I think he is unaware of some serious concerns raised by user fees. I outline them below.
Full Disclosure: I work for a registered advisory firm, so these fees would impact me and my firm.
In your speech on The Case for User Fees on August 19th, you noted "the main objection to a user fee is a philosophical resistance to growing the government." While that is a valid criticism of user fees, I think it is not the strongest argument against user fees.
One significant problem of putting the burden of higher SEC funding on advisors, is that higher costs will drive marginal firms out of business, as there will be no corresponding rise in income. This will happen either as firms shutter or consolidate. The end result will be a landscape of fewer, larger firms serving the investing public. As history has shown, most recently with the banking crises, a system of fewer, larger firms is less robust than one consisting of more and diverse entities. User fees would make the investment advisory industry more fragile, less robust.
User fees also present a potential conflict of interest for the regulators. If regulators find evidence sufficient to prevent a firm from further operations, proceeding in the best interest of the public will cause them to reduce their own budget. Regulators could face the prospect of sanctioning the very firms that pay their salaries. This seems like a terrible burden to place on the SEC employees. In the investment industry, current laws and regulations bestow fiduciary status (and responsibility) on those advisors who align their interests with the investing public. I suggest the same should be true of regulators. Regulators are to serve the public, and thus should be paid by them. For regulators to be paid by a third party, the one they are tasked with monitoring, is not in the best interest of the public.