Norquist Praises Trump Executive Orders Rescinding Obama-era Energy Regulations

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Tuesday, March 28th, 2017, 12:14 PM PERMALINK

ATR President Grover Norquist issued the following statement in support of President Donald Trump’s release of his executive order on energy independence that will halt a number of costly Obama-era regulations such as the former President’s signature Clean Power Plan:

“President Trump’s release this week of his executive order on energy independence is a positive step towards rolling back a number of Obama-era regulations which would have had drastic economic impacts on the U.S. with little to no environmental benefits. 

“The President’s executive order will halt past regulations such as President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, but will also look to create a framework to encourage U.S. energy production and independence moving forward.

“Under President Obama Americans witnessed a massive increase in the regulatory state and executive overreach that deterred innovation while driving up the cost of energy in the U.S. for taxpayers and businesses while providing no real environmental impacts.

“For instance the President’s executive order will begin rolling back the Clean Power Plan, which would have increased electricity rates by double-digits in 44 states while killing thousands of jobs and decreasing U.S. competitiveness. 

“Trump’s order will also require reviews of other costly and duplicative Obama energy policies such as the Bureau of Land Management’s rules on methane emissions and the Interior Department’s moratorium on new coal leasing on federal land.

“I applaud President Trump’s for his leadership rolling back anti-energy Obama policies and his work to encourage U.S. energy production and independence.”

 

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Arkansas Should Not Lose Ground on Public Safety

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Sarah Caplin on Tuesday, March 28th, 2017, 11:40 AM PERMALINK

In a letter sent to the Arkansas Legislature, Americans for Tax Reform urged state lawmakers to oppose mandatory minimum sentencing in SB 177.  

Increasing sentences arbitrarily and limiting parole options can result in severe sentencing outcomes that neither fit the crime nor the individual's unique circumstances. This is why over 30 states have reassessed prison sentences and corrections spending in the last 15 years.

If passed, SB 177 would undo Arkansas’ progress in establishing a more effective criminal justice system. More taxpayer dollars would be spent on low level offenders instead of serious violent criminals. After passage, the prison population would increase by 5,500 mostly non-violent people at a cost of $692 million over ten years.

Read the letter here or below.

March 28, 2017

Dear Members of the Arkansas Senate,

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform and our supporters across Arkansas, I write today in strong opposition of SB 177. If passed, SB 177 would undo Arkansas’ progress in establishing a more effective criminal justice system. More taxpayer dollars would be spent on low level offenders instead of serious violent criminals.

Thanks to Act 423, enacted earlier this month, Arkansas took needed steps to stabilize its prison population and averted an increase in its prison population of 1,650 people by 2023. This will relieve pressure on the already at-capacity prisons from the added strain, and allow the state to avoid building more prisons. Act 423’s passage look to projected savings of over $288 million. Rolling back these reforms would be a mistake.

Increasing sentences arbitrarily and limiting parole options can result in severe sentencing outcomes that neither fit the crime nor the individual's unique circumstances. This is why over 30 states have reassessed prison sentences and corrections spending in the last 15 years.

An impact estimate done by Arkansas’ Sentencing commission found that enacting SB 177 would have costly consequences for the state’s budget. After passage, the prison population would increase by 5,500 mostly non-violent people at a cost of $692 million over ten years.

SB 177 would take sentencing discretion away from the judges who know the specifics of a case and can properly determine what an appropriate sentence is. This encourages excessive incarceration and risks breaking families apart unnecessarily. Children and spouses would be deprived of breadwinners, risking negative effects on their own lives.

Act 423 uses the money saved from reductions in prison spending on recidivism reduction initiatives such as mental health services and addiction treatment. Rather than warehousing low risk offenders, this approach can reduce crime rates at a faster rate without breaking the budget.

Given the undeniable costs and dubious benefits of mass, long-term incarceration of nonviolent offenders, the Arkansas Legislature should turn away from sentencing practices that have been shown not to work. The Natural State has already passed legislation to improve public safety through smarter crime policies, this bill represents a significant step in the wrong direction.

