[at-l] AT Fund On Income Tax Form

[orangebug74@yahoo.com (Orange Bug)]

This is the sort of mentality that would get any AT initiative derided
as coming from a bunch of obsessed nuts. True, perhaps, but not a
politically attractive idea.

I would oppose it. The only "check off" is a fund to aid presidential
elections - arguably of benefit to each individual if it were
accompanied by campaign finance reform. An AT check off would benefit
directly only those states and localities containing the AT. A check
off would send money to the AT without regard to the budgeting process
- allowing further neglect of the entire national park system while an
eastern resource was allowed to be buffed and shined.

It is far better to support the budgeting process to improve
maintenance and improvement of services in all of the national parks,
forests, BLM areas and monuments. If you want to talk about check offs
for special interest groups, how about a universal catastrophic health
benefit for all citizens?

Bill...

--- RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
> ... The idea being that this kind of mentality has lead to the
> need to establish the fund in the first place. Let's save the AT
> first...

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com