Americans for Tax Reform

California Senate Committee to Hold Hearing on Bag Ban Legislation

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Monday, August 2nd, 2010, 12:08 PM PERMALINK

The following piece was originally published by the Flash Report, the preeminent source for the most significant political news in California:


Patrick Gleason, Americans for Tax Reform

August 2, 2010

The California Senate Appropriations Committee is set to hold a hearing today on Assembly Bill 1998, legislation that would ban all plastic and paper shopping bags statewide. Never mind the 880 pound gorilla in the room that is the state’s $20 billion dollar overspending problem – lawmakers in Sacramento prefer to spend time ramming through an ill-advised bag prohibition. 

If passed, plastic and paper bags would be prohibited at all grocery stores, convenience stores, and other retailers statewide. AB 1998 effectively levies a new tax that Golden State residents must pay on every trip to their neighborhood grocer. Californians who are not able to or forget to bring their own bags to the store would be required to purchase either a reusable bag at checkout or pay no less than a nickel for a recycled paper bag.

To continue reading, CLICK HERE

More from Americans for Tax Reform

The Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Monday, June 28th, 2010, 2:11 AM PERMALINK

“This card is a tangible reminder that Obama has deliberately broken his central campaign promise not to raise any form of taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000. The last President to break his tax pledge – Bush 41 – served only one term.” – Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform

Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card

Back of the Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card

Please use the form below to get your Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card

You may have noticed that President Obama has broken his central campaign promise – a “firm pledge” that Americans making less than $250,000 would not see “any form of tax increase.” He first broke this pledge sixteen days into his presidency when he signed a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco. And Obamacare contains 21 tax increases – several of which violate his “firm pledge”.

To protect you from these tax hikes, Americans for Tax Reform presents the “Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card”. The card fits neatly in your wallet and contains a list of the tax hikes signed into law by President Obama that violate his tax pledge, as well as a few other taxes that have been threatened: a European-style Value-Added Tax, Cap and Trade taxes, and even a federal soda tax.

Fill out the form below to get your Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card. If you're interested in sending us a video on how you used the card, please click here.

How to use the card:

Step 1: Present the card to merchants, employers, and tax authorities.

Step 2: If challenged, pleasantly ask: “Are you calling President Obama a liar?”

Click here to find out of your member of Congress voted for these taxes

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

--Candidate Barack Obama, Sept. 12, 2008

“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”

--President Barack Obama, Feb. 24, 2009

“The statement didn’t come with caveats.”

--Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, April 15, 2009, when asked if the pledge applies to healthcare 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Use Your Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card for these Taxes

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Monday, June 28th, 2010, 2:00 AM PERMALINK

[PDF Version]

TheTax on Indoor Tanning Services takes effect July 1, 2010:  This provision of Obamacare imposes a new 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons.  The tax was tucked into the bill behind closed doors at the last minute, replacing the previous “Bo-Tax” – a proposed tax on plastic surgery.  The 30 million Americans who visit tanning facilities are getting a lesson in the petty, nanny-state nature of Obamacare – every time they walk through the door.  Not to mention the business owners and employees who are threatened by the tax.  (Page 373 of Manager’s amendment/$2.7 billion)

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” takes effect Jan. 1, 2011: Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).  (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 billion)

TheSpecial Needs Kids Tax” takes effect Jan. 1, 2011:  This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit).  There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year.  Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.  (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14 billion)

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike takes effect Jan. 1, 2011: This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.  (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 billion)

TheMedical Itemized Deductions Cap takes effect Jan. 1, 2013:  Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction if the total cost if the expenses reduces the filer’s income by 7.5%.  This provision of Obamacare imposes a threshold of 10%.  This new tax will most adversely affect early retirees and the catastrophically ill.  (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 billion)

The Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax takes effect Jan. 1, 2014: Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following (page 71 of manager’s amendment updates Reid bill): (Page 324/Sec. 1501)



2 People

3+ People


$95/1.0% AGI

$190/1.0% AGI

$285/1.0% AGI


$325/2.0% AGI

$650/2.0% AGI

$975/2.0% AGI


$695/2.5% AGI

$1390/2.0% AGI



The Obamacare Medical Prosthetics and Devices Tax took effect in January of 2010:

This Obamacare tax raises the price of all medical prosthetic devices, such as pacemakers and artificial limbs. Consumers of these devices will end up paying more for these life-saving items.  ($20 billion)

The Obama Tobacco Tax Hike took effect April 1, 2009

Obama first broke his tax pledge sixteen days into his presidency when he signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco.  At that time, Obama was rightly called out by Calvin Woodward of the Associated Press in a piece titled “Promises, Promises: Obama Tax Pledge Up in Smoke”  Use your Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card – or else be prepared to pony up an extra 62 cents per pack of cigarettes.

Potential Obama Tax Hike to Watch Out For:  A Federal Soda Tax

In an interview with Men's Health published in September of 2009, President Obama said that a tax on soda and sugar-laden beverages was "an idea that we should be exploring."  So, keep your Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card handy at all times!  With this President, you never know when the other shoe will drop!

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Cut the cigarette tax for the children

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Monday, March 22nd, 2010, 9:49 AM PERMALINK

In the following Op-Ed published in yesterday's Washington Examiner, ATR director of state affairs Patrick Gleason explains why the DC City Council needs to cut the cigarette tax if it is serious about improving the health of children in DC public schools:  

When the D.C. City Council raised the cigarette tax by 50 cents, city officials claimed it would generate a windfall of additional tax revenue for government coffers. However, in a letter to Mayor Adrian Fenty last month, D.C. Chief Financial Officer Natwar Gandhi informed him that the council's calculations were $15 million off.
New revenue projections released in February show cigarette tax revenue coming in below initial projections by more than 30 percent. Not only did the tax increase miss the projected revenue mark, it turns out the increase actually resulted in a loss of revenue for the District, coming in at approximately $7 million below pre-increase levels.
While the decline in revenue came much to the shock and chagrin of D.C. Council members, it comes as no surprise to those familiar with tobacco tax increases and their implications. The same thing happened when New Jersey raised its cigarette tax by 17.5 cents in 2007. That tax increase brought in $52 million less than Garden State lawmakers expected and $22 million less than was generated by the pre-increase rate.
Click Here for the full article.


More from Americans for Tax Reform

Study: Health Care Legislation Will Cost up to 700,000 Jobs by 2019

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Wednesday, March 17th, 2010, 10:21 AM PERMALINK

Americans for Tax Reform Foundation today released a study conducted by the Beacon Hill Institute on the job losses that will result from the passage of President Obama’s healthcare plan. 

The study uses standard practices to evaluate the job loss, but assumes more realistic policy outcomes (for example, the Medicare “doc fix” is assumed to be re-enacted by Congress every year).
From the Executive Summary:
Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has urged passage of the massive health reform plan moving through Congress as a way to create up to 400,000 jobs. Speaker Pelosi bases her claim on a report by the Center for American Progress (CAP) in which the Center estimates that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) would create 250,000 to 400,000 jobs per year over 10 years. 
This estimate by CAP amounts to a hurried effort to add academic heft to the claim that national health care reform offers a collateral benefit in the form of an economic “stimulus.” It turns out, however, that its methodology, stripped of unsupportable claims about savings in health care costs, shows just the opposite of what CAP intended. PPACA is a job killer, not a job creator.
The result is a loss of between 119,000 and 698,000 jobs between enactment of the bill this year and 2019. A breakdown is below:
Agriculture, mining and construction
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation and communication
Transportation and warehousing
Financial Activities
Professional and business services
Educational services
Leisure and hospitality
Other services

Click here for a PDF of this press release

Click here for a printable PDF of the full study


More from Americans for Tax Reform

ATR Staffer Testifies Before U.S. House Energy & Commerce Select Committee

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Wednesday, March 10th, 2010, 9:15 AM PERMALINK

Today, at 9:30amEST, ATR Federal Affairs Manager handing energy and environmental tax and regulatory policy will be testifying as the only minority witness before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Special Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

The witness list is as follows:

Lisa Patt-McDaniel, Director, Ohio Department of Development
Bryan Ashley, Chief Marketing Officer, Suniva Inc.
Paul Gaynor, Chief Executive Officer, First Wind Holdings LLC
Mary Ann Wright, Vice President and Managing Director, Business Accelerator Project, Johnson Controls, Inc.
Brian M. Johnson, Federal Affairs Manager, Americans for Tax Reform & Executive Director, Alliance for Worker Freedom

Click here for more information and to watch the hearing live.

Also, view Brian's full submitted testimony here.

Grover Norquist Urges Senators to CoSponsor Non-Government Spending Jobs Bill

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010, 9:18 AM PERMALINK

[PDF Document]

3 February 2010

Dear Senator:

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and millions of taxpaying Americans and their families, I ask you to sponsor an alternative to the “Jobs Bill” that does not increase government spending, “The No Cost Stimulus Act.”

This critical piece of legislation will create more than 2 million long-term, sustainable and well paying jobs while helping reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. Supported by Senators Barrasso, Brownback, Bond, Bunning, Crapo, Coburn, Cochram, Cornyn, DeMint, Ensign, Enzi, Hutchinson, Inhofe, Risch, Sessions, Shelby and Vitter (as of this writing), this legislation could increase GDP by $10 trillion over the next 30 years.

Additionally, specific sections of this bill will drastically reduce the cost of energy for every American family while providing jobs in the United States:

  • Create 1.2 million long-term jobs by opening offshore mineral lease areas
  • Provide more than $2.2 trillion in incremental tax receipts
  • Extends state boundaries to 12 miles so states have control over their offshore areas
  • Opens ANWR areas to create 730,000 American-based jobs
  • Streamlines the nuclear licensing process to add 610,000 jobs to the economy
  • Saves 500,000 per year by preventing the EPA from regulating CO2
  • Simplifies the energy leasing judicial review process advancing 300 new projects

All of the above job creation, GDP growth and energy independence can be achieved without adding increasing the amount of government spending.

One of President Obama’s clear messages in his State of the Union address was that he wanted to hear good ideas, from both parties. The “No Cost Stimulus Act” is exactly that. 

For more information, contact federal affairs manager Brian Johnson in my office at and contact Bryan Zumwalt in Senator Vitter’s office at to become a sponsor.

Grover G. Norquist

cc:    All Members of the US Senate

More from Americans for Tax Reform

US Attorney Reviews Call for Probe into SEIU President Andy Stern's Lobbying Activities

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Monday, February 1st, 2010, 3:44 PM PERMALINK

Today, new reports confirm that the United States Attorney, Channing Phillips, is reviewing our Nov. 13 request for an investigation into the potential violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) by Service Employee International Union (SEIU) President Andrew Stern. 

In a letter delivered on Nov. 13  ATR President Grover Norquist and AWF Executive Director Brian Johnson wrote:

By this letter, we urge you to investigate the activities of Mr. Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)…specifically, it is important to determine whether those and related activities could constitute unregistered “lobbying” by Mr. Stern in violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act  (LDA), 2 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.

Nov. 16, SEIU spokesperson Michelle Ringuette acknowledged the validity of claim and, without offering evidence responded: “Andy Stern spends less than 20 percent of his time talking to elected representatives.”

Jan 5 Andy Stern told Carol Costello in a one-on-one interview on CNN: “We’re going to send them a letter and tell them the truth, which is we’ve complied with the law. And we assume whenever the investigation is done it will be fine.”

Jan 25, SEIU spokesperson Kawana Lloyd contradicted what Mr. Stern had said on CNN, saying: “SEIU had likely said all it would say on the matter.”

Feb 1, the US Attorney’s office confirmed to that they are “reviewing the matter.” Ms. Ringuette retorted: “The charges were meritless; we have been informed by the Senate that the complaining parties were notified.”

“We have not received the letter Mr. Stern promised on CNN or any response from the U.S. Senate other than their confirmation that our complaint was received,” said Norquist.

Click here for a PDF of ATR and AWF's joint press release.

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Obama Labor Board Nominee, "workers should not be able to choose against having a union"

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Monday, February 1st, 2010, 11:29 AM PERMALINK

If the Senate’s schedule remains unchanged, a cloture vote on Obama's nominee to the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker, is expected Thursday, February 4. Such a move will disenfranchise the Senate’s newest member, Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown. Democratic leadership reaffirmed numerous times that the Senate would not vote on any health care legislation until Senator Brown is seated.

Harry Reid: “We’re not going to rush into anything. We’re going to wait until the new senator arrives to do more on health care.”

Jim Webb: “It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”

The magnitude of health care legislation is unquestionable; Democrats should be applauded for delaying a Senate vote until Mr. Brown is seated. Similarly, Craig Becker’s nomination for the NLRB is of comparable magnitude and should also be postponed until Senator Brown is seated. A vote for Becker is a vote for card check.

Mr. Becker, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Associate General Counsel, has regularly advocated for inappropriate use of the NLRB’s power. In an instant of uncensored honesty, Mr. Becker wrote that employers should be barred from NLRB proceedings:

“On these latter issues employers should have no right to be heard in either a representation case or an unfair labor practice case, even though Board rulings might indirectly affect their duty to bargain.”

To suggest that employers should have no role in the unionization process, as Mr. Becker does, is a point of view that is outside of the mainstream and one that puts him at odds with the current practices of the NLRB.

Just as Mr. Becker views employers as obstacles to increased unionization, he similarly views workers ability to democratically choose union representation as problematic:

“Just as U.S. Citizens cannot opt against having a congressman, workers should not be able to choose against having a union as their monopoly-bargaining agent.”

Mr. Becker feels workers "should not be able to choose against having a union." How do you feel? Call your Senator (Senate switchboard: (202)224-3121) and tell them to oppose Mr. Beckers nomination to the NLRB.

ATR sent this letter to all members of the Senate urging them to oppose Becker.

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Seven Prudent Reforms Tackling Our Nation's Over-Spending Problems

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Wednesday, January 27th, 2010, 1:37 PM PERMALINK

[PDF Document]

On the eve of President Obama’s State of the Union speech, and as the U.S. Senate continues to deliberate on amendments to the bill to raise the Federal debt ceiling yet again, here’s a quick look at a few prudent reforms that would help bring our fiscal house in order without burdening taxpayers. 

1.    Enact a REAL Spending Freeze – Not a Phony One

President Obama will be proposing a 3-year freeze on non-defense non-security discretionary spending. While a nice nod to the need for fiscal restraint, the freeze comes one year too late – one year after domestic discretionary spending has increased by $101 billion, or 17.4 percent. What’s worse, CBO was actually projecting a decline in non-defense discretionary spending over the next few years (from $682 billion in FY 2010 gradually down to $640 billion in 2014).  In fact, freezing this spending is actually a hike in projected spending over the next several years.

According to CBO, domestic discretionary spending in FY 2009 (which includes some stimulus spending, but is mostly pre-Obama budget decisions) was $581 billion.  In FY 2010 (which is entirely an Obama-Pelosi-Reid spending decision), it’s projected to be $682 billion.

A real freeze would take domestic discretionary spending back to where it was before the spending binge happened.  We should freeze domestic discretionary spending at $581 billion (which requires cutting $101 out of the FY 2010 budget), and it should stay at $581 billion for the foreseeable future—not just 3 years.

Doing that would reduce the CBO baseline (not counting interest savings) by $824 billion over the next decade.  When the interest savings are included, such a real freeze should yield almost $1 trillion over the decade.

2.    End the TARP Program

Congress should end the Treasury Department’s authority to spend unobligated funds under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) immediately, and prohibit further obligations of repaid funds.

Ending TARP, as previously proposed by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), would prevent TARP funds from being wasted on politically-motivated bailouts of companies and industries well-outside the original scope of the program, which have left taxpayers to bear the cost and risks associated with them.  It would also prevent the revolving use of repaid funds for these purposes.

According to recent reports, approximately $545 billion in TARP funds have been committed, with $374.62 billion paid out while $165.18 billion had been repaid leaving about $319 billion of unobligated TARP authority.

3.    Rescind Unobligated “Stimulus” Funds

Almost a year after its passage, the “stimulus” package has clearly failed to deliver on its promises.  Not only did the package not prevent jobless numbers from going above 8%, as the Administration had claimed it would. Instead, unemployment rose to over 10 percent, with much of the spending under the package going towards dubious project.

In light of the package’s obvious failure, unobligated funds, currently still more than $250 billion according to recent reports, should be rescinded immediately.

4.    Enact the CARFA Act

After rejecting the flawed Conrad/Gregg bipartisan commission proposal, the Senate will be taking up the GOP alternative, the so-called CARFA Act modeled after the successful Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC). 

Unlike Conrad/Gregg, which – because of the way it was structured – would have led to a guaranteed tax increase, a commission modeled after BRAC which led to the successful closure of military bases that were underused, would be a prudent mechanism to address our nation’s fiscal problems. 

The BRAC process, put in place by Congress in 1990, would not have worked if it had been tasked with either closing unnecessary bases or raising taxes to pay for unnecessary bases. It worked precisely because it had one job: to save taxpayer money by closing unnecessary bases, and that is the model we should follow now.

5.    Adopt Sen. Coburn’s Rescission Amendment to the Debt Ceiling Resolution

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) is offering an amendment to the debt ceiling resolution that would consolidate more than 640 duplicative government programs, cutting wasteful Washington spending, and returning billions of dollars of unspent money. 

Enacting the Coburn amendment would yield at least $120 billion.

6.    Enact Another Territoriality Measure in 2010

Back in 2004, Congress changed the tax law to allow companies to repatriate overseas earnings back to the United States at a low tax rate.  This is money which would never come back to the United States otherwise because of our highest-in-the-world corporate income tax rate. 

The result was astonishing.  In that one year alone, $318 billion was repatriated.  This actually increased corporate tax revenues by over $18 billion.  This money was used to invest in plant and equipment, boost pension fund assets, and create jobs.  Today, there is nearly $1 trillion in overseas earnings, just waiting to be brought home. 

Congress should enact another territoriality measure in 2010.

7.    Repeal Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Requirements

The Depression-era wage subsidy law of the 1930s, known as the Davis-Bacon Act, should NOT apply to any federally funded construction projects as it artificially inflates wages by 22% and adds $9 billion to the cost of projects nation-wide.

Had this outdated law been repealed earlier, it would have shaved $17 billion off the cost of the “stimulus” package.

While this may sound like a drop in the bucket, repealing Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements would be a simple step Congress could take to address our problems.