Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Much has been made of an article headlined "BOAC bombshell for the Government - We can't afford to fly Concorde" which appeared simultaneously in the London Observer and the Washington Post on February 21st. The story's implications were hotly denied by BOAC. It is interesting to note that other headlines on February 22nd ranged from "BOAC has £60 million plan ready to buy Concorde" in the Daily Telegraph, to "BOAC reviewing way of operating Concorde" in the Times, and "BOAC: We Do Want Concorde" in the Daily Mirror.

Britain is proud of Concorde. Many Members on both sides of the House of Commons and Lords believe that Concorde and programmes like it are beneficial to our Nation.

raw

Our major national resource is the brains and skill of our people. Much of our food and most of our materials come from overseas; we have to export to live. By 1980 Concorde can have a beneficial impact on our balance of payments worth an estimated $4.8 billion.

We have developed the aircraft to the point where commercial success is in sight and its future will and indeed should be decided in the aviation market place.

Besides employing some 25,000 of our most skilled people on a peaceful programme which could have a favourable impact on our economy out of all proportion to the numbers employed, the challenge of Concorde has advanced man's knowledge on many technical fronts to the ultimate benefit of Britain and the whole world. A telling example is the interest your own space shuttle teams are showing in various areas of Concorde technology.

Much of the argument on Concorde has centred on whether or not it will have a significant environmental impact. May I be allowed to comment on some aspects of this question.

Airport Noise

Concorde is not expected to have any noticeable impact on the noise patterns currently existing around major airports; it will certainly be no noisier than existing 4 engined jets and it may well be quieter.

[blocks in formation]

Statenent of Howard Frazier
National Director
Consumers Education and Protective Association International, In

March 10, 1971

I an submitting this statement in opposition to appropriating additional funds for the sst. The Consumers Education and Prote Association is national in scope with headquarters in Philadelph 'Ye have nenbers in several states in the nation. Our president Hrs. Clarissa Cain and the executive director is cax Vleiner.

Honorable Allen J. Ellender
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee
U. S. Senate
Washington, D.C.

On February 14, 1971 our board of directors voted unanimously t appropriating additional funds for the Sst. We see no reason 1 payers should pay 90% of the cost for developing supersonic tra planes designed for commercial use and for the profits of the e carriers. If the project is sound economically and the air ca: desire such a plane, they should go to the lending institution the necessary funds for it as was done in the development of t

Dear Senator Ellender:

commercial jet planes.

I am submitting a statement on the SST for consider-
ation of the Senate Appropriation Committee from the
Consumers Education and Protective Association
International, Inc. in opposition to the appropriation
of additional funds for the SST.
This statement is being submitted in lieu of my
testifying at the committee hearings.
that there is not sufficient time to permit me to
testify in person.
Sincerely,

I understand

Howard Frazier

The fact that approximately a billion dollars has already beer this project is no reason that additional funds should be appi We think that a nistake was nade when the first dollar was an for it. Each dollar spent on the project, in our opinion, is unjustifiable expenditure of Federal funds. We believe that another 500 million dollars to develop the tio prototypes vou toward committing the Federal government to participate in ti costs of the sst, which would cost the tax payers another two billion dollars. We object to the use of Federal funds for small percentage, less than 1%, who use air planes for overs public opinion polls show that 90,believe that Federal fund used to develop the SST. There is urgent need in our nation for a reordering of our e priorities. Vital domestic programs have been neglected an i insufficiently funded. With 74% of our population in our c

is great need for improved transportation, housing, health jobs, schools and related areas., Instead of spending Feder projects that would affect less than 1% of our citizens, ti

HOWARD FRAZIER
National Director

[blocks in formation]

ODPAL, INC.

CONSUMERS EDUCATION AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL, INC.

liarch 10, 1971

Statement of Hovard Frazier
National Director
Consumers Education and Protective Association International, Inc.

I am submitting this statement in opposition to appropriating
additional funds for the SST. The Consumers Education and Protective
Association is national in scope with headquarters in Philadelphia.
We have members in several states in the nation. Our president is
Mrs. Clarissa Cain and the executive director is max Weiner,

On February 14, 1971 our voard-:of directors voted unanimously to oppose appropriating additional funds for the SST. We see no reason why tax payers should pay 90% of the cost for developing supersonic transport planes designed for commercial use and for the profits of the air carriers. If the project is sound economically and the air carriers desire such a plane, they should go to the lending institutions and obtain the necessary funds for it as was done in the development of the large commercial jet planes.

The fact that approximately a billion dollars has already been spent on this project is no reason that additional funds should be appropriated. We think that a mistake was made when the first dollar was appropriated for it. Each dollar spent on the project, in our opinion, is an unjustifiable expenditure of Federal funds. We believe that to spend another 500 million dollars to develop the tio prototypes would be a step toward committing the Federal government to participate in the production costs of the SST, which would cost the tax payers another two to four billion dollars. We object to the use of Federal funds for benefiting the small percentage, less than 155, who use air planes for overseas travel. Public opinion polls show that 90,1 believe that Federal funds should not be used to develop the SST. There is urgent need in our nation for a reordering of our national priorities. Vital domestic programs have been neglected and are i insufficiently funded.