I encourage you to extend your opposition for this important legislation. For more information, please contact Jorge Marin in my office at jmarin@atr.org

  Regards,

  Grover G. Norquist                                               
  President                                                             
  Americans for Tax Reform                                                                                                                   

Photo Credit: 
Thomas Hawk

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Stop The FCC's False Privacy Rules


Posted by Katie McAuliffe on Tuesday, March 28th, 2017, 10:17 AM PERMALINK

Americans for Tax Reform supports using the Congressional Review Act authority to vacate the Federal Communications Commission's false privacy rules.

The rules are an excuse to expand agency power.  There is already a cop on the beat when it comes to privacy, the Federal Trade Commission.  There are already laws on the books governing the use of sensitive consumer data, including health and financial.  

By vacating the rules, we maintain the structure that has successfully protected consumer data while also encouraging innovation and a competitive ad based market for apps and other services.  This market gives consumers more choice often for free.

Read our letter to the House supporting the CRA.

 

Use the CRA to Remove
False Broadband Privacy Rules
 
Grover G. Norquist
President

       
March 27, 2017

RE:  Federal Communications Commission False Privacy Rules 

Dear Congressmen:

I write urging you to use your Congressional Review Act authority to withdraw the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband privacy rules and support the Federal Trade Commission framework for privacy protection.

We should always be wary of regulation for regulation’s sake. Duplicative rules at different agencies often create confusion and added costs without a significant benefit.

The Federal Trade Commission has been policing privacy for the last decade, and there has been no indication that another agency is needed.  The FCC is not needed here.

In a time when our goal is to pare down the cost of government and let taxpayers keep more of their hard earned paycheck, the FCC is no poster child for efficiency.  

FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly pointed out that the FCC, through information gathering requests alone, requires 73 million hours and $800 million just to fill out requests. The Competitive Enterprise Institute found that in FY 2015 the FCC spent around $464 million in regulatory development and enforcement, and it accounts for more than $100 billion annually in regulatory and economic impact.

Please find enclosed a coalition letter from 21 organizations detailing why the FTC rules are the correct approach and our opposition to the FCC rules.  This letter requested that Congress use its Congressional Review Act authority to rescind the broadband privacy rules. It also details why we do not believe the rules will do as they claim. 

Americans value their privacy.  That is why Americans for Tax Reform has been a vocal defender of privacy and the Fourth Amendment. However, the FCC rules use our highly valued privacy as a tool to empower agency regulatory expansion at the expense of consumers.

If you have any questions, please contact Katie McAuliffe by email, kmcauliffe@atr.org, or by phone, 202-785-0266.


Onward,

Grover G. Norquist
 


Enclosure

 
 
21 State & Federal Organizations Support the CRA
 
January 26, 2017

The Honorable Paul Ryan
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi 
Minority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
 

Dear Speaker Ryan & Minority Leader Pelosi:

We urge you to use the authority provided in the Congressional Review Act to rescind the Federal
Communications Commission’s Broadband Privacy Order.

Congress is fully justified in rescinding these rules both because the Order lacks proper legal grounding and because of the need to ensure real consumer privacy across contexts of user experience.

The FCC’s approach is inconsistent with that of the Federal Trade Commission for nearly two decades, and will likely render harm unto consumers.

The FTC focuses on what data are held, the level of data sensitivity, and how consumers are affected if the data are misused. This outcomes-based approach takes consumers’ preferences into account while preventing actions that harm consumers.

The FTC’s approach rests on well-established standards of Unfairness (preventing substantial consumer injury) and Deception (enforcing material promises). Consumers generally agree on what constitutes financial and physical injury. Consumers deem data that could lead to these types of injuries more sensitive, and expect higher security for these data.

The sensitivity of other “private” information is, as the FTC rightly recognizes, often subjective, depending on its use. Some people might choose to post everything about themselves online — details that others might find invasive or embarrassing if made public — while others chose not to join social networks. Some might find value in an application using data about their geolocation in a particular way, while others decline participation because they consider the benefit of the service outweighed by its privacy cost. None of these approaches to privacy is incorrect. Each is a personal decision about tradeoffs. Taking varying consumer preferences into account, the FTC’s standards functioned reasonably well, requiring opt-out in most instances and opt-in only for particularly sensitive kinds of data.

