Ed Markey Vs. Hummers

Congressman Ed Markey (D-Malden) was interviewed today on NPR's All Things Considered by Andrea Seabrook regarding his pending legislation to end the tax breaks on Hummers and large luxury SUVs. That loophole is a remnant from an attempt in the 80's to limit the amount of money could be written off for luxury vehicles used for businesses. Any vehicle weighing more than 6,000 pounds was excluded, however, because at the time, most vehicles that heavy were trucks, tractors or limousines essential for business those businesses that depend on such equipment. Now, of course, many SUVs, weigh more than three tons, and owners are able to claim tax deductions of up to $25,000, even if the large vehicle is not necessary for their business.

Here's some of what Markey had to say:

[The tax credit] was intended for, basically, people who needed it — if you ran a limousine service, for example, or you're a contractor who needed a larger vehicle. But what it morphed into was something that allowed just about anyone to claim the deduction once they said that they were a businessman or woman. So, if the Hummer tax loophole wasn't on the books, and there was an even tax-depreciation schedule across the board for all vehicles, the Congressional Budget Office reckons that the federal budget would save $4 billion. ... It would be a $4 billion tax savings over a five-year period.

What does Markey think eliminating the loophole would accomplish?

If the Hummer tax loophole wasn't on the books, people would not decide, on the recommendations of their accountants, to buy the bigger vehicle because they got a bigger tax break. It would be a level playing field, and all vehicles, including hybrids, would be in a better situation to compete against Hummers, because the tax depreciation schedule would treat every vehicle equally.

...

There will be much less of a financial incentive to purchase the larger vehicle, since smaller vehicles — the hybrids — will now be on a level playing field. There is a very high likelihood that people will no longer have this extra bias toward the larger vehicle because they're saving money.

This seems perfectly sensible. As long as legitimate businesses are not penalized for having to use heavy equipment, there's no reason that the government should be giving out incentives for people to buy bigger vehicles. The incentives should, if at all, work the other way and encourage the adoption of more fuel-efficient cars. Good for Congressman Markey for addressing this issue.

Wednesday Morning Links

I don't have a whole lot of time this morning, so here are a few articles I found interesting this morning:

• In the Boston Herald, Brett Arends has a column about his conversation with Congressman Ed Markey (D-Malden) on energy independence. The Congressman notes that "If we improve fuel economy from 25 mpg to 35 mpg over the next 10 years, that backs out the equivalent of all the oil we import from the Persian Gulf."
• Also in the Herald is Margery Eagan's column about Diane Patrick's triumphant return to the spotlight.
• In the Boston Globe, Senator John Kerry has a piece on the Healthy Businesses, Healthy Workers Reinsurance Act he plans to introduce this week. The bill would reimburse companies for their health insurance costs for the most chronically ill employees, thereby driving down their expenses. His prediction is that health insurance premiums would go down 10% for everybody under his plan>
• Ever wonder what Mitt Romney's favorite novel is? Frankly, I'm more surprised that it's not one of the Left Behind novels, than the fact that it's by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology (via Universal Hub).

Eyewitness Account of Markey Office Occupation

Guest post by Susan Falkoff.

Below are excerpts from a report by “mlc” (distributed by United for Justice with Peace on the Sit-in at Congressman Ed Markey’s Medford office that was organized by Veterans for Peace, in which Congresman Markey explains why he intends to vote for Bush’s supplemental budget request with conditions instead of defeating the request outright:

“2/21/07 Today was the second day of the occupation of Rep. Markey's office in Medford. Again, there were several Veterans for Peace and supporters outside, on the street, with banners and signs asking the Congressman to sign the Pledge to Vote Against 2007 Supplemental Funding For The Iraq War. And, again, several people sat all day inside Markey's office suite reading the names of all the US soldiers killed in Iraq, state by state. Today was the day that Markey had agreed to meet with the Veterans for Peace, their supporters, and his constituents who favor his signing the Pledge.

“…Nate Goldshlag, one of the organizers,… asked if he could read the names of those soldiers killed in Iraq who were from Massachusetts. After reading each name, another veteran for peace struck a small bell chime. Then Nate set out the intention of our meeting with the congressman, specifically urging him to sign the Pledge stating that he would vote against the supplemental spending measure that President Bush will seek in 2007 to fund the ongoing occupation and war on Iraq; and to take leadership in getting others to vote against it. Markey initially said he was 100% with us, and that he had already signed the pledge…Then he began an explanation of his position, which he was to repeat many times throughout the long meeting:

“That he intended to vote for a Murtha-style supplemental bill—which would approve supplemental funding for the ongoing occupation with conditions attached regarding troop safety equipment, extension of leave time between successive deployments, etc. Markey told us repeatedly that he believes there would never be more than 190 Representatives willing to vote against Bush's supplemental. That 218 Representatives would be required to stop its passage. Therefore, rather than take a principled but losing stand, he would prefer to vote for the supplemental (which, he says, will pass anyway) with the Murtha “amendment.”

“…Several of the Veterans for Peace continued to argue that they would prefer Markey took a principled stand and voted against the supplemental, especially since he believed it would pass anyway. Nate Goldshlag pointed out that Markey could vote with the majority in favor of the Murtha amendment to take care of the troops, and then vote against the final supplemental spending bill. However, it was clear that Markey had made up his mind to vote for the supplemental with the Murtha conditions attached. He insisted this was being ‘politically smart.’

“… [Markey] has decided he wants to be seen as on the side “protecting the troops”---knowing , as he admitted, that at least 1000 more US soldiers will be killed (and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians) over the next year in Iraq--- rather than invite his fellow Democrats and moderate Republicans to stand with him against the continuation of funding for this illegal, immoral occupation. The whole event was very peaceful, cordial, and the Congressman and staff provided donuts, coffee, and bagels.”

Markey Amendment for Net Neutrality Fails

Yesterday, the House Commerce Committee voted on the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006" (COPE Act) which would overhaul the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Congressman Ed Markey (D-Malden) proposed an amendment to the act that would preserve Net Neutrality. You can hear Markey's statement introducing the amendment on his website. The SavetheInternet.com coalition collected a quarter million signatures in support of the Markey amendment, but it was voted down 34-22. Four Democrats voted against the Amendment, and one Republican -- Heather Wilson (R-NM) -- voted in favor.

The good news is that some of the Congressmen who voted the amendment down in subcommittee changed their votes in the full committee. We can make a difference in this fight. If you haven't called your Congressman yet, do it now.

The Fight For Net Neutrality

There's a fight brewing in Congress right now that affects all of us who provide content over the Internet and those of us who depend on that content. Telecommunications companies are trying to destroy the principle of "network neutrality" -- the idea that all network packets are created equal. The SavetheInternet.com Coalition launched their website this weekend and is making an effort to turn net neutrality from idea to law.

The concept of network neutrality is explained in this two-minute video. The concept is simple -- supporters of net neutrality want all content that's sent over the Internet treated the same. Telecom companies are against this because they want to be able to sell access to the Internet above and beyond bandwidth charges and connection fees. They want to be able to charge extra for faster service, and to be allowed to choke off their competitors' products by slowing them down to the point where they're unusable. Put another way, if telecom companies are able to pick and choose who is able to connect to what services, they will effectively own the Internet and be able to dictate who uses it and for what.

Matt Stoller over at MyDD has a great rundown this morning of the various players in the fight and the stakes we're facing.

Our own Congressman Ed Markey (D-Malden) has been out front on this issue. His amendment to the telecom bill that would codify net neutrality was voted down earlier this month. Salon also had a featured article on net neutrality last week that is worth reading, even if you have to view an ad first.

We can't let Congress give the Internet away to the telecommunications companies. It's too important to let Comcast, Verizon and AT&T dictate how we all can communicate with each other.

Update: Dan Kennedy also has a detailed post on the threat to the Internet.

Congressman Markey Hosts Town Meeting on Wiretaps

Earlier tonight, Congressman Ed Markey hosted an emergency town meeting at the National Heritage Museum in Lexington, for a discussion on whether the domestic spying on American citizens that President Bush has authorized is actually permitted by the constitution. On the panel were Mark Rotenberg of EPIC and Carol Rose of the ACLU of Massachusetts. While it wasn't much of a debate -- the panel and the audience were unanimously opposed to the president having authority to do so -- the forum was packed and very informative.

The forum opened up with some footage of President Bush talking about wiretapping in the 2004 elections. Congressman Markey produced a number of clips where Bush made the claim that wiretapping could only be done with the approval of a judge. Keep in mind that these warrantless wiretaps had been going on for nearly three years at that time those speeches were recorded. We all had a good chuckle over that.

The rest of the time was spent debunking the various claims that the Bush administration and his supporters have made regarding the NSA wiretapping. For instance, while apologists claim that getting permission from the FISA court for wiretaps is too slow or too restrictive, the reality is that the law allows officials to get permission retroactively up to 72 hours after the wiretaps are in place. Not only that, but out of the 19,000 applications the FISA court has seen since its inception, they have rejected only four. This doesn't seem like such a high hurdle that the administration couldn't have made the effort to follow the rules rather than simply asserting that they have the right to do whatever they want all along.

One of the more silly claims was that even talking about the surveillance program strengthens our enemies, as if terrorists were completely unaware that we have the ability to tap phones. If you assume that they knew that we had the technology, then what difference does it make to them if their phones are tapped with or without the approval of FISA? Frankly, the more I learn about the FISA court, the more I learn about how easy it is to get these kinds of wiretaps in the first place. Apart from that, no secret information is being asked for. No one that I know of is asking the government to make public all the secrets that they've presumably learned through this program or to release the names of their targets. What we should be having, though, is a conversation about whether we want the president to have the authority to unilaterally spy on American citizens through the NSA (and therefore, the Department of Defense).

The overarching theme of the event was that we are now in a period of Constitutional crisis. For some reason, the President seems to have decided that the Fourth Amendment no longer applies in the post-9/11 environment. His assertion of executive power is a slap in the face to an independent judiciary, so much so that one of the FISA court judges resigned in protest. Not only that, but claims that the wiretapping program was reviewed by Congress are just bogus -- Markey, the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security committee and the 14th most senior member of the House by length of service said he had no idea about the program until he read about it in the paper. Those that were briefed were forbidden by law from discussing the program in public, or even with other members of the Intelligence Committee. So much for checks and balances.

Probably the most disappointing part of the evening, however, was toward the end when someone in the audience shouted out "What do we do?" Rose mentioned two things, first she said to join the ACLU, or at least their mailing list. This was met with grumbles from the audience since I would imagine that three-quarters of them were only at the meeting because they heard about it on the ACLU's list in the first place. She then told us to make sure our Congressmen know our feelings about the issue, and that we support them. That was a little bewildering given that, at least for most of us, our Congressman was standing right there on the stage and could see exactly how we felt about it.

Congressman Markey did then take the opportunity to say that the best thing that we could do was to help Democrats take control of the House and Senate in 2006 -- if only to be able to hold hearings and have subpoena power over the administration. To accomplish this we should talk to our friends in other states and other districts. This went well with something that Rotenberg had said earlier: "You should not assume that people who didn't vote for the same person as you don't share the same concerns." I think that what people need to understand is that tinkering with Constitutional powers is forever. Even if you trust the current President to only bypass the Judicial and Executive when he has a really good reason, does that mean you want all future Presidents to have that power? Even Hillary?

Ed Markey on Social Security

Via the folks at Blue Mass Group:

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.: "The Bush administration's so-called 'Social Security crisis' is a worthy successor to the so-called 'Iraq nuclear weapons crisis.' WMD used to stand for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Under President Bush's Social Security privatization plan, WMD now stands for "Watch your Money Disappear."

In January, Markey was also on a panel in Revere where he gave a little history lesson on the GOP's stormy relationship with Social Security:

Such a successful program for the many has, nevertheless, generated an assault from some in the Republican party, led by George W. Bush, the President of the United States. The President has concluded that it is time to phase out (he would say "save") Social Security, the most universal, most popular and most enduring government program ever. The President is returning to an old Republican theme, that Social Security is a form of socialism. Henry Ford said it threatened freedom. Alf Landon called it a "cruel hoax." Barry Goldwater sought its repeal. Milton Friedman said it undermined personal liberty. Ronald Reagan’s budget director David Stockman called it a "monster," and now President Bush calls it "bankrupt" and inconsistent with his vision of an "ownership society." One of the gurus of the "ownership society," Stephen Moore, recently put it this way: "Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state...If you can jab a spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state."

Read his full remarks here. (PDF)