With 74% of our population in our cities, there is great need for improved transportation, housing, health services, jobs, schools and related areas. Instead of spending Federal funds on i projects that would affect less than 1% of our citizens, they should be

STATEMENT ON THE SST

BY
JAMES D. DAVIDSON

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION

spent on projects which are needed and will benefit all the people of our nation. 'le think that the stratosphere should be left undisturbed. He are greatly concerned about the possibility of water vapor from the SST

affecting the ozones which could result in thousands of skin cancer cases 7 7

a year. We are also concerned about the exhaust enissions from the SST that could potentially change the world cline.te. Ilore research is needed before poisonous fumes are emitted into the stratosphere which could affect the lives of millions of people throughout the world.

Proponents of the SST have based their public plea for fun upon two shaky arguments:

1. They claim that continued subsidy is necessary to
produce prototypes. Supposedly, if the prototypes proved
unworkable, the program could then be scratched.

2. They claim that national interest requires continued subsidy for if the u.s. fails to produce an SsT some other country will.

The skies and the stratosphere cannot be owned by any nation. Each nation has a responsibility for keeping them clear of any kind of pollution and to refrain from activities which cause damage to properties, distress and injuries to people. The SsT would greatly increase the number of sonic bangs one estimate being that 4,000 people would be affected by each flight across the Atlantic ocean. We know that sonic bangs have already caused injuries and loss of life, great property damage and much suffering.

We believe that every able bodied citizen has a right to a job. Federal funds which are now being used to employ 14,000 people working on the SST could be put to better use on projects that would benefit more people. If the money which has been spent on the sst had been spent for improved nass transportation, at least 100,000 jobs could have been created in this field. Our organization favors world trade.

We support the opinion of fifteen of the nation's leading economists who believe that the balance of trade is irrevelent to the Sst and should not be used to justify the project. We believe that it is incumbent on the Congress to represent the interests of all the people and not the fet; to guard the health and welfare of our citizens against any and all projects that pollute our atmosphere; to take the leadership in preventing special interests from getting advantages at the expense of the taxpayers.

The Senate demonstrated independence and great courage in the last session of Congress when originally it voted to appropriate no funds for the SST.

We hope that this committee will refuse to recommend the appropriation of additional funds for this project. Howard Frazier HOHARD FRAZIER National Director

Economists and other experts have devastated these conten so often that every member of Congress is probably aware that SST is a weak investment. Among academic advocates of the fre market the SST program has become infamous as an example of a project with no possible justification. It does not contribut to the national defense.

It does not eradicate poverty. It not alleviate the distress of the masses.

As Senator Proxmire has truly said, "the sst is the frivolous toy of the jet set.'

Not only are a few international travelers to be subsidi by the sweat of the taxpayer, everyone living in the vicinity the SST landing sites faces the prospect of an unwelcomed vic of property rights. Many experts have testified that the pla would wreck havoc with sonic booms and pollute the air to the distress of the average man.

And for what? So that a few ho active travelers will not have to spend so much time watchin in-flight movies.

Those who are familiar with Washington and the workings Congress recognize that the real reason for support of the S nost often unstated. It is pure greed. It is greed on the the contractors and union officials who would seek to have foot the bill for any project, no matter how worthless, whi public gullibility will allow. These elements have no qual soever about spending thousands or even millions of dollars inundate the media with propaganda. They can easily afford Sou for they can dip into the public tili to pay for their out of the loot they receive.

Meanwhile, advocates of the and protection of the environment must scrimp along trying to rest in the public mind every fallacious smokescreen th by those who would benefit from the subsidy.

Members of Congress should recognize that subsidizing is a very inefficient method of providing welfare payments unproductive. It would be far less damaging both to the e the environment, to simply hand over the money to those pi enough to squeeze it out of Congress, without any pretens

STATEMENT ON THE SST

BY
JAMES D. DAVIDSON

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION

Proponents of the SST have based their public plea for funds upon two shaky arguments:

1. They claim that continued subsidy is necessary to
produce prototypes. Supposedly, if the prototypes proved
unworkable, the program could then be scratched.

2. They claim that national interest requires continued
subsidy for if the U.S. fails to produce an SST some other
country will.

Economists and other experts have devastated these contentions so often that every member of Congress is probably aware that the SST is a weak investment. Among academic advocates of the free market the SST program has become infamous as an example of a project with no possible justification. It does not contribute to the national defense. It does not eradicate poverty. It does not alleviate the distress of the masses. As Senator Proxmire has truly said, "the SST is the frivolous toy of the jet set."

Not only are a few international travelers to be subsidized by the sweat of the taxpayer, everyone living in the vicinity of the SsT landing sites faces the prospect of an unwelcomed violation of property rights. Many experts have testified that the planes would wreck havoc with sonic booms and pollute the air to the distress of the average man.

And for what? so that a few hyperactive travelers will not have to spend so much time watching in-flight movies.

Those who are familiar with Washington and the workings of Congress recognize that the real reason for support of the sst is most often unstated. It is pure greed. It is greed on the part of the contractors and union officials who would seek to have taxpayers foot the bill for any project, no matter how worthless, which public gullibility will allow. These elements have no qualms whatsoever about spending thousands or even millions of dollars to inundate the media with propaganda, They can easily afford to do so, for they can dip into the public tili to pay for their advertising out of the loot they receive. Meanwhile, advocates of the taxpayers and protection of the environment must scrimp along trying to lay to rest in the public mind every fallacious smokescreen thrown up by those who would benefit from the subsidy.

Members of Congress should recognize that subsidizing an SST is a very inefficient method of providing welfare payments to the unproductive. It would be far less damaging both to the economy and the environment, to simply hand over the money to those powerful enough to squeeze it out of Congress, without any pretense of its

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »