Finally, there are two articles which are a little long, but they are important. I know Senators and staff members will bring their attention to this subject, and we know we will be debating it for the next several days, and that truly we will be considering it for the next couple of years as the Commerce Committee wades through all of the issues surrounding digital migration and, hopefully, come to a comprehensive approach toward how we approach taxation and regulation--I hope minimal taxation and regulation, but appropriate taxation and regulation of high-speed Internet access, and how we divide that among the various governments. These are the best two articles I have found that help explain the history behind the Internet access tax moratorium bill and the issue before us. The first is by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, dated March 15, 2004, entitled `` The Alexander-Carper Internet Access Tax Moratorium Bill, S. 2084: a True Compromise That Substantially Broadens the Original Moratorium.'' I point out that the leader asked us who are opposed to this to compromise, and we have. The Alexander-Carper legislation is broader than the original moratorium, and it levels the playing field so all providers of high-speed Internet access are treated the same--at least so far as the Congress is concerned--on the last mile between the user of high-speed Internet access and the provider.
Douglas Alexander: “Finally, there are two articles which are a little long, but they are important. I know Senators and staff members will…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Internet access tax moratorium bill and its implications for taxation and regulation.
Share
More from Douglas Alexander
Just to make sure it is clear, sometimes we confuse tax deduction and tax credit. This is a $15,000 tax credit. That means cash money, real money, that you can, instead of paying it to the IRS, put in your pocket.
Be assured, I wish our friends, our neighbours, and our sometimes-rivals well this evening at 8 o'clock.
I don’t think it's simply that he's shown himself to be a winner, particularly in Makerfield, against Reform and the very dark and dangerous future that I think Reform will (be) for the country.
I voted today the same way I did in October because both the current President and the incoming President have said this is an essential insurance policy against financial catastrophe. This is not spending; this is lending money with…





