5 ms·

The issue is not if the fund is needed or not, it is that congress never specified how much the Universal Service Fund tax would be. The FCC keeps raising the t

by paul_f 1y ago

The issue is not if the fund is needed or not, it is that congress never specified how much the Universal Service Fund tax would be. The FCC keeps raising the tax rate. 10% of your mobile phone bill now goes to this fund that seems was decided by bureaucrats at the FCC and not by Congress. If the court strikes it down, then Congress will have to step in, which seems appropriate.

resoluteteeth 1y ago
If Congress chose not to specify it and therefore delegate the decision, shouldn't it be up to them to pass a new law to specify it if needed if they think the executive branch has raised it too much? Why is this a situation where the supreme court should step in?
- drivingmenuts 1y ago
  It's probably not, but the current administration doesn't want to pay any of the bills for the people producing their food. A penny spent on the less fortunate is one that doesn't go into their pockets.
  - downrightmike 1y ago
    You can't eat pennies
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      these pennies do power the inernet and phones of your libraries though. And compared to the overall budget, calling these costs pennies is a magnitude too large.
      - downrightmike 1y ago
        I was making a point that they are only trying to steal and hoard money, which when they are the only ones with money, money will have no value and you can't eat them.
- readthenotes1 1y ago
  It could be that the power to lay taxes is granted solely to Congress in the Constitution. IANAL, so the clarity of Article 1 section 8 may be not what the words seem to say
  - mywittyname 1y ago
    And the FCC is empowered by Congress to act on their behalf. It's the same top-down approach used all over the business world and organizations like the military. The people at the top make high level decisions and empower those below them to handle the fine details. I don't go to the board of directors of my company to approve every decision I make. They outline strategic goals, hand those to the CEO, who gives plans to the heads of departments, who hand them down to me. It's so weird to see people latch onto this idea that Congress needs to handle the minutia of governing when we know that top-heavy, leaders-make-every-decision form of governing doesn't work. Imagine a drive thru operator needing board approval to substitute mayonnaise for ketchup on an order because the Article 1 Section 8 of the corporate charter says the board has sole responsibility over the menu, and mayonnaise on a burger is not on the current menu.
    - infogulch 1y ago
      'just delegate the minutiae of governing... like levying taxes' Maybe it's just me but taxes don't seem like a minutiae item.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        Neither is overturning one as unconstitutional that Congress explicitly created and the President signed into law, especially on the sole basis of "well we're not certain Congress still wants it, even though they could get rid of it easily if they cared".
        uqual 1y ago
        I believe the argument is that Congress is not constitutionally allowed to delegate determination of the amount of that tax because the first words in the US Constitution are "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" and specifying the amount of that tax is clearly "legislation"? The executive branch is granted little or no legislative power. From a practical standpoint at least some voters know who their US Senators and US Representative are and a few of those will actually look up how they voted on a tax hike or cut and include that information into their decision making process on who to vote for every two to six years. Very few voters know who the unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies are, those bureaucrats change without the direct consent of voters, and they never stand for election. The linked article says "Liberal and conservative justices alike said they were concerned about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund that has benefited tens of millions of Americans". It's fine that the court is "concerned" about this, however it is not something the court should consider in the slightest in their decision this case - those are the effects of policy decisions which should be left to elected legislators in a properly functioning democracy. If the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, Congress is free to go do their job and pass legislation that specifies the amount of the tax just as they do with Federal income tax (showing they have the _ability_ to do so).
- lolinder 1y ago
  The legal question is identified in the original reporting on the lower court's ruling: > Oldham said the USF funding method unconstitutionally delegates congressional taxing authority to the FCC and a private entity tapped by the agency, the Universal Service Administrative Company, to determine how much to charge telecommunications companies. Oldham wrote that “the combination of Congress’s broad delegation to FCC and FCC’s subdelegation to private entities certainly amounts to a constitutional violation.” This certainly seems to me like an important question for the Court to weigh in on. The power to tax is clearly Congress's, but it's not clear that we should want Congress to have the power to delegate that power to anyone they choose. https://apnews.com/article/rural-access-broadband-universal-service-fund-6b4027a3a01a6c948405a8d3d85ea5e4 https://apnews.com/article/rural-access-broadband-universal-...
ceejayoz 1y ago
> The issue is not if the fund is needed or not, it is that congress never specified how much the Universal Service Fund tax would be. Congress could, if they didn't like the regulators' chosen amount, set a new fixed amount with a couple lines of legislation and a vote. Done in a day.
ninehunnert 1y ago
[dead]
lokar 1y ago
People always like to complain about unelected (as if any were elected?) bureaucrats. The president picks the head of the FCC. Any president could have adjusted the fee. This is all fully under the control of elected officials.
- lolinder 1y ago
  My complaint with presidential nominees having extensive power is that it moves too much policy to hinge on a single, nationwide election. As we've seen, that can lead to extreme instability versus congressional legislation.
  - lokar 1y ago
    True Also, the president only has as much power here as congress delegates. They could delegate less.

