What Policies Does IEEE-USA Advocate?

by George F. McClure

Position statements form the basis for IEEE-USA’s legislative agenda and represent the authority for the policies advocated on behalf of IEEE’s U.S. members. Volunteer committees (www.ieeeusa.org/COMMITTEES/) charged with developing technology policy, career and professional policy, and member activities, craft IEEE-USA’s positions.

How a Position Becomes a Position

Committees give proposed position statements careful consideration as they prepare them. Members typically review several drafts before approving one and forwarding it to the appropriate IEEE-USA vice president. In turn, the vice president forwards approved positions to IEEE-USA’s Operations Committee (OpCom) for consideration. OpCom reviews them and then submits them to the IEEE-USA Board of Directors for approval. At any time during this process, the Board may ask the committee to rework or modify the proposed position.

Once approved, IEEE-USA positions stay in effect for five years. The sponsoring committee then reviews them against the current state of legislation to determine whether they need to be renewed, or incorporated as a new position for another five years. More than 60 positions covering 10 topic categories are currently in effect (www.ieeeusa.org/forum/POSITIONS/index.html).

Are All "Positions" Positions?

Board Approves New Positions The IEEE-USA Board approved seven new positions in November: U.S. Aviation and Aerospace Industries Require R&D Support Nanotechnology Research & Development Improving Spectrum Usage Through Cognitive Radio Technology Spam Control Universal Access Career Equality in Engineering The L-1 Visa For Intracompany Transfers

Members sometimes get confused about what is and what is not an approved IEEE-USA position. Some years ago, for example, IEEE-USA had a position on the civil uses of space. This position called for an order-of-magnitude reduction in the cost of boosting payloads into space, beyond the Shuttle Transportation System’s operating costs at the time. In 1998, NASA Adminstrator Dan Goldin testified that he envisioned dropping from $10,000 per pound put in low orbit, to $1,000 in 10 years, and to hundreds of dollars in 20 years (www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/0923gol.pdf). Had that actually happened, entrepreneurs would likely have started offering space vacations. But it did not happen, and IEEE-USA’s position statement expired. Nevertheless, Dennis Tito, an engineer turned financier, paid $20 million for a trip to the Russian Soyuz space orbiter in April 2001.

Then, articles in the October 2003 issue of IEEE Spectrum included an unsigned “Spectral Lines” editorial (“Mars or Bust”), advocating U.S. government expenditures for interplanetary exploration (page 9); a feature article on “How to Fix the NASA Disaster” (pp 10-12); and a feature article with sidebars on “Saving the [space] Station” (pp. 20-27). Noting that sunk costs so far are $113 billion for the International Space Station, the latter article concludes with the observation that “building the station as a way point on the road to the planets will ensure that they [the seven astronauts who died in the skies above Texas] did not [die in vain].”

The editorial advocates a tripling of the NASA budget, from 0.5 percent to 1.5 percent of the federal budget — the biggest boost in three decades — to finance the Mars exploration mission. Some members expressed concern that this Spectrum editorial could be interpreted as policy advocacy by IEEE-USA. It was not.

Should Positions be Dedicated Exclusively to Tech Policy?

A number of positions will expire this year:

• Elimination of Social Security Earnings Limits
• Marriage Tax Penalty Relief
• Tax Incentives for Continuing Education and Training
• Creating an Economic Environment for Technological Competitiveness

Clearly not technology-related, some members question whether positions such as these should even be reconsidered. While some members believe IEEE-USA positions should deal exclusively with technology policy issues, past successes have come from positions in career and retirement security areas. Perhaps the first, IEEE-USA’s position on Service Contracts and Engineering Compensation, helped stamp out the practice of successor government contractors cutting salaries and benefits of the employees they absorbed from the former contractor, to make up for the lower winning bid that put them in the job in the first place.

In addition, IEEE-USA’s Pension Coverage and Portability Improvement Recommendations supported improvements to the Portman-Cardin Pension Preservation and Savings Expansion Act, which ultimately expanded allowed contributions to IRAs and defined contribution retirement plans.

The tone of dialogue changed, however, in discussions related to the “Marriage Penalty Tax Relief” and “Elimination of Social Security Earnings Limits” position statements that are due to expire. In effect, these positions elicited the most concern about whether IEEE-USA should advocate non-technical positions, even when U.S. IEEE members are affected by the issues.

For instance, eliminating the marriage penalty means that two wage earners with salaries of $60,000 each would pay the same tax, whether single or married, with a combined income of $120,000. Recent changes in the tax law have tilted in that direction — even for married couples filing separately — by making the standard deduction for separate filers exactly half that for joint filers.

As for social security limits, the issue addressed in the 1998 Social Security position statement surrounded the fact that social security benefit payments were reduced when outside earnings exceeded certain thresholds: a low threshold between ages 62 and 64 (losing $1 in benefit for each $2 earned above $9,120 per year) and a higher threshold between ages 65 and 69 ($1 in benefit lost for every $3 earned above $14,500). Those 70 and over were not limited. These limits affected more than 15 percent of the IEEE's U.S. members. On the other hand, 62-year-old retirees whose income consists only of rents, royalties, interest, dividends and/or capital gains do not lose any Social Security benefits, because they have no “earned” income.

After 2000, the earnings limit for ages 65 to 69 was eliminated. However, the limit for ages 62 to 64 is still in place, although the threshold is being increased.

A related issue that has not been addressed concerns taxation  equitability for social security benefits. For those above minimum income — those whose benefits are not taxed — the taxable portion had long been set at 50 percent, because only the employee’s contribution to the benefit was taxed (through the FICA payroll tax), not the employer’s contribution. But during the Clinton administration, the taxable portion was raised to 85 percent, for no good reason other than that more money was needed for tax revenues.

IEEE-USA will soon be reviewing positions on both Tax Incentives for Continuing Education and Training and Creating an Economic Environment for Technological Competitiveness for renewal. The education and training position would cover reviving a position on Section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code, which should exempt education reimbursement by employers from taxation, as well as elements of an earlier (now expired) position on Education Savings Accounts that worked like IRAs, with funds put into the account tax-deferred and, if actually spent on education, never taxed.

How Can Members Get Involved in the Process?

IEEE-USA calls on U.S. IEEE members with subject matter expertise to serve on committees. Many committees have representatives appointed by IEEE technical societies and other organizational units. In some cases, draft IEEE-USA positions are referred to other IEEE organizational units, such as the Educational Activities Board or the Power Engineering Society for comment or joint approval.

Member feedback, received either directly or through the IEEE-USA PACE network, also helps determine what topics will be addressed and what positions will be taken. IEEE-USA is also using new mechanisms, such as its Employment and Careers virtual community, to involve U.S. IEEE members more directly in the process.

To get involved, check out IEEE-USA's Public Policy Priority Issues page (www.ieeeusa.org/forum/issues/index.html) and then visit the committee pages related to issues your are interested in. Contact the appropriate committee chair or staff contact to discuss your possible role in developing and promoting IEEE-USA's policy positions.

 

---

George F. McClure is IEEE-USA’s technology policy editor and chair of IEEE-USA’s Career and Workforce Policy Committee.