View non-flash version
ronmentalists and errant lobbyists who argue that we—the commecial navigation industry—should pay for all needed repair, expansion, im- provement and maintenance of the waterway system, regardless of who benefits from the system, regardless of regional economic sustenance, re- gardless of protection of life and property afforded by this work. What higher user fee proponents fail to understand or admit is that there is direct taxation—flowing from the explicit actions of govern- ment, and there is indirect taxa- tion—flowing from the reactions of industry to government policy. Whether these waterway levies are called a fee or a user charge, they are in reality a tax. Let's not delude our- selves: the water carriers cannot re- alistically be expected to absorb these costs and write them off. These taxes will ultimately have a direct impact on all American con- sumers, in very specific ways. The vital, life-sustaining freight we carry will increase in price at the retail level as a result of these taxes. A recent user charge "impact" assessment conducted by Walter J. Willis, Economics Professor Emeritus at Southern Illinois Uni- versity's School of Agriculture, warns that increasing user taxes on waterway transportation could damage the coal industry in the "Eastern Interior Basin" as well as increase electricity rates. Professor Willis' studies indicate that if the Administration's user tax plan would prevail, it would result in an 85