The FCC approach focuses on who holds the data, rather than what — and how sensitive — the data are. This hinders services that consumers want while failing to protect sensitive data across contexts.

The FCC's questionable ability to regulate privacy standards, and its narrow view on what constitutes privacy protection, make its rules counterproductive to actual consumer privacy protections. In contrast, the FTC's approach to privacy does a better job of balancing protection of consumers’ privacy online with economic incentives to innovate in consumer products and services.

There are many reasons for Congress to negate these rules: The legality of the Open Internet Order, which these rules are based on, is questionable; the FCC's expanded interpretation of customer proprietary network information from section 222 is incorrect, as it applies specifically to voice services; and sections 201, 202, 303(b), 316 and 705 of the Communications Act also do not give the FCC the authority to enter rules of this nature.

Rescinding the Privacy Order would promote both innovation and effective, consistent privacy protections in over-the-top, application, wireless and wireline markets. It would also send a clear signal that the FCC has lost its way in interpreting the statute Congress gave it. Doing so would not create a gap in privacy protection because the FCC would retain the ability to police privacy practices of broadband companies on a case-by-case basis.

If Congress fails to use the CRA in such a clear-cut case of agency overreach, the statute will fail in its original goal: encouraging regulatory agencies to respect the bounds of Congressional authority.

Sincerely,

Americans for Tax Reform
Digital Liberty 
American Commitment
American Consumer Institute
Caesar Rodeny Institute
Center for Freedom & Prosperity
Center for Individual Freedom
Competitive Enterprise Institute
FreedomWorks
Frontiers of Freedom
International Center for Law & Economics
Institute for Policy Innovation
The Jeffersonian Project
John Locke Foundation
Less Government
The Main Heritage Policy Center
NetCompetition
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
TechFreedom
 

Americans for Tax Reform would like to bring to your attention some interesting statistics on the 20


Posted on Monday, March 27th, 2017, 12:28 PM PERMALINK

 

2002 Tax Facts

Individual Income Tax Returns Filed (projected):
(Calendar Year (CY) 2002)

132 million
Filers using 1040EZ 9.8 million (7%)
Filers using 1040A 13.9 million (11%)
Filers using 1040 57.9 million (44%)
Electronic Filings 50.1 million (38%)
Filers using 1040PC Returns Discontinued after 2000 tax year

 

Filers Using Professional Preparers:

69.2 million
(53% of all returns)
(Tax Year (TY) 1999)  
  1040EZ 761 thousand
(3% of EZ filers)
  1040A 3.7 million
(13% of 1040A filers)
  1040 64.7 million
(91% of 1040 filers)

 

Estimated Preparation Time (TY 2001):
  Form 1040 13 hr., 27 minutes
  Schedule A (Itemized Deductions) 5 hr., 37 minutes
  Schedule B (Interest and Dividend Income) 1 hr., 26 minutes
  Schedule C (Profit or loss from a Business) 10 hr., 35 minutes
  Schedule D (Capital gains and losses) 7 hr., 36 minutes

 

Miscellaneous Statistics (TY 1999):
Filers who Itemize: 40.2 million (32%)
Filers with Charitable Deductions: 35.5 million (28%)
Filers with Interest Deduction: 33.7 million (27%)
Filers with Medical Deductions: 5.9 million (5%)
Filers with Capital Gains or Losses: 21.5 million (17%)
Filers with Dividend Income: 32.2 million (25%)
Filers with Taxable Interest Income: 67.2 million (53%)

 

Filing Status (TY 1999):
  Single Filers: 56.9 million (45%)
  Joint Filers: 49.9 million (39%)
  Married Filing Separately: 2.4 million (2%)
  Head of Household: 17.9 million (14%)

 

Number of Returns with Presidential Election
Campaign Fund Checkoff (TY 1999):
14.2 million (11%)

 

Individual Tax Refunds Expected (FY 2001): 93 million
  Taxpayers with Direct Deposit of Refunds (CY 2001): 29.4 million

 

