The Grover Norquist Show: Corporate Cronyism and the U.S. Sugar Program

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Edwin Portugal on Monday, November 30th, 2015, 11:30 AM PERMALINK

In episode 46 of the Grover Norquist Show, ATR president Grover Norquist and ATR Federal Affairs Manager Justin Sykes discuss the convoluted and corrupt U.S. Sugar Program.

Since 1934, the U.S. Sugar Program has enriched the sugar industry at the expense of American consumers, businesses, and taxpayers. Currently, this program benefits a small number of those in the sugar industry with the burden falling on Americans and the U.S. economy. The sugar program forces Americans to pay an artificially high price for domestic sugar that is twice that of the world price. The high price of sugar kills jobs in food production and raises food costs for everyday Americans. The U.S. sugar program is a relic of the past, and it is imperative to reform this costly program.

To hear more about the Sugar Program, click here or watch below.


Photo Credit: kinwart

More from Americans for Tax Reform

There are no related posts.

Top Comments

Cleveland to Repay Millions after “Jock Tax” Ruled Unconstitutional by Ohio Supreme Court

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bracey Parr on Monday, November 30th, 2015, 11:07 AM PERMALINK

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the Cleveland Board of Review last week, cementing the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling that the “jock tax” applied to visiting N.F.L. players violated their due process rights. As a result, the Cleveland city government may be on the hook for millions of dollars owed back to professional athletes, according to data from the Cleveland Collections Agency.

The two former NFL players, Jeff Saturday and Hunter Hillenmeyer, both won their cases against a levy the Tax Foundation calls “arbitrary,” “unrealistic,” and “poorly targeted,” in the Ohio Supreme Court earlier this year. The Court’s decision in the former case struck down the tax Cleveland levied on Saturday even though he did not accompany his team, the Indianapolis Colts, to their game there. Calling the regulation “ambiguous at best,” the justices ordered the city to refund Saturday for the tax applied to his salary because he neither played in the scheduled game nor was present in Cleveland at the time.

In Hillenmeyer’s case, the justices took a more nuanced approach, finding the formula the city used to tax players unconstitutional, not the tax itself. Cleveland, grossly overstepping the bounds of its powers of taxation, argued that a 2% tax levied on the players entire salary, or 1/20th of their total salary, came from a calculation of the amount of games played in the preseason and regular season, 20, with one of those taking place in Cleveland. The court disagreed with this faulty logic, asserting that a NFL player’s total salary is derived from attendance at practices, off-season trainings, and a myriad of other duties.

This victory, though, is merely a drop in the bucket and may have far greater consequences nationally. Sports Illustrated writes, “Of the 26 states with professional sports teams, 22 have adopted a jock tax of some sort or another. Eight cities have instituted their own jock taxes.”

Government efforts to extract revenue from businesses and individuals, regardless of borders and the physical presence of payees often run awry of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections. The reality is that professional sports teams can bring numerous economic benefits associated with the jobs and small business growth in an area without needlessly targeting the athletes making above average incomes with discriminatory tax policies. Cities and states would do better getting their hands out of players’ pockets and put them to work reforming their outdated, abusive tax codes to become more competitive nationally.

Photo Credit: 
Flickr: Erik Drost

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

ATR Supports Change in Predicate Date for New Tobacco and Vapor Products

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Paul Blair on Tuesday, November 24th, 2015, 4:04 PM PERMALINK

Today, Americans for Tax Reform sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to change the predicate date at which new tobacco and tobacco-derived products like premium cigars and electronic cigarettes must undergo expensive and unnecessary regulatory hurdles imposed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Without Congressional action, the FDA will require all products that have hit the market since February of 2007 to undergo a Pre-Market Tobacco Applications (PMTA) process that could cost upwards of several million dollars per product simply to undergo review.

In 2009, the Tobacco Control Act (TCA) established a predicate date of February 15, 2007 at which all new tobacco and tobacco-derived products must establish “substantial equivalence” to products sold before then in order to avoid an expensive and lengthy pre-approval process by the FDA.

Because of the speed at which innovation has occurred with vapor products since that time, essentially all products currently being sold to consumers fall into this regulatory trap. The process of obtaining FDA approval to continue to be sold isn’t only expensive; it may not actually be possible given the lack of clarity and available data being demanded of each business for each product.

