Democrats kill proposal for permanent Net tax relief
A key U.S. House of Representatives panel on Wednesday unanimously agreed to extend a ban on Internet access taxes for another four years--but not before rejecting proposals to make the tax permanent or extend it for a lengthier stretch of time.
At issue is a law dating back to 1998 that generally prohibits state and local governments from taxing Internet access, including DSL (digital subscriber line), cable modem and BlackBerry-type wireless transmission services. It also prohibits "discriminatory" taxes that treat products sold on the Internet differently than those in brick-and-mortar stores, but it does not deal with the separate issue of imposing sales taxes on goods bought online.
The current law is set to expire November 1, and Republicans have complained that their Democratic colleagues are moving too sluggishly to renew the expiring rules.
At Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee debate, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) proposed a series of amendments attempting to make the prohibition more lasting--first a permanent ban, then an eight-year extension, then a six-year one. He argued those timetables were preferable to give companies certainty and to encourage broadband adoption by more American households, particularly lower-income families.
One by one, the politicians present shot down the amendments. Each of the votes was along party lines, with Republicans voting in favor of the lengthier prohibitions and Democrats shooting them down, with the exception of Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). Her tech-heavy district contains companies that strongly support a permanent Internet tax moratorium.
Goodlatte couldn't resist pointing out that a number of the original Democratic sponsors of a permanent Internet tax ban bill--including Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) and Steve Cohen (R-Ohio)--rejected his amendments. Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) also repeatedly voted against the extended-ban proposals.
"The Internet is still growing; it's still an ever-expanding tool," Conyers said in defense of his voting choices. "So limiting the ability to revisit and re-examine the effects of the moratorium to a longer period will prevent industry, states and localities and consumers from reaping the true benefits of such rapidly expanding technology."
Update 2:45 p.m. PDT: The committee almost approved the Goodlatte amendment proposing an eight-year extension. But after several minutes of political gymnastics, all that changed.
Here's the short version: In an initial vote, that amendment passed 20-18. But that turn of events seemed to flabbergast Conyers, who promptly fumbled to propose an amendment of his own, apparently containing a four-and-a-half year extension. Then former Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) questioned whether such an amendment had actually been written ("in proper form," as he put it) and was available for a vote. Conyers acknowledged the clerk had not yet received the text but indicated it was on its way.
Then one of the Democrats who voted in favor of that amendment came to the rescue, inexplicably requesting a revote and scaring up enough ayes to do so. The second time around, the eight-year extension failed by a 22-17 tally.
After the vote, Goodlatte condemned the Democrats' "procedural tactics" as "simply unacceptable."
"I believe the will of the House is clear--a strong, bipartisan majority of members want a permanent ban on these burdensome taxes," he said. "Unfortunately, the actions of the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee do not reflect the Congress' commitment to ensuring the Internet is free from excessive taxation and regulation."
The bill's next stop is the House floor. It wasn't immediately clear when the Senate, which is on recess this week, plans to take up its version.
didn't they pass it into law when they had control of both houses of
congress and the presidency? They are hypocritical frauds, who
mouth cliches about small government and low taxes while
creating the largest federal budgets and deficits in the country's
history. Congressman (and presidential candidate) Ron Paul is
called Dr. No because he is the rare Republican who really does
oppose tax and spending increases, and votes his principles.
Because it wasn't up for debate at that time, and no one thought to propose something permanent.
/P
Let me explain something. The ban is up on November 1, meaning that we are less than a month away. It is now the proper time to discuss the tax ban. Two years ago simply was not the time. The government has too much on its plate to discuss legislation like this so many years in advance. There would have to have been reason (which there wasn't) to talking about this issue when the Republicans controlled the Senate. In your post you called the Republicans hypocritical frauds. I would like to ask for some justification on this. If they were either hypocritical or frauds (the use of the two together, by the way, is overly redundant- it would be the equivalent of in the schoolyard calling someone a stupid moron- one or the other words is sufficiently explicit), then they would in word be for the tax ban but in practice vote against it. Have the Republicans stated that they are for the tax ban but voted against it? No. Have they said they are against the ban but voted for it? No once again. Therefore, they cannot be hypocritical nor can they be frauds because their "money is where their mouth is" so to speak.
On the flip side. I would to highlight how the democrats are once again living up to their reputation as frauds. Time and again the democrats say that they are fighting for the little guys and the middle class, while the Republicans represent the "wealthy 1%". By not making the tax ban permanent, the door is always open to creating an internet tax in the future. Lets take a step back and analyze what that would do. A vast majority of Americans today own computers, PDAs, cell phones, or some other device that connects to the internet, and so the tax would be felt relatively across the board. However, the only people not hit by the tax would be the small percentage of the population who cannot afford internet access. These are, for the most part, those who stand in the 0% tax bracket anyways. What would the democrats do with the funds accumulated by an internet tax ban? They most likely would dump it into some Hillary-health care system or some other welfare to benefit those same people not being taxed by the internet tax in the first place. This creates a vicious cycle. Those being taxed are left with less assets to pursue their own capitalistic interests, while those receiving the aid are placed into a cycle of dependence. The tax would make it more difficult for them to advance out of their current financial status into a better one, and therefore they would be, in essence, stuck. The whole time, the democrats would parade around claiming that the tax was helping the less fortunate. The best way to help those in poverty is through providing education and minimizing the unemployment rate, not via a handout. Sadly, most of those receiving the aid would believe the fallacious arguments of the democrats, believe the democrats are representing their interests, and vote for them in the next election. So, when it all comes down to it, the democrats do not want a ban on the internet tax in order to, when the time is right, create an internet tax for the express purpose of gaining more voters. Well, Ms. Pellosi and Senators Reid, Clinton, and Obama, America isn't buying it anymore. The secret is out. Stop creating unnecessary taxes and leaving ways for yet more unneeded taxes to be created. Taxing in any government has its place, but when taxes create a national surplus (as they did during the Clinton administration), there is a problem. Money in an individual's pocket is better than sitting with the government. The government should tax enough to keep government functions running, but to tax beyond this is excessive. The first time I heard about this tax and its current ban, I was shocked. My whole life I have considered the internet to be public domain. We don't tax people for walking down the street with their dog, and we shouldn't tax them for checking their email either. The book on this issue should be shut permanently, and internet users should be given the peace of mind knowing that their service will never have the possibility of being taxed.
It's not *just* Democrats that are spending away all our money, it's the Republicans as well. They both SUCK.
/Mouse
- Yeah, but more like gloom and doom.
-
by WJeansonne
October 10, 2007 5:25 PM PDT
- Everything they do harps on the negative. And they spend like drunken sailors. What a joke!
-
Reply to this comment
-
(9 Comments)