Very well said.

I never have understood the reasoning of some people who seem to take the approach of "It's not much money, so you aren't entitled to question how it's used". If $58 per year is not enough to allow members to question how their money is spent, just how much is ? $158 per year ? $580 per year ? Can someone please tell me where the threshold is, that permits members to ask how the money is being used, without some others trying to dismiss them as cheapskates ? (BTW, I'm not referring just to posts in this thread, but to the numerous other threads like this that crop up on a regular basis)

Also, for those who think the amount is too small to warrant anyone asking how it is being used ... then (purely hypothetically, so don't start jumping to conclusions) how would you feel if you later found out that 5% of the monies collected by the AMA were used for model avaiation purposes, and the other 95% was used to support some AMA official's drug habit, or was donated to fund terrorism, etc ? Would you still say "Heck - it's only $58 bucks, so it doesn't matter what they use it for ?" Yeah - I know that that's an extreme hypothetical case, but sometimes you have to take an argument to it's extremes to see whether it makes sense. As far as I am concerned, people have a right to ask how their money will be used, and in the end their probing may benefit us all by keeping the AMA aware that it needs to be accountable to the membership.

In my case, I would gladly pay more than the $58 per year, if the AMA provided services that I felt warranted it. Right now, I'm not convinced that they do, but I live in eternal hope of improved insurance coverage, better flying site support, etc.

Later,
Gordon