Justin Sykes

Financial Services Appropriations Bill Reins in Obama Government Agencies

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie, Justin Sykes, Katie McAuliffe on Tuesday, June 21st, 2016, 1:10 PM PERMALINK


Later this week, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 5485, the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations Act, introduced by Congressman Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.). This legislation allocates 2017 federal funding for numerous agencies including the Treasury Department, the IRS, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the FCC.

H.R. 5485 allocates this funding in a responsible, pro-taxpayer way and reins in out-of-control agencies to ensure they do not overstep their bounds and needlessly waste federal resources. ATR supports this legislation and urges all Members of Congress to vote for it when it reaches the floor.

Restrains IRS Overreach
H.R. 5485 contains several important policy riders to rein in the IRS. Under this administration, the agency has targeted non-profit organizations, families, and small businesses again and again in a concerted effort to limit free speech and harass taxpayers.

The legislation prohibits the IRS from implementing a new regulation on non-profit organizations, from giving bonuses or rehiring former employees without proper tax compliance measures, or from targeting individuals based on first amendment rights. In addition, the package implements extensive reporting on IRS spending to ensure the agency is wisely utilizing taxpayer resources.

Reins in SEC Funding and Improves Transparency
FSGG allocates $1.5 billion for the SEC, lowering the agency’s funding by $50 million from previous levels in fiscal year 2016. The legislation also creates new reporting requirements for the SEC, which would improve the transparency and fairness of the agency. One provision requires the SEC to report to Congress the cost associated with the regulatory burdens promulgated under the Dodd-Frank Act. 

The legislation also ensures First Amendment free speech is protected by prohibiting the agency from requiring the disclosure of political contributions in SEC filings. 

Responsibly Allocates IRS Funding 
The legislation provides $10.9 billion for the IRS, reducing their funding by $236 million compared to fiscal year 2016. In addition, the legislation funds the agency $1.3 billion below President Obama’s budget, which called for more than $1 billion in additional funding for the agency.

FSGG also allocates this funding in an efficient way. Of the $10.9 billion in funding, the legislation allocates $2.1 billion to taxpayer services and provides $290 million for the IRS to improve customer service, fight fraud, and improve cybersecurity.

Given the IRS's record of ineptitude and incompetence, the last thing the agency needs is more money. The agency’s woes are due to its management problems, not because of insufficient resources and this legislation will force the agency to spend its resources in a more responsible way.

Blocks Implementation of Obamacare
FSGG also contains important provisions that restrict the ability of the federal government to implement Obamacare. Specifically, this legislation stops transfer of funds between the Department of Health and Human Services and the IRS to fund Obamacare. Since passage of the law, the Obama Administration has funneled funds across agencies to hide the true costs of the law and pay out special interests at the expense of the American people.

Most importantly, the legislation restricts the use of funds to implement the individual mandate. Under current law, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services -- must pay an income surtax to the IRS. This year a family in the middle class will be forced to pay 2.5 percent of Adjusted Gross income or $1,390 if they do not have insurance. The Obama administration uses the Orwellian phrase “shared responsibility payment” to describe this tax.  

Increases CFPB Oversight and Accountability 
This legislation provides increased oversight over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, by subjecting the agency to annual congressional appropriations process, something that has not occurred since the CFPB was created in 2010. By bringing funding for the CFPB under the congressional appropriations process, this legislation increases the accountability of the CFPB to congress and taxpayers. 

Further, H.R. 5485 temporarily halts the CFPB’s costly and overreaching arbitration rule by requiring the agency to study the use of pre-dispute arbitration before issuing such regulations. The CFPB has not adequately justified the need for rule, and enactment would increase the costs of products and reduce access for the very consumers it would supposedly protect.  

Restrains FCC
The FCC’s snowballing regulatory binge continues to tighten its grasp on basic functions of the Internet and the free market.  The FCC's dubious interpretations of "ambiguous" legal language, even at the protest of Congress, leave no other options but for Congress to restrain and direct FCC spending as Congress is statutorily required to do.

To enhance transparency and public participation, funds must be used for the agency to make all proposed regulations public three weeks before the final legally binding vote.  It constrains some of the agency’s overreaches on policy, by preventing the agency from using any appropriated funding for “Net Neutrality” regulations until court proceedings conclude. 