Congress must act to permit innovation to continue for these smoking cessation products that stand to save millions of lives and billions of tax dollars resulting from harm reduction associated with smokers making the transition to tobacco-free alternatives like e-cigarettes.

Below is a full text of the letter:

Dear Member of Congress,

I write today in support of efforts to save the thousands of small businesses in the United States who are selling tobacco-free technology products to adult consumers trying to kick their smoking habit. Though reliant on the sale of tobacco products for billions of tax dollars annually, Congress should help facilitate all efforts by the free market to accomplish what stiff regulations and taxes never could, getting smokers to quit for good.

Unfortunately, without Congressional action, an overreaching Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will proceed with an arbitrary bureaucratic hurdle for the sale of vapor products more akin to prohibition than reasonable regulation. Unable to regulate tobacco products until 2009, the Tobacco Control Act (TCA) established a predicate date of February 15, 2007 at which all new tobacco or tobacco-derived products must establish “substantial equivalence” to products sold before then in order to avoid an expensive and lengthy pre-approval process by the FDA.

Without Congressional action, the FDA pre-approval process will cost upwards of several million dollars per product, a cost affordable to none other than the large tobacco companies, for products already being sold to consumers. Since 2007, significant innovation in the electronic cigarette and vapor product category has occurred, meaning nearly 99% of the life-saving vapor products on the market will cease to exist.

This burdensome regulatory hurdle also stands to harm producers and retailers of cigars, pipe tobacco and dissolvable tobacco.

Amending the predicate date established in the Tobacco Control Act for new products will do nothing to impede upon the FDA’s general efforts to regulate this product category. In fact, grandfathering in all of the products currently being sold to consumers, will save the agency at least two year’s worth of paperwork and allow them to focus on encouraging good manufacturing practices, among other things.

A predicate date change to the date of FDA deeming regulation enactment will simply allow innovation to continue, without decimating an entire market of smoking cessation products and the consumers who use them.

In testimony to the Senate Commerce Committee last June, Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids explained, “Responsibly marketed and properly regulated, e-cigarettes could benefit public health if they help significantly reduce the number of people who smoke conventional cigarettes and become sick and die as a result.” He explained further that if properly regulated, “I don’t think there is any doubt that there would be a reduction in harm,” from smokers who switched to e-cigarettes. He is absolutely right on this point.

A recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) survey suggests that there are more than 9 million adult consumers of vapor products in the United States. This represents the greatest accomplishment in public health in decades and is due entirely to the free market. This rise corresponds with a significant decline in smoking rates among Americans and is no coincidence.

That is why I support a change in the 2007 predicate date, which would permit products currently being used by consumers to quit smoking to continue to be sold. This very reasonable step has been put in legislative language authored by Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okl.) in the form of H.R. 2058 and exists in similar form in an amendment made to the House Appropriations Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies agriculture appropriations bill earlier this year.

Unlike smokers, adult vapor product consumers are becoming single-issue voters who correctly attribute their switch from combustible tobacco products to smoke free alternatives like e-cigarettes to saving their lives. To crush this new and emerging industry would reverse decades of efforts to get people to quit smoking.

I urge Congress to amend the Tobacco Control Act predicate date for the tobacco-derived products in the electronic cigarette and vapor product category in an effort to protect public health and protect American jobs. Such a change in the predicate date would not interfere with the short-term goals of responsibly regulating the products; it would simply help avoid the looming economic and public health disaster associated with status quo prohibition.


Grover G. Norquist

Photo Credit:

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


A year ago there were 15 smokers where I work. Today there are 10 smokers and 5 vapers, including me. Besides feeling better we save a LOT of money. I spent $3,000 a year to smoke a carton a week. Today I mix e liquid at home. The cost for a year supply is $50. I call my flavor Tax Reform.


I do not Vap but thankfully my wife does. It helped her to quit smoking and long may it we need to get a petition going? 9 Million vapers is a large number.


The important story with vaping is the money. US smokers spend $100 billion a year on tobacco. If they all switched to vaping, mixed eliquid at home, rebuilt their atomizers and bought only the hardware they needed that $100 billion would shrink to $4 billion. The financial benefit to low income families of smokers would be significant, especially for the kids. Governments should not be allowed to interfere with this.

IRS Tries Backdoor Way to Undercut Nonprofits

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Edwin Portugal on Tuesday, November 24th, 2015, 4:00 PM PERMALINK

The IRS recently proposed a rule to weaken the effectiveness of non-profits. Under this proposal, the IRS would give 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, which includes charities, religious groups, and educational foundations, the option to collect the social security numbers of donors giving more than $250 so that they can be sent to the IRS. While optional at the moment, it is obvious that the rule is simply a way for the IRS to transition to mandatory collection of social security numbers. This rule should frighten all Americans because it opens up a whole pandora’s box of security concerns. Additionally, the IRS can use this to further their political agenda, targeting not only conservative non-profits but also individual supporters of these groups.

Non-profit organizations will be more susceptible to hacking attempts to steal their donors’ identities. To combat this hacking risk, non-profits will be forced to expand their cybersecurity, diverting funds away from their core mission. Additionally, heightened privacy risk will scare away concerned donors. Given the pernicious effects this rule would have on non-profit groups, it is no wonder organizations from both sides of the aisle oppose this rule. Notably, the National Council of Nonprofits, which represents more than 25,000 groups throughout the country, has voiced strong opposition against this rule. The group writes that non-profits should “never be asking a donor for her or his Social Security number when soliciting donations”.

The security risk on non-profits is compounded by the IRS’ failures to protect taxpayer information. Just this past year, the IRS compromised the personal information of a whopping 330,000 taxpayers; in spite of being warned at least seven times that it had faulty security.

In addition to the security risk, this rule should frighten for its political implications. Under this new rule, the IRS could target individual taxpayers for their political views, jeopardizing their First Amendment rights. The IRS has already engaged in politically motivated targeting of various conservative groups, causing a massive scandal and subsequent investigation into the IRS. In spite of this, all IRS officials involved in the scandal walked away scot-free.

The IRS’ new rule will jeopardize Americans’ security, harm non-profits, and suppress free speech. Given the horrible track record of IRS mismanagement, it is incredibly foolish to give them access to more taxpayer information. Time and time again, the IRS has proven itself and ineffective and harmful agency. Luckily, the IRS’ new rule is still a proposal and can be defeated before it takes effect, allowing the IRS to harm further the American people.


Photo Credit: David Boeke

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Collectivists hate competition.



Congress Must Not Bail Out Obamacare Insurers

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Tuesday, November 24th, 2015, 3:00 PM PERMALINK

ATR today joined with other free market individuals and organizations in a coalition letter urging Congress to maintain appropriations language restricting the use of Obamacare's Risk Corridor program. Signers of the letter include leadership from Heritage Action, Club for Growth, American Commitment, Independent Women’s Voice, Americans for Prosperity, Tea Party Patriots, and Freedom Works.

Recently, the Obama administration announced that the Risk Corridor program had enough money to pay insurers just 12.6% of what they requested. Even though the program did not make enough money, the administration has said it would pay the entire amount requested and bail out insurance companies on the backs of hardworking taxpayers.

If Congress is complicit in this bailout, they will leave taxpayers on the hook for over $2.5 billion and the Obama administration will continue its attempt to conceal the negative impacts the law has had on American families.

As the letter points out, Obamacare uses tools like the Risk Corridor program to hide and shift the true costs of the law and to mislead the American public about its negative impacts:

"Among other things, Obamacare is about hiding costs and shifting costs, not about lowering them. The Risk Corridor program represents a microcosm of the law, and one of its most insidious provisions, as it attempts to hide the true costs of Obamacare from insurance companies and beneficiaries, and instead spread it out among hardworking taxpayers. Eliminating the Risk Corridor program's ability to do this represents a major blow to the law and a step towards increased transparency in Obamacare's exchanges."

Failure to stop a taxpayer funded bailout of Obamacare insurance providers will ensure that the law's failures will continue to be concealed through short-sighted band aid solutions and will waste billions in taxpayer funds.

The full letter can be found here.

The list of signatories can be found below:

  • Michael A. Needham, CEO, Heritage Action for America
  • Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform
  • Phil Kerpen, President, American Commitment
  • Heather Higgins, President and CEO, Independent Women’s Voice
  • Sabrina Schaeffer, Executive Director, Independent Women’s Forum
  • David McIntosh, President, Club for Growth
  • Brent Gardner, Vice President of Government Affairs, Americans for Prosperity
  • Adam Brandon, President and CEO, FreedomWorks
  • Jenny Beth Martin, Co-Founder, Tea Party Patriots
  • Ken Hoagland, Chairman, Defend America Foundation
  • Thomas Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
  • Dean Clancy, Partner, Adams Auld LLC
  • Eli Lehrer, President, R Street Institute
  • Gregory T. Angelo, President, Log Cabin Republicans
  • Eric Novack, Chairman, US Health Freedom Coalition
  • Dan Perrin, President, The HSA Coalition
  • Norm Singleton, President, Campaign for Liberty
  • John R. Graham, Senior Fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis
  • Greg Scandlen, Principal, Health Benefits Group
  • Twila Brase, President, Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom
  • Andrew Langer, President Institute for Liberty
  • Chris Conover, PhD, Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
  • Beverly Gossage, President, HSA Benefits Consulting
  • Donna Hamilton, Virginians for Quality Healthcare
  • Marc Short, President, Freedom Partners
  • Gov. Gary Johnson, Honorary Chair, Our America Initiative
  • Jeffrey A. Singer, MD, FACS
  • Naomi Lopez-Bauman
Photo Credit: 
Jeff Djevdet,

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Leave Craft Beer Alone

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Dennis Cakert on Tuesday, November 24th, 2015, 11:43 AM PERMALINK

According to the Obama administration, brewers and consumers are incapable of making healthy life choices when they are left alone. Impending Obamacare regulations will require all craft beer brewers to supply detailed calorie information for every beer they brew starting in December of 2016. Fear not, consumers, magnanimous Uncle Sam wants to order your beer for you.

The Obamacare law requires all brewers to provide information on the calories, calories from fat, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrates, dietary fiber, sugars and protein in their products. The legislation also encourages restaurants and bars to group together beer on menus based on their calorie levels.

The burden of reporting these statistics hits small breweries disproportionately hard, as larger breweries can diffuse the added costs over a larger sales base. Adding insult to injury, small craft breweries do not focus on producing light beer and, as a result, will be grouped together in a special section of the menu.

The Obamacare regulations are hitting the craft beer industry at the wrong time. The beer industry has decentralized in recent years and is trending towards small, local craft breweries: 90 percent of all breweries fall below the “small brewery” benchmark of 7,143 barrels per year. From 2013 to 2014, the Brewers Association reports a 13.4 percent increase in regional craft breweries, a 27.8 percent increase in microbreweries, and a 10.3 percent increase in brewpubs. Altogether, the beer industry is now a $252.6 billion industry and pays out $79 billion in wages to 1.75 million Americans. At just over $45,000, the average beer industry employee earns more than double the salary of the typical food service employee. “The resurgence of American brewing is far from over,”says Brewers Association Chief Economist, Bart Watson.

The tremendous growth in the craft beer industry comes despite the fact that the most expensive ingredient is government intervention. Federal, state and local taxes combine for over 40 percent of the cost of beer. Not only is Uncle Sam joining you at the bar, but you get to pick up his tab too.

North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wyoming state legislatures have started to deregulate the thriving the craft beer industry. There are also a number of bills gathering signatures in the House that would significantly lower the federal tax burden on small craft brewers, most notably the Cost Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act of 2015, which would cut the craft beer tax in half.

Politicians realize the best thing they can do for the beer industry is to leave it alone. The only party interested in adding regulation to the craft beer industry is the Obamacare bureaucracy. 


Photo Credit:

Top Comments

Jeffrey Cahoon

There are TWO types of beer, those with more of calories, and those with less calories. That's pretty much all I need to know! I don't need to read a bunch of crap on the bottle or can!! (I know there is good beer and better beer, my favorite is Miller Genuine draft in a bottle)! THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD KEEP THEIR NOSE OUT OF OUR BUSINESS!


Government meddling already representative 40% of the cost of beer.
Obamacare regulations will raise that to even higher levels, particularly for small batch producers. That's the last straw.

Barry Clark

The article includes a talking point from the beer lobby, “The tremendous growth in the craft beer industry comes despite the fact that the most expensive ingredient is government intervention. Federal, state and local taxes combine for over 40 percent of the cost of beer.”

Here is a more detailed quote from the Beer Institute’s website: “On average, more than 40 percent of what American beer drinkers pay for a beer goes toward federal, state and local taxes—from excise to consumption to sales taxes, as well as the normal business taxes. That makes taxes the most expensive ingredient in beer today.”

Normal business taxes includes items such as income, payroll, and property taxes. They are also payed by non-booze businesses. Similarly, many items besides booze are subject to state & local sales taxes.

The article focuses on small breweries. For small breweries, the federal excise tax was reduced in 1977 to $7/barrel for the first 60,000/year. The article indicates that more than 90% of the breweries in the US produce less than that amount. It works out to 22.6¢/gallon. In contrast, the large breweries pay 58¢/gallon. Many states also have an excise tax. They vary, but appear to weight average less than the federal excise tax on small breweries.

Most of the 40% figure represents taxes that have a wide base. The “beer tax” is a small portion of the 40% figure. The federal excise tax is a factor in “the tremendous growth in the craft beer industry” because the large breweries pay a higher rate.

Hillary Doesn’t Understand High U.S. Taxes Cause Corporate Inversions

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Tuesday, November 24th, 2015, 11:20 AM PERMALINK

In response to the announcement that pharmaceutical firms Pfizer and Allergan would merge, Hillary Clinton released a statement that completely missed the real issue behind these inversions – they are a symptom of the greedy, complex, and inefficient U.S. tax code.

“Inversion is a symptom, not a disease,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The disease is the United States’ punitive corporate rate and worldwide taxation system. The bottom line is that the driving force behind this merger is the greedy and counterproductive U.S. tax code. If the Obama administration is serious about stopping inversions, as they claim, they should support tax reform that lowers our outdated 35 percent federal corporate income tax rate and ends the double taxation of income earned abroad,” he said.

In her statement, Clinton derided the agreement as a corporate loophole, criticized businesses that use this mechanism, and vowed to soon outline a set of proposals to stop these actions.

If her campaign is serious about stopping corporate inversions, the reforms needed are simple: reduce the federal corporate income tax rate to a level more comparable to the rest of the world, and change the U.S. tax code from the current worldwide system to a standard territorial system.

America is among a handful of countries that has a worldwide tax system, which means that if you are an American business, the IRS tries to tax everything you earn regardless of where you earn it. 

Compared to many developed competitors, the U.S. is at a clear disadvantage. The U.K. has a rate of 20 percent, Germany and Canada have rates of 15 percent, and Ireland has a rate of just 12.5 percent. And of those countries, only Ireland tries to double tax income – but its rate is less than one-third the U.S. rate.

It seems likely that her soon to be released proposal will ignore the underlying problem and punish businesses with crushing new regulations and taxes.

Back in June, Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon promised the campaign would rollout several “revenue enhancements.” So far, the campaign has not disappointed. Clinton has proposed the most complicated and byzantine capital gains tax in history, a new $350 billion Alternative Minimum Tax, and a new tax that would harm IRAs. She is also on record supporting a new 25 percent national sales tax on guns.

Inversions are a symptom of a failed tax system. The solution is clear – reduce the business tax rate to a globally competitive rate and end the destructive double taxation of business earnings.

Photo Credit: 
Karen Murphy,

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Elaine Chao: Government Policies Must Not Stifle Sharing Economy

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mireille Olivo on Monday, November 23rd, 2015, 11:38 PM PERMALINK

The American Action Forum hosted an event last week titled, “Consumer Connection: How Social Media is Linking Consumers with Independent Sellers & Emerging Entrepreneurs.” The keynote, given by former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, discussed “the emerging new world of social commerce” through sharing economy companies such as Uber, Lyft, AirBnB, Snapgoods, and more.

Secretary Chao said:

“Some view the gig and sharing economies as unprecedented. But, in fact, the shift to more flexible, customized working arrangements is not new. It has been evolving for a long time.”

Though the concept of the sharing economy is not new, Secretary Chao pointed out how major labor laws were created during the depression era:

“At the time, they addressed important social issues such as child labor, industrial accidents, and the need to strengthen union democracy. But the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which created the 40 hour workweek among other key reforms, is 77 years old. The Landrum Griffin Act mandating union financial transparency is 56 years old. The Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 is 45 years old. And the pension protection law commonly known as ERISA is 41 years old. Updating the regulations supporting these laws is difficult, expensive, time consuming and requires a lot of political capital.” 

Secretary Chao believes we have a perfect opportunity to capitalize on the sharing economy, not only for consumers but also for workers:

“I believe there is room in our economy for a variety of approaches. We need to preserve the protections of the past for those who need them, while crafting new solutions that better fit the preferences of workers in the sharing economy. The digitally-enabled, peer- to- peer economy has provided an important safety net for many families during difficult times. At a minimum, government policies must not stifle the innovation that has made this sector such an explosive driver of job growth and opportunity.”

AAF Director of Technology and Innovation Policy Will Rinehart recently published a paper explaining the consumer benefits of the sharing economy and the harm of excessive regulation in this sphere. The paper is titled The Modern Online Gig Economy, Consumer Benefit, and the Importance of Regulatory Humility and is available here.

Photo by Ben Zweig of DC Event Photo --

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

ATR Supports Legislation to Create Universal Savings Account

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Monday, November 23rd, 2015, 4:13 PM PERMALINK

Earlier this month. S. 2320, the “Universal Savings Account Act (USA Account) was introduced by Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). This legislation creates a new tax-advantaged savings account that can be used for expenditures of any kind. Not only will this encourage households to save more of their hard-earned income, it will help curb the existing bias in the tax code toward double taxation of income. ATR supports this important, pro-taxpayer legislation and urges all Senators to co-sponsor and support this bill.

Currently, there are about 15 tax-advantaged savings accounts that taxpayers can use to save for retirement, healthcare, and education. When used correctly, these saving accounts drastically reduce the tax burden on individuals and families.

There is just one problem – the current system is so complex that it causes most Americans to under-save.  Taxpayers have too many options, which encourages them to make the wrong choice – do nothing and instead consume what could have been saved.

USA Accounts will help solve this problem by introducing a new tax advantaged savings account that does not have the same restrictions of existing accounts. Anyone over the age of 18 can open this new account and contribute up to $5,500 in after tax earnings each year. They are then free to withdraw these funds for any reason, at any time, tax-free.

Similar accounts already exist in Canada and the United Kingdom, and are extremely popular for good reason – they are easy to set up and maintain and they empower individuals to make their own choices without arbitrary and at times confusing limitations.

While the existing network of tax preferred savings accounts help Americans meet education, healthcare, and retirement expenses, the reality is they can be too complex and confusing for many families. By introducing a simple, streamlined saving account available for any expenditure, Americans will save more, be taxed less, and be able to better manage their finances. ATR supports this commonsense legislation and urges all Senators to support USA Accounts. 

Photo Credit: 
401(K) 2012,

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Congressman Leonard Lance Highlights ATR Support for CRS Transparency

Posted by Mireille Olivo on Thursday, November 19th, 2015, 5:08 PM PERMALINK

This week, ATR President Grover Norquist sent a letter to members urging support for H.R. 34, legislation introduced by Congressman Leonard Lance’s (R-N.J). The bill would create a publicly accessibly database for Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports.

Today, Congressman Lance highlighted ATR’s support for his legislation in a speech on the floor. His full remarks are below:


Mr. Speaker,

This week Americans for Tax Reform joined the chorus of advocacy and good government groups calling for Congressional Research Service reports to be available to the public. In its letter of support, Americans for Tax Reform said that opening CRS reports to the public is a common sense proposal that will increase transparency giving taxpayers greater access to important information and enrich public knowledge.

The taxpayer advocacy group pointed out that the rules casting CRS reports into secrecy are outdated and unnecessary and these reports belong in the public domain. U.S. taxpayers support the work of the Congressional Research Service to the tune of more than $100 million a year. It is fiscally responsible and good public policy to allow educators, students, members of the news media, and everyday citizens access to these taxpayer financed reports.

I urge my colleagues to join Congressman Mike Quigley and me in our bipartisan support of HR 34 which will open CRS information to the public. These reports are paid for by taxpayer funds. Taxpayers should get to see them.



More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments