Americans for Tax Reform

State of the Union: Time to play Obama BINGO!

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Wednesday, January 27th, 2010, 12:29 PM PERMALINK

Back by popular demand: Obama BINGO!   To help you get through the State of the Union address on Wednesday night, Americans for Tax Reform once again presents Obama BINGO!  Use the cards to check off terms and phrases likely to be used during President Obama’s State of the Union address. 

We've prepared four different cards this year so that you may compete with your friends and family:

Obama BINGO Card 1

Obama BINGO Card 2

Obama BINGO Card 3

Obama BINGO Card 4

Good luck, and let us know how it goes! 

(Or for those of you in Louisiana, let us know how it "geauxs")

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Obama's First Year: Transparency - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Friday, January 22nd, 2010, 12:26 PM PERMALINK

[PDF Document]

Throughout the campaign, President Obama made many promises to increase transparency and accountability in Washington.  And while some of his supporters cheerfully assign him good grades when evaluating his record in this area, a closer look reveals that in terms of fulfilling his transparency promises, his first year in office holds a mixed bag at best. Here’s a look at the good, the bad and the ugly.

The Good:

Steps towards more openness – Upon taking office, the Obama administration issued two memoranda, one instructing all agencies and departments to "adopt a presumption in favor" of Freedom of Information Act requests, and a second one directing the Office of Management and Budget to develop an Open Government Directive that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions to implement greater transparency.  

The Open Government Directive issued on December 8, 2009, indeed looks promising and reiterates the presumption of openness. The first part discusses general agency data, and the second part of the document focuses on improving the quality of government information and specifically focuses on the area of Federal spending information, setting a timeline for developing a longer-term comprehensive strategy for spending transparency.Among other things, agencies will be required to soon publish at least three high-value data sets and register them on, an already-functional website created by the Obama administration for this purpose earlier in the year.That is a promising step in the right direction, although there is a caveat, which we have discussed here

The Bad:

Easy-to-keep promises are off to a slow start. During the campaign, President Obama made a “Sunlight Before Signing” promise:

"When there's a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you, the American voter, will have five days to look online and find out what it is before I sign it, so that you know what your government's doing.”

Still, while this is a promise that should be fairly easy to put into practice, the President’s record of compliance with this promise has been poor. As Jim Harper, who tracks the issue for the Cato Institute, pointed out on January 6, only six bills out of 124 were posted in accordance with the promise.

When transparency becomes spin – Taxpayers were promised “unprecedented transparency” in conjunction with trillion dollar spending and debt package passed under the guise of “economic stimulus.” For that purpose, was created. However, several months and $18 million later, the website offered little substance and much spin, while a website created by a private company, Onvia, was already tracking expenditures on its website

Things took a turn for the worse when recipient data was posted on, because rather than presenting facts, the site now boasted job creation and retention numbers that were not only inflated and bogus, but also were also occurring in non-existent Congressional districts.  Clearly, this is not transparency, it is spin.

The Ugly:

Abandoning transparency when it’s no longer politically expedient – During the campaign, President Obama repeatedly promised that the healthcare negotiations would be conducted publicly.  Among his promises were this one:

"That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process."

Members of Congressional leadership have echoed this sentiment on numerous occasions and proclaimed their commitment to open and transparent negotiations on this important subjec. However, the more it became apparent that the public was not seeing the Democrats’ proposals as favorably as the President and other proponents had expected, the more secretive the process became.  At the beginning of this year, shortly before the apparent implosion of the healthcare process in the wake of the Massachusetts election, the President and Congressional leaders decided to embark on abbreviated behind-closed-doors negotiations, shutting out the American people.  The President clearly failed to insist on an open process, and transparency became a victim of political expediency

Top Comments

DC Bag Tax in Effect

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Monday, January 4th, 2010, 3:37 PM PERMALINK

Last Friday DC grocers and retailers began levying a new tax on every plastic and paper bag as a result of legislation passed last year. Below is an OpEd by Patrick Gleason, ATR's state affairs manager, that was published in yesterday's Washington Examiner on the matter:

Patrick Gleason: New D.C. bag tax won't accomplish much

By: Patrick Gleason
OpEd Contributor
January 3, 2010

Washingtonians heading out in search of VitaminWater and bacon to cure their New Year's morning hangovers will be greeted by a new Pigouvian tax at the check out.

Starting this past week, a new 5-cent tax will be imposed on every plastic and paper bag used by shoppers at grocers and other retailers throughout the District.

The bag tax is the result of legislation passed unanimously by the D.C. Council in June. The bill, sponsored by council members Tommy Wells, D-Ward 6, and Mary Cheh, D-Ward 3, was rushed through under the auspices of cleaning up the environment.

That might sound great and will make many District residents feel warm and fuzzy, but previous experience with bag taxes and regulations elsewhere suggests the rhetoric from Wells and company is hollow.

San Francisco went so far as banning plastic bags outright in 2007, becoming the first American city to do so. That extreme measure had zero effect on the city's litter mitigation goals, according to litter audits.

Many bag tax advocates point to Ireland as their standard bearer, with usage of plastic shopping bags declining by 90 percent as a result of its nationwide bag tax. What the na?ve greenies and money-hungry politicians who support bag taxes won't tell you is that total usage of all plastic bags in Ireland actually increased by 10 percent following imposition of the bag tax.

How could that be? Over 92 percent of the population already reuses plastic bags for a cadre of basic household tasks such as lining trash cans. A new levy on bags at the checkout discourages this.

It's also important to keep in mind that the bureaucrats who are going to siphon ever more money out of the D.C. economy aren't exactly stewards of fiscal responsibility. Aside from increasing spending by 42 percent in just five years' time, D.C. Council members think awarding themselves salaries that are higher on average than most governors is reasonable.

In fact, Mayor Fenty and council member Vincent Gray, D-Ward 5, each make more than every governor except Arnold Schwarzenegger. The new tax gives them a new slush fund.

Four cents of the new 5-cent bag tax will go into a fund dedicated to cleaning up the Anacostia River. The other penny will be kept by the retailer. Stores that provide incentives to bring reusable bags will retain 2 cents.

Mayor Fenty and council member Wells boast that it will simultaneously increase usage of reusable bags and tidy the Anacostia River. However, the best way to benefit the environment would actually be to request as many plastic and paper bags as possible at checkout, thereby ensuring the new Anacostia River cleanup fund is flush with cash.

Just like the politicians who claim that tobacco tax increases can both reduce smoking and provide a windfall for government coffers, Fenty and Wells either don't see the fault in their own logic or they think their constituents are pretty gullible.

D.C. Council members aren't the only lawmakers to warm up to this policy. More than 20 bag tax bills were introduced over the past year nationwide, and more are expected moving forward. This is just the beginning.

Shortly after the bill's passage last summer, council member Jack Evans, D-Ward 2, stated that the new bag tax was merely "the first step to try to address this issue." District residents and businesses would be wise to keep a close eye on the D.C. Council in 2010.


More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Baucus Earns Place on 2009 "Naughty" List

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Tuesday, December 15th, 2009, 4:49 PM PERMALINK

Sen. Max Baucus has earned a place under the “Naughty” column on Americans for Tax Reform’s 2009 Naughty and Nice List after being caught telling a brazen lie on the floor of the United States Senate: Claiming that the Senate healthcare bill would not raise taxes. 