The dollars in the public pot are limited. While the agency does receive less money for operations than it asked for, and the is an overall decrease in funding of $25 million, the FCC maintains an ample budget of $315 million to aptly pursue its core functions and target waste fraud and abuse within its programs. 

 

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

Top Comments


Speaker Ryan’s Regulatory Reform Agenda is Pro Consumer and Pro Energy

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Wednesday, June 15th, 2016, 11:37 AM PERMALINK


This week Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) released his regulatory reform agenda, which is the third installment of his “A Better Way” plan. The regulatory reform agenda released outlines a number of policy proposals aimed at reigning in a regulatory burden that has grown exponentially under Obama. While the proposed reforms would have widespread benefits for the economy as a whole, many would prove especially beneficial to energy consumers and the energy sector, both of which have seen costs skyrocket under the Obama regime.

Since taking office, the President has actively worked to expand executive agency control over the economy through increased regulations, specifically as it relates to the energy sector. Over the last eight years U.S. consumers and the economy have been subjected to an avalanche of energy regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan and Methane Rule, which increase the costs of energy. 

By growing the regulatory burden, the Obama Administration has increased the amount of time and resources U.S. businesses expend to comply with such regulations. The increased compliance burden trickles down to U.S. families and consumers in the form of higher monthly energy bills, reduced household income, and increased costs of consumer goods.

Speaker Ryan’s regulatory reform agenda looks to reverse this economically disastrous trend by proposing common sense reforms such as: providing for a regulatory budget; requiring regulators to take the cumulative impact of rules into account; and using reproducible and transparent data.

Speaker Ryan points out that Washington’s regulatory bureaucracy rarely knows the financial costs of the regulations it enacts, even with regard to major regulations. In order to fix this issue, Ryan proposes requiring Congress, when it passes new regulatory legislation, to prepare and report estimates of how much a regulation will cost. This would essentially impose a “regulatory budget” on the process, ensuring lawmakers take into account the associated costs of new rules.

In the same vein, the regulatory reform agenda notes that while regulations are enacted separately, often the cumulative effect of such regulations on the economy is overlooked. This issue only compounds as more and more regulations are added each year. For instance, in 2015 the federal government enacted 3,408 new regulations while repealing few. Ryan argues that such regulatory impacts should not be considered in isolation, but the burden on the economy should be considered as a whole when enacting new rules. 

It has also been a constant criticism that federal agencies are often not transparent or accountable in reproducing and making available the scientific data used to justify new regulations. As part of the reforms proposed, Congress would require federal agencies adhere to accepted principles of scientific practice during research, and make such data available to the citizens, industries, and organizations that would be impacted by proposed regulations.

Ryan’s regulatory reform agenda also outlines needed reforms such as reducing paperwork, requiring “meaningful” judicial review of rules, and adhering to statutory mandates, among a number of other positive reforms. 

The reforms outlined by Speaker Ryan would not only be a boon for U.S. competitiveness as a whole but also would be particularly beneficial to energy consumers and businesses, reducing compliance costs and in turn reducing the price of energy American families and businesses pay each month.

Unlike the existing regulatory climate under Obama, requiring regulators and lawmakers to work within a regulatory budget and take into account cumulative costs would protect businesses from a continuation of a suffocating compliance burden and ensure consumers are not subjected to even more increased energy costs. Additionally, making the regulatory process more transparent would allow for the interests of citizen stakeholders and businesses to have a voice in the process that has been muffled by federal bureaucracy for too long. 

 
Photo credit:  House GOP

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Overwhelming Majority in the House Votes to Oppose a Carbon Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Monday, June 13th, 2016, 10:20 AM PERMALINK


Last week the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to oppose a national carbon tax. Lawmakers in the House voted 237-163 to a pass a resolution offered by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), that expressed the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be “detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.”

The vote by the lower chamber found the support of 231 House Republicans, all voting to oppose a carbon tax. No Republicans voted to support a carbon tax, and six Democrats crossed the aisle also to oppose a carbon tax.

While the vote on Scalise’s resolution is largely symbolic, it marks a huge win for those in Congress that understand just how economically disastrous the impact of a carbon tax would be in the U.S. The 237 votes represent not just a vote against a carbon tax, but also a vote to protect American families and businesses. 

As Americans for Tax Reform has repeatedly pointed out, a U.S. carbon tax would have far reaching impacts on the entire economy. For instance, projections show a carbon tax would reduce U.S. GDP by over $140 billion and crush over 1 million jobs within a few decades. Energy prices would also see up to a 30 percent increase, impacting the nation’s most vulnerable populations as energy costs and the costs of consumer goods rise.

With the House’s vote last week, lawmakers in the lower chamber have committed to going on record to oppose any future proposals of a national carbon tax. Now, focus shifts to the Senate where Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) has introduced a companion resolution to the one passed by the House, which would put members of the upper chamber on record opposing a carbon tax. 

Sen. Blunt’s resolution S. Res. 472, has already garnered 25 co-sponsors since it was released last month. As was the case with Rep. Scalise’s resolution, Sen. Blunt’s expresses “the sense of the Senate that a carbon tax would be detrimental to U.S. families and businesses.”

Americans for Tax Reform urges members of the Senate to support Sen. Blunt’s resolution, and also applauds the 237 House members that voted to oppose a carbon tax in the House. Such measures lay the groundwork for protecting American families and businesses from possible efforts in the future to enact burdensome and economically disastrous carbon tax policies.   

 

Photo credit: Henk Sijgers

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

marktabbert

Who wouldn't be opposed to this Straw Man created by Scalise. Scalise is simply trying to damage any action on Climate Change and he'll find his rightful place in history, along with Benedict Arnold, not Arnold Schwarzenegger.


ATR Supports Sen. Blunt's Resolution Opposing a Carbon Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Tuesday, May 24th, 2016, 12:39 PM PERMALINK


Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist sent the following letter to Congress this week, urging support for Senator Roy Blunt's (R-Mo.) resolution opposing a carbon tax. The resolution introduced by Senator Blunt expresses the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses and is not in the best interest of the United States. 

Below is the full text of the letter:

May 9, 2016

Dear Senator Blunt:

Americans for Tax Reform strongly supports your leadership in the fight against any form of a carbon tax.

I urge all members of Congress to support and vote for your Senate Resolution, which puts Congress on the record in opposition to a carbon tax. 

A carbon tax would kill jobs in the United States, reduce economic growth, and set the stage for future tax hikes. Such a tax would drive up energy prices for American families and businesses, leading to an increase in the costs of consumer goods and reduced household income.

A carbon tax would be wholly regressive, falling hardest on low-income families who can least afford it. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office pointed out, “low-income households spend a larger share of their income on goods and services whose prices would increase the most” as a result of a carbon tax.

A study by the National Association of Manufacturers found a carbon tax would: have a negative effect on consumption, investment and jobs; increase the cost of coal, natural gas and petroleum products thus resulting in higher production costs and less spending on non-energy goods; and lead to lower real wage rates, lower labor productivity, and decrease workers’ incomes.

Americans for Tax Reform encourages all members of Congress to vote for your resolution opposing a carbon tax. 

Thank you Senator for your continued strong leadership in protecting Americans from a carbon tax today and forever.

Sincerely,

Grover G. Norquist

President 

Americans for Tax Reform

 

PDF link to letter

Photo credit: Bill Dickinson

 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


ATR Urges Lawmakers to Act on TSCA Reform

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Tuesday, May 24th, 2016, 9:03 AM PERMALINK


Americans for Tax Reform today sent the following letter to Congress urging lawmakers to act quickly to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Since enactment of TSCA in 1976, industry innovations and product development have outpaced the Act's provisions leaving it outdated and untouched by lawmakers for almost 40 years. 

Reforming TSCA will provide a more cohesive national chemical regulatory program that gives businesses and states a new level of certainty with regards to interstate commerce. Reform will also increase consumer safety and confidence. 

May 24, 2016

Dear Members of Congress: 

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and millions of taxpayers nationwide, I strongly urge you to act to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Reforming TSCA would not just be a boon to the economy as whole, but would also increase consumer confidence and safety, and give certainty to key American industries such as manufacturing.    

Since enactment of TSCA in 1976, industry innovations in product development and chemical safety have far outpaced the Act’s provisions leaving it outdated and untouched by lawmakers for almost 40 years.

This has given rise to criticism from industry, environmental, and consumer groups that all point to inefficiencies in the Act’s chemical evaluation process, as well as a patch work of state regulations that can stymie interstate commerce and increase compliance issues for businesses. Such issues have far reaching impacts on the economy and consumer confidence.   

Reforming TSCA would remedy compliance issues by providing for a more cohesive national chemical regulatory program that gives businesses and states a new level of certainty with regards to interstate commerce. TSCA reform would also increase consumer confidence and safety. 

Americans for Tax Reform encourages members of Congress to act swiftly to reform and improve the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Sincerely,

Grover G. Norquist

​President

Americans for Tax Reform

PDF link to letter

Photo credit: Ryan Bowley

 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Trump Takes a Stand Against a Carbon Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Friday, May 13th, 2016, 5:17 PM PERMALINK


Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump today took to twitter to make it clear that under no circumstances would he support a carbon tax. Trump’s move to disavow a carbon tax comes as some clueless state and federal lawmakers and far left energy advocates have made the case for a carbon tax this year. 

Trump’s opposition to a carbon tax shows that he is well aware of just how economically disastrous such a tax would be for the country. The imposition of a carbon tax would not only impact the competitiveness of the U.S. economy, but also would drive up energy prices, inevitably leading to higher consumers costs and reduce the household income of millions of American families. 

For the U.S. economy as a whole, projections show a carbon tax would lead to a drop in U.S. GDP of at least $146 billion by the year 2030, impacting both investment and labor. It is projected that over a 3-year span after enactment, over 400,000 jobs would be lost, with losses reaching more than a million jobs by 2030. 

The impact of a carbon tax on energy costs would ripple throughout the economy, with energy prices estimated to see cost increases of 20 to 30 percent.

The resulting increase in energy costs would be wholly regressive, impacting the nation’s most vulnerable. Low to middle income families, who spend a larger portion of their income on energy, would be disproportionately impacted as more and more of their household budget is consumed by rising energy costs.

These same families would be doubly impacted by a carbon tax due to the fact that resulting increases in the costs of energy would also drive up the price of consumer goods, further depleting the disposable income of millions of Americans.

Clearly Trump has done his homework on the carbon tax, and realizes it would be a huuuuuge mistake and terrible deal for the American people.

 

Photo credit:  Ed Ouimette

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

GoddessLilith

Thank you.... have been following for years this issue since it's original name Rio and not the new Parisagreement signed this past earthday.

Climate charge is more like it not change. They are using the basis of such not to fund back nature but to allocate funds to fund NWO. If you follow the money and leave the science out of it and read the parisagreement, specifically the goals 5.6 and 3.1, outlines many unconstitutional matters of our freedom. Limited by the people, but government control. Which will have clear means to take property, limit births and force in areas to live limited of freedom by law of climate. There are additional restrictions, cost of funds come from consumers at the end. The poor will hurt the worst, forcing as we see in areas. Harvard did a study back in 2008, over 2.00 more on a kilowatt and gas increase of .80 per gallon. That was 2008. Increase cost limits use and affordable mobility, it reduces middle class to poor, forcing most to Live in areas of Subsidized development buildings, losing homes, cannot afford a car, have to be forced into areas of public transportation. Many will die. 70 to 100,000 births is the goal to survival. 3.1 goal outlines. Rio Agenda21 hence Paris agreement was written as not a treaty since congress both sides would never approve it back in 2008 rio. New world order posses as this is for the climate change, but it is not. They have placed matters of beyond climate change in the agreement. . Nothing going back to the climate, trillion dollars agreed to united nations signed by Obama this past earth day, was and will be deemed unconstitutional, executive power. Trust that. It was rushed , and when did you ever see over 197 countries agree on anything. If you read the agreement and the agreements stated you will be furious that it is a manor to raise not only control but monies for government with allocation not back into nature at all, but funds from each country to increase spending. Our foods will be gmo modified for mass, and demands on vaccines increased each year, we the test rats, the nature will have less chemical but we will be losing so many since our immune systems each different will and have increased deaths, cancers,and beyond our children government owned until age 5 forced vaccines that have beyond shown to many again each different immune system, harm. I lost my son to food allergies 7 years old. I have beyond seek truth, into all areas to help the next. He was 7, now an angel, by food. It is what our immune system combined in mass can handle by vaccines and food gmo and environmental chemical spraying such as roundup, to be forced by government to for loss of life, is not an option. God bless all. I support no climate charge by the facts of human life. Nature has survived but what we have overlooked is nature regardless of our help will evolve, space air and our sun has been not growing, I watch and pay much attention to space weather activities the earth quacks being results. Our Corona hold is perfect, this is more than what is being said. Chemical spraying al gore admitten it, again more chemical are killing our bees amd many marine life, when men alters nature results are more harmful. Mother earth will be here, but our children deserve a life.


ATR Supports The Ozone Standards Implemnetation Act of 2016

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Monday, May 9th, 2016, 11:17 AM PERMALINK


Americans for Tax Reform today expressed support for the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016 (H.R. 4775, S. 2882), which would allow states to pursue cost-effective and practical implementation of EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone.

The origins of EPA ozone regulations can be traced back to the original standards for criteria pollutants in 1971, which included ground-level ozone. These regulations have been regularly revised in the years since, the most recent occurring in 2008. However, due to bureaucratic delay characteristic of EPA regulators, the implementing regulations specified for 2008 were not published until March of 2015. The March 2015 regulations lowered the compliance level of ozone to 75 parts per billion (ppb).  

As states began implementation of the 75 ppb standards, the EPA again revised the regulations in October 2015, imposing additional new planning and compliance obligations on states. By the EPA’s own estimate, the October 2015 standards, which lowered compliance to 70 ppb, would cost $1.4 billion annually, while providing little environmental benefit.   

The EPA’s lack of efficiency and reliability on ozone standard implementation has put states in the position of having to possibly implement two costly ozone standards at the same time. Such inefficiency has left states burdened with confusing and costly implementation scenarios that could prove devastating for state economies.       

In contrast, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016 would provide states more time and flexibility to implement the standards on an efficient and realistic timeline. The Act would also address related implementation issues facing states under the NAAQS program, such as reforming the rulemaking process by extending the review period for pollutants from every 5 to 10 years.

Americans for Tax Reform strongly supports the Ozone Standards Implementation Act (H.R. 4775, S. 2882), and encourages members of Congress to support and vote for this much needed legislation.  

 

Photo credit: John Griffiths

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Obama's Paris Agreement: All Cost and No Benefit for the U.S.

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Friday, April 22nd, 2016, 1:44 PM PERMALINK


Today the Obama Administration will sign the Paris climate agreement at a ceremony in New York, a move that is projected to severely impact the U.S. economy with ironically negligible impacts for the environment. The agreement will not only set the stage for increased regulation, but will crush U.S. economic output, reduce household income for millions, and likely lead to hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.

The agreement is a product of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, where President Obama met with world leaders to commit the U.S. to non-binding emission reduction targets. Under the agreement, Obama committed the U.S. to wholly improbable reduction goals of 26 to 28 percent by year 2025.

Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama has essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy.  Sadly, the agreement will not just hurt the country’s growth as a whole, but will trickle down to low-and-middle income Americans. As a result of the agreement, energy costs will skyrocket, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods.

A recent study by the Heritage Foundation projects that the Paris agreement and resulting policies will increase electricity costs for a family of four between 13 and 20 percent annually. The study also projected American families will see over $20,000 of lost income by year 2035. Such regressive policy hits the nation’s most vulnerable hardest, who ironically are the same people Obama uses to justify the deal. 

The Paris deal is also slated to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion, and result in an average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs by 2035. Of the 400,000 jobs lost, an estimated 200,000 will be in the manufacturing sector. This means Americans will also see the costs of consumer goods such as electronics, paper products, and apparel increase, inevitably taking more out of household income.

With such drastic costs to the U.S., American’s would expect an equally drastic benefit on the other end, yet that is simply not the case. Policies such as those resulting from climate deal would, even with a complete elimination of U.S. carbon emissions, result in less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures. 