Federal Tax Revenues:
Total Taxes Paid (Fiscal Year 2001): $1.991 trillion
Individual Income Taxes: $994 billion (49.9%)
Social Insurance Taxes: $694 billion (34.8%)
Corporate Income Taxes: $151 billion (7.6%)
Other (excise, estate, and others): $152 billion (7.6%)
**misc. receipts not included  

Income Taxes Due:
(Taxable Income for tax year 2001, taxes payable by April 15th, 2002)

Taxable Income Income Taxes Due
Single Filer:
Joint Filer:
$10,000 $1504 $1504
$20,000 $3004 $3004
$30,000 $4876 $4504
$40,000 $7626 $6004
$50,000 $10,376 $8107
$60,000 $13,126 $10,857
$70,000 $16,010 $13,607
$80,000 $19,060 $16,357
$90,000 $22,110 $19,107
$100,000 $25,157 $21,850

(* taxes may be reduced due to the earned income credit)

Tax Rates:
(Taxable Income for tax year 2002, taxes payable by April 2003)

Single Filer
Married Filing Jointly
Taxable Income
Tax Rate
Taxable Income
Tax Rate
$0 to $6,000 10% $0 to $12,000 10%
$6,001 to $27,950 15% $12,001 to $46,700 15%
$27,951 to $67,700 27% $46,701 to $112,850 27%
$67,701 to $141,250 30% $112,851 to $171,950 30%
$141,251 to $307,050 35% $171,951 to $307,050 35%
over $307,050 38.6% over $307,050 38.6%

Who Pays The Income Tax? (Calendar Year 2001):
Income Category
Share of Population
Share of Income Taxes
$200,000 and over 2.7% 49.7%
$100,000 to $200,000 9.0% 23.9%
$75,000 to $100,000 9.1% 11.6%
$50,000 to $75,000 15.4% 10.6%
$40,000 to $50,000 9.2% 3.5%
$30,000 to $40,000 11.1% 2.4%
$20,000 to $30,000 13.0% 0.4%
$10,000 to $20,000* 16.4% -1.3%
Less than $10,000* 14.0% -0.7%
(*due to cash payments to EIC recipients)    

Payroll Taxes:
Employee Tax Rate 7.65%
Employer Tax Rate 7.65%
Social Security, or Old Age and Survivor\'s Disability Insurance Portion 6.2%
Medicare, or Hospital Insurance Portion 1.45%
Self-Employed Tax Rate 15.3%

Maximum Taxable Earnings Base for 2002:
  Social Security $84,900
  Medicare Unlimited

Maximum Tax for 2002:
  Social Security $5,264 ($10,528 for both employer and employee share)
  Medicare Unlimited

Age Which Workers Must Reach to Fully Recover Their Social Security Taxes Plus Interest (Based on retirement at Age 65)
(Age When Workers Fully Recover payroll taxes plus interest)
Year of Retirement
Minimum Earner*
Average Earner*
Maximum Earner*
1940
65
65
65
1960
66
66
66
1980
67
68
68
2000
77
82
89
2010
78
85
96
2020
80
87
107
2030
78
89
113
(* minimum earner: $10,712; average earner: $33,897; maximum earner: $80,400 -- in 2001 dollars)

The Earned Income Credit (TY 1999):
Number of Returns Claiming an EIC: 19.3 million (15%)
  Number of Returns with No Income Tax Liability: 16.1 million

 

Maximum Allowable Adjusted Gross Income Required to Qualify (TY 2001):
  Taxpayers with Two Children: $32,121
  Taxpayers with One Child: $28,281
  Taxpayers with No Children: $10,710

 

Maximum Annual Credit (TY 2001):
  Recipients with Two Children: $4,008
  Recipients with One Child: $2,428
  Recipients with No Children: $364

 

Percentage of Recipients (TY 1999):
  With Two or more Children: 43%
  With One Child: 40%
  With No Children: 17%

The Internal Revenue Code:
Number of Words: Over 2.8 million

War and Peace
Number of Words: 660,000

The Bible
Number of Words: 774,746

The Internal Revenue Service:
Annual Budget $9.4 billion (FY 2002)
Number of Employees: 99,887

 

The F.B.I. The Border Patrol
Annual Budget: $4.2 billion (FY 2002) Annual Budget: $1.5 billion (FY 2002)
Number of Special Agents: 12,582 Number of Agents: 10,551

 


Keep Central Planning Out of Space

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Jorge Marin on Monday, March 27th, 2017, 10:51 AM PERMALINK

Private space company Blue Origin is planning to test their own manned missions later this year while Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) gears up for the first launch of its Falcon Heavy rocket, the most powerful rocket since the Saturn V that first got Americans to the moon. Exciting things are happening in space thanks to new technologies being developed by private companies.

On March 10, the Center for a New American Security published a study by Robert Zimmerman that took a look at the history of the American space industry to compare how different approaches in space policy yielded radically different results in outcome and costs.

The study compared space systems developed with heavy government control versus private-industry centric approaches to see which path was better for taxpayers and the industry at large. It is no surprise, then that Zimmerman found the most dramatic success stories in the private sector, while centrally planned programs floundered and stalled.

In 2005 the United States committed itself to a long term program to get people to the moon, and possibly beyond. NASA was tasked with replacing the Space Shuttle program with what was dubbed the Crew Exploration Vehicle, set to explore the solar system and get to the moon in ten years. It has, of course, failed the time frame for the mission. The program was modified by the following administration to create what we now call the Orion Space Capsule and Space Launch System (SLS).

After more than 15 years and $43 billion spent, the United States has not been able to produce the much anticipated SLS and has yet to find a use for it. This is a rocket without a mission.

A healthy space ecosystem serves many purposes. Besides the obvious military implications, the global economy has reaped massive dividends from technologies birthed in space development. Without satellite GPS, lasers, and water purification it is difficult to imagine modern society; yet they were all developed thanks to the space race.

Regrettably, billions of dollars have been squandered in heavy-handed approaches that do little to advance space technology. Zimmerman found that

When we add in the cost to build Ares/SLS as well as all NASA’s carrying costs, the total outlay to build and launch these three capsules equals about $43 billion. From conception to first operational flight will take about 15 years, assuming that first manned Orion flight occurs in 2021.

Meanwhile, after spending $5.4 billion and 7 years of development, the private sector has been able to launch 42 cargo and unmanned flight capsules and 42 rockets.

In fact, while the government is still struggling to get its massive rocket without a mission airborne, SpaceX has announced that by the end of the year they will send two people on a trip to circumnavigate the moon before returning to earth on their Falcon Heavy rocket.

The SLS will likely launch for the first time in 2018, and is likely to only launch once per year. It may have a higher payload than the Falcon Heavy, or other heavy lift rockets currently in development, but the current estimates for each launch run at a low end of $500 million. For that price a costumer could launch 5 (!) Falcon heavies at $90 million per launch, and have change to spare for space ice cream.

Space is too important to leave to government central planning. In spite of decades of over-regulation, breakthrough companies are reshaping the world’s aerospace industry. Not only is it becoming cheaper for space programs to perform science in space, but more companies are entering the launch market, and new players are finding ways to innovate, making telecommunications cheaper for everyone and paving the road for affordable space travel. 

Photo Credit: 
Robert Couse-Baker

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Free Market Groups Urge Opposition to Importation of Price Controls

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Monday, March 27th, 2017, 10:00 AM PERMALINK

In an open letter to Congress, 17 conservative, free market organizations and activists urged federal lawmakers to oppose efforts to allow the importation of price controls of prescription medicines. 

Importation schemes are NOT the solution to lower prices and will NOT result in a more efficient healthcare system. Implementing an importation policy is simply adopting market-distorting price controls from other countries, which would disrupt U.S. innovation of life- saving and life-preserving medicines. 

In addition, these proposals open the door to deadly medicines flooding the market. Importation should not be confused with free trade and should be opposed.

The full letter can be found here and is below:

Dear Member of Congress:

On behalf of the undersigned conservative, free-market organizations, we write in opposition to proposals calling for the importation of prescription medicines.

Importation schemes are NOT the solution to lower prices and will NOT result in a more efficient healthcare system.