Speaking on the U.S. Senate floor on Nov. 30, Baucus said:

I have also heard it argued that health care reform will raise taxes.  That, too, is false.”
In reality, the 2,074-page Senate healthcare bill uses the term “tax” 183 times and contains 18 separate tax increases.
Continuing his remarks on the Senate floor, Baucus said:
“In fact, health care reform will provide billions of dollars in tax relief to help American families and small businesses afford quality health insurance—tax cuts.  The Joint Tax Committee—again bipartisan and which serves both the House and the Senate—tells us, for example, that our bill would provide $40 billion in the tax cuts in the year 2017 alone—$40 billion in tax cuts in the year 2017.”
In reality, the official tax score for the bill is provided by the Joint Tax Committee (JCT) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). In 2017 alone, they report a net tax hike of $132.5 billion – not a tax cut as Sen. Baucus claims. Over the ten-year scoring window, they report a net tax hike of $857.9 billion.
“Max Baucus is lying to the people of Montana,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “Or he’s speaking from ignorance and he hasn’t actually read the bill. If he did, he might have stumbled across one of the eighteen painful tax increases it contains.”
ATR’s full 2009 “Naughty and Nice” list can be viewed here.

Click here for a printable PDF

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Presenting the Official 2009 "Naughty and Nice" List

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Tuesday, December 15th, 2009, 10:55 AM PERMALINK

 Santa has completed his 2009 "Naughty and Nice" list, and he managed to leak us an advance copy straight from the North Pole:


Former Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) – for not understanding that people want skinny budgets, not skinny governors

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- for repeatedly failing to put legislation online for 72 hours before a vote, in violation of her explicit promise
Peter Orszag, Rep. Charlie Rangel, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, John Podesta, Paul Volcker, Roger Altman, Alan Greenspan, Nancy Pelosi, and the Center for American Progress —for being storm petrels for a Value Added Tax
Rep. Charlie Rangel, again – for engaging in “unilateral tax reduction” while raising everyone else’s taxes
Tom Daschle – for engaging in “unilateral tax reduction” after a long career of raising everyone else’s taxes
Sen. Harry Reid – for representing Washington, DC instead of Nevada
Sen. Max Baucus – for violating the Eighth Commandment by claiming the Senate health bill doesn’t raise taxes
Sen. Jay Rockefeller – for threatening to have the government take control of the internet during an “emergency”
Sens. Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg – for trying to set up a bipartisan budget commission which is guaranteed to recommend tax hikes
Sen. Mary Landrieu – for taking a $300 million bribe to vote for cloture on the Senate health bill
Sen. Chris Dodd, Rep. Barney Frank, and Rahm Emanuel – for helping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac destroy the life savings of millions of Americans
Christina Romer—for slinging around the bogus term “saved or created jobs” -- when in the real world, 2.8 million Americans lost their jobs since the signing of the “stimulus” bill
Andy Stern and Anna Berger of the SEIU – for their efforts to strip workers of their right to a secret ballot election, all while skirting the lobbying rules Obama, Reid, and Pelosi championed
Randy Pullen, Arizona Republican Party Chairman – for pushing a $3 billion tax increase
The 11 New York county party chairmen who anointed Dede Scozzafava
The New York Court of Appeals – for ruling against property owners in the famous Brooklyn Atlantic Yards case: This is the first state court to rule against property owners since Kelo in an eminent domain for private gain case
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) – for instituting a forced exercise program onto its riders
Vice-President Biden – for his “stimulus” package claim:  “In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this well.”
(And for washing his Trans Am in the White House driveway, shirtless) 
Rep. Paul Ryan – for providing the free-market budget alternative to the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax-and-spend plan
Creigh Deeds – for admitting he wanted to raise taxes if elected Governor, thus electing Bob McDonnell
Paul Volcker, Chairman of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board – for not yet releasing his secret, hidden, horrible tax report until next year
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer – for warning that Obama’s double-tax proposal will make the U.S. less competitive: “It makes U.S. jobs more expensive…we’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S.”
Whole Foods CEO John Mackey – for penning his op-ed on free market healthcare reform in the Wall Street Journal
Rick Santelli – for his motivational speaking skills reminding us that the government shouldn’t reward bad behavior
Robert Gibbs -- for cleaning up after David Axelrod and Tim Geithner by reminding the American people that there are indeed “no caveats” to President Obama’s promise not to raise “any form” of taxes on families making less than $250k per year
Flat Tax Jurisdictions – Iceland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Albania, Kazakhstan, Mauritius, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Georgia, Romania, Iraq, Ukraine, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia, Jamaica, Jersey, Guernsey, Pridnestrovie, and Hong Kong
Rep. Tom Price—for leading the conservative majority of the GOP conference in his role as chairman of the Republican Study Committee
Rep. John Shadegg – for leading the effort to allow Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines (First on every free-market health care action list)
Sen. Jim DeMint – for introducing the Healthcare Freedom Act, the most comprehensive free-market alternative to the Reid-Obama health scheme
Rep. Patrick McHenry – for sponsoring the taxpayer-friendly alternative to the Wolf Commission bill
Arizona State Sens. Pamela Gorman and Ron Gould – for leading the fight against the Gov. Chuck Coughlin/Junior Staffer Jan Brewer/Randy Pullen $3 billion tax hike
Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuño – for slashing thousands of government jobs as part of a plan to cut Puerto Rico’s government spending by $2 billion per year
Keith Self (Collin County, TX Judge) -- for opposing a gas tax increase and making his one of the first counties that has opened its books to public scrutiny by posting government spending data online
Hannah Giles, James O’Keefe, and Andrew Breitbart – for exposing ACORN’s willingness to pimp out their “services” at taxpayer expense
House Republican Leader John Boehner, Sen. Mike Johanns, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, and Rep. Darrell Issa – for winning the Nutcracker Award (Awarded for “Outstanding Leadership in Protecting Taxpayers from Corrupt Organizations Named After Nuts”)
San Diego ACORN office – for not using a shredder
Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney – for producing Not Evil Just Wrong -- a film debunking Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth
Malcolm Turnbull – for getting deposed by his own conservative opposition party, thus leading to the defeat of Cap and Trade in Australia
The whistleblower who released the Climategate documents
Carbon Dioxide – without it, plants would die
CNN – for deporting Lou Dobbs


More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Grover Norquist Urges House Members to Oppose H.R. 2868, The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Tuesday, October 20th, 2009, 2:21 PM PERMALINK

Dear Representative:

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), I am urging all Members to vote no on H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009. While claiming to be an extension of Section 550 of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, H.R. 2868 reinterprets Section 550 in ways never intended by its original authors. H.R. 2868 seeks to publicize national security audits and make them subject to potentially unsubstantiated litigation claims.  

Section 2116 of H.R. 2868 allows for any citizen to file a lawsuit against a regulated facility or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enforce compliance with the act no matter what their association with the chemical facility. H.R. 2868, a broad vague initiative, is sure to be exploited by trail lawyers and other interest groups looking to profit from the unrestricted lawsuits the bill permits.

While common in environmental lawsuits, citizen suits are rarely heard on national security grounds. Generally, national security lawsuits are reserved for private citizens who have an expertise in an applicable field, H.R. 2686 makes no distinction between environmental claims and national security ones.  Seeing as this bill is sold as a national security measure, the same legal principals should apply.

National security information is inherently sensitive and usually made available to a select few. In order for citizens to file substantiated lawsuits against chemical facilities they need to have complete knowledge of classified information. Lawsuits against the DHS and chemical facilities would force sensitive information into the public realm. Releasing classified, and potentially dangerous, documents to the public, is irresponsible and unnecessarily puts chemical facilities at risk.   

Should private citizens be allowed to sue over something they know little about, companies and the DHS will spend untold amounts of time in court fighting potentially endless claims. Taxpayer’s dollars will be spent defending the DHS and chemical facilities shareholders will watch as trial lawyers try to suck money from their companies.

Americans for Tax Reform MAY RATE H.R. 2868 vote in our annual Congressional Scorecard. For more information, please contact Brian Johnson in my office at or 202.785.0266.