It is all to clear the Paris climate deal is all cost and no benefit for the U.S., and the Obama Administration is comfortable sacrificing low-and-middle income Americans, along with thousands of jobs and GDP, for an environmental benefit that is negligible, at best.   

 

Photo credit: Joe Crimmings

More from Americans for Tax Reform

There are no related posts.

Top Comments


ATR Supports Rep. Roe's and Sen. Isakson's Resolutions Blocking DOL’s Fiduciary Rule

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Tuesday, April 19th, 2016, 1:29 PM PERMALINK


This week Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), joined by Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) and Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.), introduced a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to block the Department of Labor’s (DOL) recently released “fiduciary” rule. A similar resolution was also introduced this week in the Senate by Sen. Johnny Isakson, (R-Ga.).   

The DOL’s fiduciary rule, finalized April 6th of this year, would limit the ability of IRA advisors to talk with potential investors or to recommend specific investment advice. This in turn will increase compliance costs, inevitably pushing some users out of the world of IRAs and discourage others from using them.

Speaking this week on the rule, Rep. Roe stated:

“It’s crucial Americans have access to the retirement advice they need…Unfortunately, the administration’s misguided rule does just the opposite. The new regulatory scheme will hinder access to retirement advice for low-and-middle-income families and make it harder for small businesses to help their employees plan for retirement.”

It is estimated the fiduciary rule could disqualify up to 7 million IRA holders from investment advice, and potentially reduce the number of IRAs opened annually by between 300,000 and 400,000.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, the House and Senate can vote on a joint resolution of disapproval to stop, with the full force of the law, a federal agency from implementing a rule or issuing a substantially similar rule without congressional authorization.  

Americans for Tax Reform urges lawmakers to support both of these important resolutions in order to protect low-and-middle income families, small businesses, and employees from increased retirement savings costs and reduced access resulting from the DOL’s fiduciary rule.

 

Photo credit: Matt Popovich

More from Americans for Tax Reform

There are no related posts.

Top Comments


Senate FAA Bill Leaves Much to Be Desired on Reforms

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Monday, April 18th, 2016, 3:25 PM PERMALINK


The Senate this week will consider legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through 2017. While lawmakers were correct to leave renewable energy extenders out of the Senate version of the FAA bill, the two-year reauthorization still leaves much to be desired in the way of reform.

The FAA bill currently before the Senate maintains taxes on airline passengers as well as inefficiently administered federal funding for airports. The bill authorizes over $33 billion in funding for FAA functions during 2016 and 2017.  

As part of this authorization, Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants would see a 12 percent increase from $3.35 billion in 2016 to $3.75 billion in 2017. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects this will increase AIP outlays by $3.4 billion through 2026, subject to yearly appropriations. As Americans for Tax Reform has repeatedly pointed out, airport funding has hit historic levels in recent years and such spending is unjustified.

The Senate FAA bill also avoids reforming regulatory burdens, and instead increases the federal governments reach into the aviation industry. For instance, the bill contains a new “baggage refund mandate” that CBO projects will cost airlines $10 million annually, the cost of which will likely be passed onto consumers in the form of higher fees. 

The bill also is riddled with a number of regulatory mandates that not only drive up the costs for the aviation industry, but will inevitably increase the costs for traveling consumers. 

A new mandate contained in the bill requires new flight data recorders for commercial aircraft that will have little to no impact on consumer safety but will cost and estimated $700 million. There is also a new regulation mandating limits on flight attendant working hours and rest periods as well as a required study on airline seats. Again regulations that will have little impact on safety but increase costs for consumers. 

The growing drone industry also receives increased regulations under the bill, as one section requires all models of unmanned air systems (UAS) flown in the U.S. airspace receive FAA approval, thereby limiting recreational drone use. Additionally, recreational drone enthusiasts with drones weighing more than 4.4 pounds would have to pass a federal test on aeronautical knowledge.

It is clear that Senate lawmakers took into account taxpayers and the traveling public when they rejected efforts to extend renewable tax credits as part of the FAA bill. However, the bill still does little in the way of reforming federal spending and regulations, both of which increase costs for the traveling public and American taxpayers.

 

Photo credit: Elliott P.

More from Americans for Tax Reform

There are no related posts.

Top Comments


Pages

hidden
×