|
|
Ron Wyden on TechnologyDemocratic Sr Senator (OR) |
Wyden voted against the Wall Street bailout and said he favors the federal government ending tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. He also supports limiting taxes on Internet-based companies.
Huffman argued that these proposals are too small when the country faces double-digit unemployment and a terribly slow recovery. He said Wyden's great mistake was voting for the stimulus bill because those funds will never be returned to taxpayers.
At one point, Wyden was shown a television ad he supported that claimed Huffman defended the Wall Street bailout and believes in privatizing Social Security. When asked to comment on the negative ad, Wyden said it was the exception and not the rule of his campaign to run such an ad.
Huffman said the ad was full of lies and half-truths.
Opponent's Argument for voting No (Cnet.com): Online retailers are objecting to S.743, saying it's unreasonable to expect small businesses to comply with the detailed--and sometimes conflicting--regulations of nearly 10,000 government tax collectors. S.743 caps years of lobbying by the National Retail Federation and the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represent big box stores. President Obama also supports the bill.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes: Sen. COLLINS. This bill rectifies a fundamental unfairness in our current system. Right now, Main Street businesses have to collect sales taxes on every transaction, but outbecause -of-state Internet sellers don't have to charge this tax, they enjoy a price advantage over the mom-and-pop businesses. This bill would allow States to collect sales taxes on Internet sales, thereby leveling the playing field with Main Street businesses. This bill does not authorize any new or higher tax, nor does it impose an Internet tax. It simply helps ensure that taxes already owed are paid.
Opponent's Argument for voting No: Sen. WYDEN: This bill takes a function that is now vested in government--State tax collection--and outsources that function to small online retailers. The proponents say it is not going to be hard for small businesses to handle this--via a lot of new computer software and the like. It is, in fact, not so simple. There are more than 5,000 taxing jurisdictions in our country. Some of them give very different treatment for products and services that are almost identical.
Veto message from President Bush:
This bill lacks fiscal discipline. I fully support funding for water resources projects that will yield high economic and environmental returns. Each year my budget has proposed reasonable and responsible funding, including $4.9 billion for 2008, to support the Army Corps of Engineers' main missions. However, this authorization bill costs over $23 billion. This is not fiscally responsible, particularly when local communities have been waiting for funding for projects already in the pipeline. The bill's excessive authorization for over 900 projects and programs exacerbates the massive backlog of ongoing Corps construction projects, which will require an additional $38 billion in future appropriations to complete. This bill does not set priorities. I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets priorities.
Founded in the spring of 1996, the Congressional Internet Caucus is a bipartisan group of over 150 members of the House and Senate working to educate their colleagues about the promise and potential of the Internet. The Caucus also encourages Members to utilize the Internet in communications with constituents and supports efforts to put more government documents online. The Internet Caucus Advisory Committee and the Internet Education Foundation host regular events and forums for policymakers, the press, and the public to discuss important Internet-related policy issues.
Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007 - Amends the Internet Tax Freedom Act to make permanent the ban on state and local taxation of Internet access and on multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.
Related bills: H.R.743, H.R.1077, H.R.3678, S.156.
Excerpts from Letter to FCC chairman from 15 Senators: We write to express how deeply troubled we are that one of your first actions as FCC Chairman has been to undermine the Lifeline program and make it more difficult for low-income people to access affordable broadband. Lifeline is a critical tool for closing the digital divide--a problem you pledged to prioritize. Abruptly revoking the recognition of nine companies as Lifeline broadband providers does nothing but create a chilling effect on potential provider participation, and unfairly punish low-income consumers.
Last year, the FCC modernized the Lifeline program, rightfully refocusing its support on broadband, which helps end the cruel "homework gap" for the five million out of the 28 million households in this country with school-aged children who lack access to broadband.
By statute, the FCC has an obligation to ensure "consumers in all regions of the country, including low-income consumers" have access to "advanced telecommunications services."
Opposing argument: (Heritage Budget Book, "Cut Universal Service Subsidies"): Heritage Recommendation: Eliminate telecommunications subsidies for rural areas, phase out the schools and libraries subsidy program, and reduce spending on the Lifeline program by reducing fraud and waste. The "Lifeline" fund, while well-intended, has been plagued by fraud and abuse, as costs tripled from under $600 million in 2001 to almost $1.8 billion in the 2013 funding year.
Supporting argument: (ACLU, "Task Force Letter"): The ACLU, a co-chair of the Leadership Conference Media Task Force, joined this letter to the FCC Chairman in response to his decisions to revoke the Lifeline Broadband Provider designations for nine providers. The ACLU has long supported expansion of the Lifeline program, which provides access to phone and broadband services for lower income families.
Sen. DORGAN. "The issue of Internet freedom is also known as net neutrality. I have long fought in Congress against media concentration, to prevent the consolidation of control over what Americans see in the media. Now, Americans face an equally great threat to the democratic vehicle of the Internet, which we have always taken for granted as an open and free engine for creative growth.
"The Internet became a robust engine of economic development by enabling anyone with a good idea to connect to consumers and compete on a level playing field for consumers' business. The marketplace picked winners and losers, and not some central gatekeeper.
"But now we face a situation where the FCC has removed nondiscrimination rules that applied to Internet providers for years. Broadband operators soon thereafter announced their interest in acting in discriminatory ways, planning to create tiers on the Internet that could restrict content providers' access to the Internet unless they pay extra for faster speeds or better service. Under their plan, the Internet would become a new world where those content providers who can afford to pay special fees would have better access to consumers.
"This fundamentally changes the way the Internet has operated and threaten to derail the democratic nature of the Internet. American consumers and businesses will be worse off for it. Today we introduce the Internet Freedom Preservation Act to ensure that the Internet remains a platform that spawns innovation and economic development for generations to come."
Congressional Summary:Disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on February 22, 2008, relating to broadcast media ownership. Declares that the rule shall have no force or effect.
Proponents' Argument in Favor:Sen. DORGAN: The FCC loosened the ban on cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations. We seek with this resolution of disapproval to reverse the FCC's fast march to ease media ownership rules. The FCC has taken a series of destructive actions in the past two decades that I believe have undermined the public interest. [Now they have given] a further green light to media concentration.
The FCC voted to allow cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations in the top 20 markets, with loopholes for mergers outside of the top 20 markets. The newspapers would be allowed to buy stations ranked above fifth and above.
The rule change was framed as a modest compromise. But make no mistake, this is a big deal. As much as 44% of the population lives in the top 20 markets. The last time the FCC tried to do this, in 2003, the Senate voted to block it.
This rule will undercut localism and diversity of ownership around the country. Studies show that removing the ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership results in a net loss in the amount of local news produced in the market as a whole. In addition, while the FCC suggests that cross-ownership is necessary to save failing newspapers, the publicly traded newspapers earn annual rates of return between 16% and 18%.
This Resolution of Disapproval will ensure this rule change has no effect. This is again a bipartisan effort to stop the FCC from destroying the local interests that we have always felt must be a part of broadcasting.
| |||
| Other candidates on Technology: | Ron Wyden on other issues: | ||
|
OR Gubernatorial: Bud Pierce Kate Brown Knute Buehler OR Senatorial: Jeff Merkley Jo Rae Perkins Kevin Stine Mark Callahan Paul Romero OR politicians OR Archives |
Senate races 2019-20:
AK:  Sullivan(R,incumbent)
vs.Gross(I)
vs.AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs. Tuberville(R)
vs.AR: Cotton(R,incumbent)
vs.Harrington(L)
vs.AZ: McSally(R,incumbent) vs. Kelly(D)
CO: Gardner(R,incumbent) vs. Hickenlooper(D)
vs.DE: Coons(D,incumbent)
vs.GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed)
vs.Warnock(D)
vs.Collins(R)
vs.Tarver(D)
vs.GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent)
vs.Ossoff(D)
vs.Hazel(L)
vs.Tomlinson(D)
vs.Terry(D)
IA: Ernst(R,incumbent)
vs.Greenfield(D)
vs.ID: Risch(R,incumbent)
vs.Jordan(D)
vs.IL: Durbin(D,incumbent)
vs.Curran(R)
vs.KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs. Marshall(R)
vs.Bollier(D)
vs.KY: McConnell(R,incumbent)
vs.McGrath(D)
vs.LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent)
vs.Perkins(D)
vs. |
MA: Markey(D,incumbent)
vs.O`Connor(R)
vs.Ayyadurai(R)
vs.ME: Collins(R,incumbent)
vs.Gideon(D)
vs.MI: Peters(D,incumbent)
vs.James(R)
vs.Squier(G)
MN: Smith(D,incumbent)
vs.Lewis(R)
vs.Overby(G)
vs.MS: Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent)
vs.Espy(D)
vs.MT: Daines(R,incumbent)
vs.Bullock(D)
vs.NC: Tillis(R,incumbent)
vs.Cunningham(D)
vs.NE: Sasse(R,incumbent)
vs.Janicek(R)
NH: Shaheen(D,incumbent)
vs.Messner(R)
vs.NJ: Booker(D,incumbent)
vs.Mehta(R)
vs.NM: Udall(D,retiring) vs. Lujan(D)
vs.Ronchetti(R)
vs.Walsh(L)
vs.OK: Inhofe(R,incumbent)
vs.Broyles(D)
vs.OR: Merkley(D,incumbent)
vs.Perkins(R)
vs.RI: Reed(D,incumbent)
vs.Waters(R)
SC: Graham(R,incumbent)
vs.Harrison(D)
vs.SD: Rounds(R,incumbent)
vs.Ahlers(D)
vs.TN: Alexander(R,retiring) vs. Hagerty(R)
vs.Bradshaw(D)
vs.TX: Cornyn(R,incumbent)
vs.Hegar(D)
vs.VA: Warner(D,incumbent)
vs.WV: Capito(R,incumbent)
vs.Swearengin(D)
vs.WY: Enzi(R,retiring) vs. Lummis(R)
vs.Ben-David(D)
vs. |
Abortion
Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings |
|
Contact info: Email Contact Form Phone number: (202) 224-5244 | |||