139 



Because the funding scheme proposed is based upon the cost of 

 the item taxed rather than the cost of the program offered or benefit 

 received, buyers of expensive items would bear the brunt of the 

 funding burden and without regard to their use of, or benefit from, the 

 programs offered. Any attempt to single out specific categories of 

 products upon which to impose a tax for the funding of programs 

 benefiting the nation as a whole is grossly inappropriate and 

 discriminatory. Such funding should more readily be provided out of 

 the general fund of the United States. 



Alternatively, however, if funding is required from other than 

 the general treasury, then a much more positive approach is required. 

 RVIA supports funding approaches which create a partnership between 

 government and business, taking advantage of the needs and expertise 

 of both parties and providing economic incentive for business 

 participation such as advertising, positive public relations, land grants 

 or the availability of services. Properly structured, such proposals 

 benefit all parties concerned. 



Finally, RVIA does support the concept of user fees as a mode of 

 funding programs if the fee is equitable, understandable to those 

 paying, cost-efficient to administer and dedicated to supporting the 

 programs and facilities for which they were collected. A user fee that 

 meets these principles provides a direct and identifiable benefit to those 

 individuals paying the fee, which is in sharp contrast to the Teaming 

 With Wildlife proposal to levy an excise tax on a loosely defined list of 

 "outdoor" products. 



Respectfully submitted. 



David J. Humphreys 

 President 



-2- 