Grover G. Norquist

cc:     All Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Grover Norquist Calls for Hearing on Obama Labor Nominee Craig Becker

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Tuesday, October 20th, 2009, 12:19 PM PERMALINK

20 October 2009
Dear Chairman Harkin & Ranking Member Enzi:

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), I urge you to request a hearing on Craig Becker, President Obama’s nomination for National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). A Senate hearing would allow for Mr. Becker to clarify his past positions, many of them controversial, and give Mr. Becker a forum to explain his vision for the NLRB and their role in labor reform.

Members of the NLRB have the critical tasks of supervising union elections, investigating labor practices, and interpreting the National Labor Relations Act. Bestowing that power to change the employer-employee relationship without a full Senate hearing is irresponsible at best.
Mr. Becker, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) associate general council, suggested that members of the NLRB should rewrite union-election rules in favor of unions in a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article. When asked by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch to clarify this statement, Mr. Becker only promised to “maintain an open mind about whether [his] suggestions should be implemented in any manner.”

As associate general for the SEIU, Mr. Becker kept precarious relationships with Acorn and former Governor Rod Blagojevich. Mr. Becker was involved in numerous legal actions involving SEIU locals tied to ACORN and won praise from ACORN co-founder, Wade Rathke. Mr. Rathke said of Becker, “For my money, Craig’s signal contribution has been his work in crafting and executing the legal strategies and protections which have allowed the effective organization of informal workers, and by this I mean home health-care workers.” It is unfair to levy partially substantiated guilt-by-association charges against Mr. Becker but his lack candor is troubling and deserves all full Senate hearing.

A full hearing will allow Senators to qualify Mr. Becker’s beliefs and determine if he represents a fringe movement, as many past statements suggest, or if his beliefs are within mainstream thought. Furthermore, the public deserves an opportunity to hear from Mr. Becker directly as the body he is nominated for, the NLRB, has the potential to change every workplace in America.

Grover G. Norquist

cc:     All members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

A Cure for What Ails Harrisburg

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Tuesday, October 13th, 2009, 10:00 AM PERMALINK

Today's Philadelphia Inquirer ran the following Op-Ed by ATR state affairs manager Patrick Gleason on the Pennsylvania budget and the need for greater transparency in the legislative process:

Pa. budget: Why the rush? 

Despite the long impasse, there was scant opportunity for public scrutiny. 

By Patrick M. Gleason 

Last week, just before the nation's longest budget impasse ended, Pennsylvania legislators had begun feeling the heat from constituents angered by their inability to pass a budget. Talking to reporters about the budget after a meeting at the governor's mansion, House Speaker Keith McCall (D., Carbon) told reporters that he and his colleagues hoped to "get it done and get it done now."

My question at this point is: What was the rush? I'm not saying the budget stalemate should have been dragged out any longer; indeed, the budget was long overdue and needed to be completed as soon as reasonably possible. However, there should have been more of an opportunity for review of the final product once an agreement was reached. Transparency and open debate on the state's spending priorities should not be sacrificed for the sake of "having something."

Thanks to politicians in Washington, we have seen this year what the hasty approval of large, costly, and complex legislation leads to: buyers' remorse on the part of both lawmakers and voters.

The U.S. House narrowly passed "cap and trade" climate-control legislation in June. To the outrage of many, a 300-page amendment was added hours before the final vote. In fact, the final version of the bill wasn't even available until 96 hours after it was passed by the House. 

In February, the $787 billion "stimulus" bill, which spanned well over 1,000 pages, passed both the House and Senate just a little more than 13 hours after it was released from the closed-door meetings in which it was crafted. Weeks later, the public learned that the stimulus included language authorizing millions in bonuses for executives at AIG, the insurance giant that received a multibillion-dollar, taxpayer-funded bailout only months before. 

The public shock and outrage was - shockingly and outrageously - shared by the very lawmakers whose votes permitted the bonuses. Not one member who voted for the stimulus bill could claim to have read it. 

While it would be great to live in a world where lawmakers read the bills they vote on, requiring that they do so is not the answer. It's more important that bills - especially those with a fiscal impact - be available to the public well before a final vote is held. That's why lawmakers in Washington, Harrisburg, and at all levels of government should be required to put all bills, conference reports, and fiscal notes online for at least three days - but preferably five days - before a final vote. 