Instead, implementing an importation policy is simply adopting market-distorting price controls from other countries, which would disrupt U.S. innovation of life- saving and life-preserving medicines. Over the long-term this will result in substantially higher costs to the healthcare system, because there will be fewer research dollars to reinvest, thousands of jobs will be lost, and fewer lifesaving treatments will be available that will keep people out of the hospital and enable them to lead productive lives.

The United States is a leader in medical innovation, with more than half of pharmaceutical / biotech research being conducted in this country.  Even so, it costs more than $2.6 billion and takes 10-12 years to develop a drug, conduct clinical trials, and obtain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for each drug that makes it onto the market.

In contrast, almost every country in the world has excessive price controls that hinder medical innovation.  In these countries, prices are often determined by politicians offering voters seemingly cheap medicines.  In reality, the world rides on U.S. research and taxpayers.

Importation of prescription medicines should not be mischaracterized as an issue of free trade.  Free trade means transparent prices with no tariffs, barriers, or price controls.  Drug importation is the opposite of free trade.

Importation schemes are also potentially dangerous to consumers.  The FDA has stated there is no way to assure the safety, authenticity, or effectiveness of imported drugs, or whether the drugs are from the country the packaging claims it to be. 

Even attempting to construct such a system would be incredibly costly to taxpayers. In addition to drugs being adulterated, they could be deadly. The FDA has long expressed concern with the importation of medicines for these very reasons.

While some argue that importation would increase competition and lower costs, the solution to lower prices should be less government interference, not more. 

Lawmakers need to help create an environment that encourages competition in the pharmaceutical realm. For example, Medicare Part D has provided medicines to seniors at less than half the projected costs because it facilitates private competition and encourages different stakeholders to offer savings.

Prescription drug importation would have disastrous effects on the economy, would hurt American innovation, and is dangerous to consumers. Members of Congress should reject these proposals.

Sincerely,

Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform

Marty Connors
Chair, Alabama Center Right Coalition

Phil Kerpen
President, American Commitment

Matt Schlapp
Chairman, American Conservative Union

Robert Alt
President and CEO, The Buckeye Institute (Ohio)

Peter J. Pitts
President, Center for Medicine in the Public Interest
Former FDA Associate Commissioner

Thomas Schatz
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Kent Lassman
President, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Richard Watson
Co-Chair, Florida Center Right Coalition

Grace-Marie Turner
President, Galen Institute

Don Racheter Ph.D.
Iowa Conservative Activist

Tom Giovanetti
President, Institute for Policy Innovation

Kevin Waterman
Chair, Maryland Center Right Coalition

Pete Sepp
President, National Taxpayers Union

Lorenzo Montanari
Executive Director, Property Rights Alliance

Karen Kerrigan
President and CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

David Williams
President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance

 

 

Photo Credit: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nym/

More from Americans for Tax Reform


ATR Supports the Register of Copyrights Selection & Accountability Act

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Katie McAuliffe on Friday, March 24th, 2017, 2:39 PM PERMALINK

The bipartisan, bicameral Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act was introduced today By House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlate (R-Va.), Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.), Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Americans for Tax Reform supports this legislation that makes the Register of Copyrights a Presidential appointment confirmed by the Senate.   

The following can be attributed to Americans for Tax Reform President, Grover Norquist:
 
"America’s copyrighted industries are the envy of the world and one of our greatest exports. Making the Register a Presidential appointment confirmed by the Senate is the first step in bringing the Office up-to-speed with the modern booming copyright industry. In America we protect people’s property and respect originality. We don’t praise plagiarism. We value the real McCoy."
 
The following can be attributed to Executive Director of Digital Liberty, Katie McAuliffe:
 
"By elevating the position, we raise the profile of the Copyright office within the United States government and around the world.  It shows that we recognize the importance of copyright to the United States’ and global economies. Countries that recognize and protect property rights, including copyright, have stronger economies that attract business investment, research and development. Its not a surprise that people and businesses prefer governments that don’t steal their stuff."

The Copyright Office needs autonomy to carry out its mission going forward. Designating the register of Copyrights as a Presidential appointment confirmed by the Senate is the first step in achieving that goal.

