please don't get me wrong -- I am in no way an advocate of taxes -- that's why I vote for candidates who favor less taxes. Nor am I arguing that the FAP funds are properly administered. I don't think a government official exists anywhere who properly administers my tax money. However, this is not a case of double taxation. Double taxation is a tax placed on another tax -- the very core of the concept behind the VAT in Europe. The FAP really is a "user fee", which is an additional tax, but it is not calculated on or applied to another tax. Many of your taxes go towards programs and services that you may never use and in some cases may actually not be in favor of. With the FAP, you only pay if you use the service.

Again, I am not directly arguing in favor of the FAP. But we do need to remember that just as Deep Creek has seen an exponential growth in the number of visitors over the last couple of years, so have our local National Forests. This is because Southern California, despite traffic, smog and high cost of living, still continues to be one of the most desirable places to live (go figure?) and people keep moving here from other areas of the country at an unprecedented rate. Our local National Forests are one of the many attractions that make So. Cal. desirable and all these people want to make use of the facilities they provide. So to be the "devil's advocate", is it fair to increase the taxes of the people in Iowa to pay for the increased use of the San Bernadino NF? If you collect money directly from the people who use the facility and *provided that* that money goes directly back to that facility for its maintenance and improvement, then that sounds fair to me. I realize that's a big proviso and it probably doesn't happen (see my opening remark re trusting a politician).