by paul_f 1y ago

resoluteteeth 1y ago

If Congress chose not to specify it and therefore delegate the decision, shouldn't it be up to them to pass a new law to specify it if needed if they think the executive branch has raised it too much? Why is this a situation where the supreme court should step in?

drivingmenuts 1y ago
It's probably not, but the current administration doesn't want to pay any of the bills for the people producing their food. A penny spent on the less fortunate is one that doesn't go into their pockets.
- downrightmike 1y ago
  You can't eat pennies
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    these pennies do power the inernet and phones of your libraries though. And compared to the overall budget, calling these costs pennies is a magnitude too large.
    - downrightmike 1y ago
      I was making a point that they are only trying to steal and hoard money, which when they are the only ones with money, money will have no value and you can't eat them.
readthenotes1 1y ago
It could be that the power to lay taxes is granted solely to Congress in the Constitution. IANAL, so the clarity of Article 1 section 8 may be not what the words seem to say
- mywittyname 1y ago
  And the FCC is empowered by Congress to act on their behalf. It's the same top-down approach used all over the business world and organizations like the military. The people at the top make high level decisions and empower those below them to handle the fine details. I don't go to the board of directors of my company to approve every decision I make. They outline strategic goals, hand those to the CEO, who gives plans to the heads of departments, who hand them down to me. It's so weird to see people latch onto this idea that Congress needs to handle the minutia of governing when we know that top-heavy, leaders-make-every-decision form of governing doesn't work. Imagine a drive thru operator needing board approval to substitute mayonnaise for ketchup on an order because the Article 1 Section 8 of the corporate charter says the board has sole responsibility over the menu, and mayonnaise on a burger is not on the current menu.
  - infogulch 1y ago
    'just delegate the minutiae of governing... like levying taxes' Maybe it's just me but taxes don't seem like a minutiae item.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Neither is overturning one as unconstitutional that Congress explicitly created and the President signed into law, especially on the sole basis of "well we're not certain Congress still wants it, even though they could get rid of it easily if they cared".
      - uqual 1y ago
        I believe the argument is that Congress is not constitutionally allowed to delegate determination of the amount of that tax because the first words in the US Constitution are "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" and specifying the amount of that tax is clearly "legislation"? The executive branch is granted little or no legislative power. From a practical standpoint at least some voters know who their US Senators and US Representative are and a few of those will actually look up how they voted on a tax hike or cut and include that information into their decision making process on who to vote for every two to six years. Very few voters know who the unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies are, those bureaucrats change without the direct consent of voters, and they never stand for election. The linked article says "Liberal and conservative justices alike said they were concerned about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund that has benefited tens of millions of Americans". It's fine that the court is "concerned" about this, however it is not something the court should consider in the slightest in their decision this case - those are the effects of policy decisions which should be left to elected legislators in a properly functioning democracy. If the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, Congress is free to go do their job and pass legislation that specifies the amount of the tax just as they do with Federal income tax (showing they have the _ability_ to do so).
lolinder 1y ago
The legal question is identified in the original reporting on the lower court's ruling: > Oldham said the USF funding method unconstitutionally delegates congressional taxing authority to the FCC and a private entity tapped by the agency, the Universal Service Administrative Company, to determine how much to charge telecommunications companies. Oldham wrote that “the combination of Congress’s broad delegation to FCC and FCC’s subdelegation to private entities certainly amounts to a constitutional violation.” This certainly seems to me like an important question for the Court to weigh in on. The power to tax is clearly Congress's, but it's not clear that we should want Congress to have the power to delegate that power to anyone they choose. https://apnews.com/article/rural-access-broadband-universal-service-fund-6b4027a3a01a6c948405a8d3d85ea5e4 https://apnews.com/article/rural-access-broadband-universal-...

ceejayoz 1y ago

> The issue is not if the fund is needed or not, it is that congress never specified how much the Universal Service Fund tax would be. Congress could, if they didn't like the regulators' chosen amount, set a new fixed amount with a couple lines of legislation and a vote. Done in a day.

ninehunnert 1y ago

[dead]

lokar 1y ago

People always like to complain about unelected (as if any were elected?) bureaucrats. The president picks the head of the FCC. Any president could have adjusted the fee. This is all fully under the control of elected officials.

lolinder 1y ago
My complaint with presidential nominees having extensive power is that it moves too much policy to hinge on a single, nationwide election. As we've seen, that can lead to extreme instability versus congressional legislation.
- lokar 1y ago
  True Also, the president only has as much power here as congress delegates. They could delegate less.