See ATR's comments on Copyright Office Modernization here.

Photo Credit: 
Motion Picture Association of America

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Americans for Tax Reform Will Rate the Vote on AHCA, HR 1628

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Friday, March 24th, 2017, 11:40 AM PERMALINK


Americans for Tax Reform WILL RATE a vote for passage of the American Health Care Act as a pro-taxpayer vote
 
ATR urges a YES vote
 
“The American Health Care Act is -- to start -- a $1 trillion tax cut and a $1.15 trillion spending cut over the next decade. It's passage makes fundamental tax reform possible this year. The AHCA block grants Medicaid and expands Health Savings Accounts. It’s a giant step forward in lowering taxes and reforming our nation's health care system,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
 
The American Health Care Act (HR 1628) being voted on today abolishes the following taxes imposed by Obama and the Democrat party in 2010 as part of Obamacare:
 
-Abolishes the Obamacare Individual Mandate Tax which hits 8 million Americans each year.
 This is part of a $270 billion tax cut.
 
-Abolishes the Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax. This is part of a $270 billion tax cut.
 
-Abolishes Obamacare’s Medicine Cabinet Tax which hits 20 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts and 30 million Americans with Flexible Spending Accounts. This is a $6 billion tax cut.
 
-Abolishes Obamacare’s Flexible Spending Account tax on 30 million Americans. This is a $20 billion tax cut.
 
-Abolishes Obamacare’s Chronic Care Tax on 10 million Americans with high out of pocket medical expenses. This is a $126 billion tax cut.
 
-Abolishes Obamacare’s HSA withdrawal tax. This is a $100 million tax cut.
 
-Abolishes Obamacare’s 10% excise tax on small businesses with indoor tanning services. This is a $600 million tax cut.
 
-Abolishes the Obamacare health insurance tax. This is a $145 billion tax cut.
 
-Abolishes the Obamacare 3.8% surtax on investment income. This is a $172 billion tax cut.
 
-Abolishes the Obamacare medical device tax. This is a $20 billion tax cut.
 
-Abolishes the Obamacare tax on prescription medicine. This is a $28 billion tax cut.
 
-Abolishes the Obamacare tax on retiree prescription drug coverage. This is a $2 billion tax cut.

The AHCA Also Has Big League Spending Cuts:
 
Under AHCA, by 2021 federal spending on healthcare as a percentage of GDP is reduced from 6.9% to 6.3%. As time goes by, the spending reduction gets larger. See the first chart, below.
 
Under AHCA, by 2027 total federal spending as a percentage of GDP is reduced from 23.4% to 22.4%. See the second chart, below.
 
“In addition to abolishing Obamacare’s taxes, the AHCA reduces the total size of government permanently,” said Norquist.
 

Chart by Strategas Research Partners using OMB and CBO data
 

Chart by Strategas Research Partners using CBO data

Norquist Statement in Support of Obamacare Repeal and Replace Bill


Posted on Thursday, March 23rd, 2017, 11:00 PM PERMALINK

 

Norquist: Passage of AHCA makes fundamental tax reform possible this year

ATR founder and president Grover Norquist's statement in support of the American Health Care Act:

“The American Health Care Act is -- to start -- a $1 trillion tax cut and $1.2 trillion spending cut over the next decade. It's passage makes fundamental tax reform possible this year. The AHCA block grants Medicaid and expands Health Savings Accounts. It’s a giant step forward in reforming our nation's health care system.”

 


Competition Reduces Costs, Price Controls Reduce Innovation

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Adam Radman on Thursday, March 23rd, 2017, 6:02 PM PERMALINK

Congress is considering health care reforms to lower costs, increase access, and empower doctors. As part of this legislative agenda, they may consider price controls. Price controls never work as advertised. They do not lower costs and do not increase access to new medicines. Instead, they allow the government to ration the supply and development of new life-saving medicines at the expense of consumers, patients, and doctors. To learn more about the negatives consequences of price controls, tune in to ATR President Grover Norquist's latest podcast below: 

Photo Credit: 
Gage Skidmore

More from Americans for Tax Reform


hidden
×