There are at least some in Congress who recognize the wisdom of such a reform. A resolution introduced in June by Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.) would require all legislation to be posted online 72 hours prior to the final vote. Last week, eight Democratic senators sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) requesting that federal health-care reform legislation and the corresponding fiscal statement be posted online 72 hours before a floor vote.

The Pennsylvania budget and all state legislation with a fiscal impact should be subject to the same requirement. 

As a result of reforms passed in 2007, there is technically a 24-hour "cooling off" period before legislation can be voted on in the Pennsylvania legislature. However, this rule has proven insufficient and easily surmountable. 

New polling shows that voters want transparency brought to the legislative process. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 83 percent of voters say legislation should be posted online in its final form and be available for everyone to read before it is voted on. 

The American Legislative Exchange Council, of which 36 Pennsylvania state legislators are active members, has even adopted model state legislation prohibiting hearings or votes on appropriations and revenue-related bills until 72 hours after introduction. 

Legislation and budgeting will improve if concerned citizens, watchdog groups, the media, bloggers, think tanks, academics, and policy experts from across the political spectrum have the opportunity to analyze, digest, explain, and weigh in on it. 

Lawmakers in Harrisburg let more than 100 days go by after the budget deadline passed. What's a few more to ensure that lawmakers and their constituents know precisely what they're getting?

Top Comments

Grover Norquist Requests that Obama Nominee Undergo Confirmation Process

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Friday, October 9th, 2009, 2:32 PM PERMALINK

9 October 2009

Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Harkin:

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), I urge you to call for a full Senate hearing on President Obama’s nominee for Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Professor David Michaels of the George Washington University School of Public Health.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is a powerful body which has the ability to change every workplace in America through its regulatory authority, clout that should not to be overlooked. It is for this reason that Michaels’ and all Assistant Secretary Nominees should require Senate confirmation. In fact, Michaels’ direct appointment is a rarity. In the past most Assistant Secretaries have undergone a more thorough confirmation process.

Michaels has a controversial history which deserves closer scrutiny. His objection to the Supreme Court’s 1993 unanimous decision, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals is troubling. Coupled with his contempt for corporations who doubt the necessity of regulation, as written about in his book, Doubt is Their Product, his beliefs should be the subject of certain evaluation.
Consistently advocating for more government interference in private business, even when such regulation directly contradicts available data or their effectiveness remains uncertain, Michaels’ would be a troubling force in OSHA.

Professor Michaels’ should be allowed to explain his past statements and writings in an open, public forum. Michaels’ preferences and opinions should be known as they will guide the direction of OSHA should be confirmed.

President Obama assured the American people that transparency would be on the forefront of his agenda. Leapfrogging full and open Senate hearings goes directly against this claim.

Grover G. Norquist

Cc: All members of the Senate

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Taxpayer Group to Rep. Dan Boren: Resign from Blue Dog Coalition

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Friday, July 31st, 2009, 7:16 PM PERMALINK

Today, Americans for Tax Reform called on Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) to publically resign from the Blue Dog Coalition. The group issues its call in response to phone calls and emails to Americans for Tax Reform attempting to distance himself from the actions of his Blue Dog Coalition in “compromising” with the Pelosi/Waxman government healthcare bill.

Rep. Dan Boren remains an outspoken leader of the Blue Dogs, and refuses to publicly disavow the Pelosi/ Waxman/ Blue Dog compromise. Meanwhile, press operatives from the Congressman’s Washington D.C. office have attempted to silence any association between Rep. Boren and the Blue Dogs’ underhanded compromise with House liberals. Rep. Dan Boren is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
“You can’t have it both ways, Rep. Boren,” said ATR President Grover Norquist. “If you’re not with the Blue Dogs, declare it publically: resign. Until you do, Oklahomans really have no choice but to understand you to be part of the ‘compromise’”

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments