Paul Blair

Garden State Lawmakers On Verge of Passing Massive Gas Tax Hike

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Paul Blair on Monday, June 27th, 2016, 7:21 AM PERMALINK


A bill to immediately raise the gas tax by 23 cents per gallon could be brought to the floors of the New Jersey state Senate and Assembly as early as this week, after passing out of their respective Budget committees last Thursday. Sponsored by Senators Steve Oroho (R-Sussex) and Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), the bill (Senate Bill S2412) would raise the net tax burden on New Jersey residents by more than $500 million annually.

 The Bad: Gas Tax Hikes.

  • The plan would immediately raise the state gas tax from 14.5 cents per gallon by 23-cents to 37 cents per gallon, making it roughly the 7th highest in the nation. This 23 cents is calculated based on a new 12.5 percent sales tax imposed up on the current average price of gasoline. The tax would rise with higher gas prices.
  • The current 14.5-cent gas tax is made up of a 10.5-cent per gallon tax on motor fuels and a 4-cent Petroleum Products Gross Receipts tax. 
  • Not all of the currently collected gas tax revenue goes to the Transportation Trust Fund (TFF), which runs out of money on July 1. 
  • The current gas tax is projected to raise $750 million this year and a 23-cent increase would add another $1.4 billion to state coffers per year.

 

The Illegal: Diverting Airport Revenue to Roads and Bridges.

  • There is a provision of this legislation, which raises the effective excise tax rate imposed on jet fuel 25-fold. 
  • The New Jersey jet fuel tax is currently applied to gallons of fuel used on taxiing and takeoff (the burn-rate method), resulting in an effective tax rate of .4 cents per gallon. 
  • This proposal would raise that tax to 10-cents per gallon, a 25-fold increase. 
  • Mandating that any of this money be diverted to roads, highways, bridges or any other non-aviation purpose would violate Federal law prohibiting the diversion of airport revenue. Read more on that here.
  • A plaintiff against the state would likely win this lawsuit, resulting in a $170 million loss of anticipated revenue immediately after this tax hike passes. 

 

The Good. Death Tax Phase-Out and Other Cuts. 

  • The legislation begins the phase-out the estate tax over three years, a $540 million per year tax cut once fully implemented.
  • Residents filing jointly will not have to pay income taxes on retirement income, including pensions, up to $100,000, up from $20,000.
  • Creates a new tax deduction for charitable giving.
  • Voters will be asked this fall to constitutionally dedicate existing and future gas tax revenue to transportation. 

 

If fully phased in, the total tax cuts being considered equal about $850 million per year compared to $1.4 billion in gas tax hikes. 

This legislation does nothing to address the cost-drivers and structural issues within the Transportation Trust Fund. If proponents of a gas tax hike are serious about the Garden State’s real transportation needs, they will re-examine the rampant waste within the system and the types of public projects funded by the state. 

Instead of requiring commuters to fork over more of their hard-earned income, New Jersey lawmakers should modernize the state’s prevailing wage laws, re-examine union contracts, and introduce real competition into the bidding and contract process for transportation projects. Until then, tax hikes should be a non-starter for negotiations about short or long-term transportation needs.

Americans for Tax Reform opposes this legislation and urges the legislature to reject Senators Sarlo and Oroho’s shameless gas tax cash grab.  

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

disqus_FYINAKV4CU

12.5% tax on gasoline on top of the 14c?!!! Up from a flat 14c. This means if gas goes to 4 you will pay 64c in tax. This is bad for economic activity.


ATR Launches Campaign to Defeat Vapor Products Tax Hike in Pennsylvania

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Paul Blair on Monday, June 20th, 2016, 4:35 PM PERMALINK


On the heels of a July 1 deadline for the FY 2016-2016 budget, legislative leaders and Governor Tom Wolf (D-Pa.) are in the final stretch on deciding the size of the annual budget and whether tax hikes will be an element of the deal. Unlike last year, broad based tax increases including the sales and income tax seem to be off the table. Unfortunately, the target of money-hungry lawmakers seems to be smokers, vapers, and gamblers.

In response to these targets for tax hikes, ATR has again launched a campaign to defeat any and all efforts to raise taxes, with a specific focus on the proposal to impose a massive and new 40% wholesale tax on tobacco-free vapor products.

The first set of lawmakers’ constituents who will receive phone calls urging them contact their lawmaker to tell them to reject taxes hikes on products that are helping smokers quit includes:

  • House Speaker Mike Turzai (HD-28)
  • House Majority Leader Dave Reed (HD62)
  • Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman (SD34)

 

A sample script can be read here:

Hi, this is Linda Adams with an important message about a pending tax increase in Pennsylvania. This call was paid for by Americans for Tax Reform at 202-785-0266. Republicans are on the verge of passing a massive new tax hike on small businesses that are helping smokers quit. This will hurt public health and kill jobs. Press 1 on your phone now to connect to your state Senator Jake Corman to tell him to reject tax hikes. Press 1 now.

Click here to listen.

The increasing body of scientific evidence suggests that vapor products are between 95 and 99 percent less harmful than combustible cigarettes and are being used by smokers as smoking cessation products. To target with tax hikes a product that helps smokers quit works at cross purposes with decades of efforts to curb the use of cigarettes and makes for horrible tax and public health policy. 

ATR will be closely monitoring this debate and urges lawmakers to rein in out-of-control spending instead of soaking consumers and businesses with unaffordable tax hikes. Additional legislative districts may be added to this campaign in the coming days. 

Photo Credit: 
Martin Cathrae: Flickr

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


West Virginia Legislature Passes Massive New Tax on Vapor Products

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Paul Blair on Monday, June 13th, 2016, 3:34 PM PERMALINK


In a Special Budget Session, the West Virginia House of Delegates and state Senate voted to subject electronic cigarettes and vapor products to a new, onerous excise tax. By a vote of 63-45, the House voted to adopt a Senate proposal that is expected to yield $98 million in new revenue for the state over the next year.

Senate Bill 1012, which passed in the Senate over the weekend and the House today, included both a $.65 per pack cigarette tax hike and a new 7.5 cents per mL e-liquid tax.  The latter element of the packages makes West Virginia only the 5th state in the nation to subject vapor products to a sin tax.

Click here for a map of vapor taxes in the states. 

Americans for Tax Reform expressed its opposition to these tax hikes in a letter to the legislature, which can be read here.

We summarized the dangers in increasing the reliance on tobacco taxes by explaining,

“Targeted excise taxes have proven to be unstable sources of revenue, and ultimately can cause a reduction in tax receipts…In fact, only three out of the 32 state tobacco tax increases, enacted between 2009 and 2013, have met or exceeded tax revenue projects.”

This is largely due to black market smuggling, cross-border sales, and the seeking out of lower cost products in cheaper markets. All of these acts result in greater burdens on low-income consumers and to the detriment of in-state small businesses like convenience stores.

The greater affront to public health, however, came in the form of the new tax on electronic cigarettes and vapor products, which will now be taxed at a rate of 7.5 cents per mL of e-liquid.

We explained,

“These tobacco-free technology products are helping tens of thousands of smokers make the transition to far healthier alternatives. By imposing a 7.5-cent per mL tax on e-cigarettes…this punitive tax is both anti-health and a shameless cash grab…It is reckless to destroy with tax hikes small businesses accomplishing what tax hikes on cigarettes never could, getting people to quit smoking.”  

Vapor products are between 95 and 99 percent less harmful than combustible cigarettes and tax hikes clearly work against efforts to reduce the harm associated with smoking.

The House of Delegates rejected an amendment by Delegate Larry Faircloth that would have removed e-cigarettes and vapor products from Senate Bill 1012’s tax hikes. This new tax makes West Virginia the state with the 3rd highest tax rate on the products in the nation.

It should also be noted that with passage of this bill, "No wholesaler or other person may purchase e-cigarette liquids from any seller not approved by the Tax Commission," setting up a requirement for any company who sells products into WV to first be approved by the state to do so, beginning on July 1st.  

Instead of reining in spending, the legislature has imposed a senseless cash grab on consumers of smoking cessation products while increasing the state’s dependence on a volatile revenue source. As the legislature prepares for next year's budget debate, it should consider repealing these tax hikes as part of a broader effort on tax reform. 

Photo Credit: 
Linda Tanner, Flickr

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

SnugglesOfSarcasm

what utter scumbags. Vote them out. Every single one.

Dal Schnur

Profits over Human Health! this Whole Country is Pathetic with the continual Over Spending and Over Taxing of the Citizens.
One would think the Dollar is the Only concern of Representatives these days.
Instead of Taxing Harm Reduction, they should simple Double Tax on Cigarettes and Get everyone to Stop Peeing their income away on State funded Nonsense. All this amounts to is another Cash Grab to support a Corrupt and Crippled system.

Amy

Highway robbers in 3 piece suits. Bloodsuckers!


ATR Urges West Virginia Lawmakers to Rein in Spending During Special Budget Session

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Paul Blair on Sunday, May 22nd, 2016, 3:35 PM PERMALINK


As the West Virginia legislature enters the second week of deliberations during the 2016 Special Session, Americans for Tax Reform is urging lawmakers to focus on spending restraint instead of tax increases to address the state's $270 million shortfall. Unfortunately, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D-W.Va.) has limited the options of the legislature in his narrow call for session, and has proposed tax hikes as the ultimate solution to the state's overspending problem.

Among the most significant elements of the tax increases being considered is a tobacco tax hike, which would disproportionately harm low-income consumers and border communities. SB 1005 would increase the cigarette tax by 45 cents per pack, raise the wholesale tax on other tobacco products to 12 percent, and impose a new 7.5 cents per mL tax on the liquid contained in tobacco-free electronic cigarettes and vapor products.

ATR outlined our opposition to these proposals in a February letter to the legislature, which can be read here.

In urging the legislature to focus on spending restraint instead of tax hikes during the Special Budget Session, ATR president Grover Norquist and Americans for Prosperity - WV state director Jason Huffman (AFP) have jointly authored a letter explaining:

"Imposing tax hikes on residents will do little to make West Virginia more attractive to investment or stop residents from continually fleeing to other states." 

They explain further:

"West Virginia does not have a revenue problem; the state government has an overspending problem. At $12,910, per-capita government spending in West Virginia was the third highest in the nation in 2014. It should be noted that the two states with higher per-capita spending – Alaska and Wyoming – don’t impose income taxes and currently have among the lowest tax burdens among any states."

There are still significant elements of the budget that contain waste, cost overruns, and abuse that the legislature should work to eliminate.

"An estimated $100 million a year is wasted by bureaucrats on Medicaid because of improperly awarded managed care contracts obtained without competitive bidding.

Similar waste exists at the Division of Highways, where Deloitte identified 15 instances of waste that cost taxpayers $25-50 million a year in cost overruns because of the  inefficient use of resources."

ATR will closely monitor deliberations and continue to urge lawmakers to focus on spending restraint, budget transparency, and government reform instead of tax hikes in the coming days and weeks.

Click here to read the ATR-AFP coalition letter to lawmakers.

Photo Credit: 
Noel Benadom, Flickr

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller Refuses to Rule out Tax Hikes in Bid for Congress

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Adam Radman, Paul Blair on Wednesday, April 27th, 2016, 3:04 PM PERMALINK


Greg Zoeller is the only Republican candidate for Indiana’s 9th Congressional district to refuse to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge promising to oppose higher taxes. His unwillingness to rule out tax hikes is somewhat unsurprising, given his call for higher taxes in Indiana as recently as last year. Zoeller asked the state legislature to impose a new 24 percent wholesale tax on tobacco-free electronic cigarettes and vapor products in the lead-up to the legislative session.

His ignorance and outright hostility to this emerging product category flies in the face of growing evidence that vapor products are at least 95% less harmful than combustible cigarettes and are proven-effective smoking cessation devices. It also stands to make him among the only Republican member of Congress with such misguided and outspoken opposition to the products.

The Taxpayer Protection Pledge has been offered to every candidate for federal office since 1986. In the 114th Congress, 218 Congressmen and 48 Senators have signed the Pledge, including Rep. Todd Young (IN-09). 

Each of the remaining candidates has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, promising to voters that they would oppose tax hikes. Those candidates include Trey Hollingsworth, Brent Waltz, Erin Houchin, and Robert Hall.

This primary election also comes on the heels of new state regulations that stand to decimate the state vapor market. One could argue that Zoeller’s outspoken position on the products jump-started the effort to overregulate the products in Indiana last year.  

The voters in Indiana have a right to know where a candidate stands on the issues before electing them to Congress. Zoeller’s refusal to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge puts him outside the mainstream of the Republican Party. Eighty-nine percent of all congressional Republicans have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. He would be one of a small group of Republicans open to raising taxes,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The only reason  Zoeller wouldn't sign the Pledge is if he intends to raise taxes.

The promises that Zoeller makes about strengthening Indiana’s economy mean little without the backing of a concrete written promise to oppose higher taxes. Only by signing the Pledge can Indiana taxpayers be certain that Zoeller stands with them.

Voters should keep this in mind as they head to the polls in Indiana next Tuesday, May 3rd.

Photo Credit: 
Eric Bradner

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


ATR Supports Predicate Date Change in the Tobacco Control Act

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Paul Blair on Monday, April 18th, 2016, 2:36 PM PERMALINK


The U.S. House Committee on Appropriations will begin markup on the 2017 Agriculture Bill tomorrow, representing a significant opportunity to halt the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) overregulation of vapor products in the United States. An amendment to the bill, proposed by Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) will change what is known as the “predicate date” for tobacco products that have hit the market since February of 2007.

This is significant for a number of reasons. First, the Tobacco Control Act (TCA) established an arbitrary date of February 15, 2007 of which all tobacco or tobacco-derived products must establish existence in the market in order to avoid an expensive, if not impossible regulatory pre-approval process within the FDA. This was essentially intended to prevent new tobacco products like cigarettes from hitting the market without pre-approval, which would likely not ever occur.

Unfortunately, innovation has encountered an outdated regulatory code and trapped life-saving smoking cessation products in the mix.

Tobacco-free electronic cigarettes and vapor products did not exist in any commercialized form in 2007, signaling that it was not the intent of the Tobacco Control Act to regulate these products in a similar manner. Unfortunately, because the nicotine contained in many vapor products comes from tobacco plants, the FDA has asserted regulatory authority under the TCA covers these products as well.

As such, an effort underway by Rep. Cole would change the arbitrary 2007 date to the date at which the FDA announces its “deeming regulation,” where they deem vapor products as tobacco products, for regulatory purposes. This common sense change to the Tobacco Control Act would ensure that products already being sold to millions of consumers in the United States would remain available and affordable for adults. Absent a change in this date, the most significant advancement in public health in decades will be stifled by government. 

The growing body of scientific evidence suggests that vapor products are at least 95% and as much as 99% less harmful than combustible cigarettes. Both Matt Meyers of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and Mitch Zeller of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products have made statements suggesting their understanding of the opportunity for risk mitigation as well.

Matt Meyers, in 2014 testimony to the Senate Commerce Committee: “Responsibly marketed and properly regulated, e-cigarettes could benefit public health if they help significantly reduce the number of people who smoke conventional cigarettes and become sick and die as a result.” He explained further that if properly regulated, “I don’t think there is any doubt that there would be a reduction in harm,” from smokers who switched to e- cigarettes.

Mitch Zeller: “If we could get all of those people [who smoke] to completely switch all of their cigarettes to noncombustible cigarettes, it would be good for public health.”

Absent a Congressional change in the predicate date, only large tobacco companies will be able to afford the compliance costs associated with obtaining pre-market approval within the FDA to sell electronic cigarettes. The millions of dollars necessary to undergo this expensive regulatory process will halt innovation, and put most small businesses out of business, striking a significant blow to public health.

A change in the predicate date will do nothing to prevent the FDA from regulating the product category with reasonable requirements like ingredient disclosure or the establishment of good manufacturing practices. It will simply permit innovation to exist to the benefit of most consumers and small businesses in the industry.

Click here to read ATR president Grover Norquist’s letter to members of the House Committee on Appropriations. 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Oklahoma Lawmakers Playing Primary Politics with Tax Hikes

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Paul Blair on Wednesday, April 13th, 2016, 3:42 PM PERMALINK


In a stunning admission of tactics surrounding an effort to raise taxes in the Sooner State, Gov. Mary Fallin (R-Okl.) recently acknowledged that state lawmakers are postponing a public vote on her proposed tax hikes until after the candidate filing deadline has passed. 

"I think there are some members who are waiting to see if they draw an opponent during filing in April," Fallin said when asked about ongoing negotiations with the House and Senate on the budget. "They're slow playing things." 

The entire House and half of the state Senate is up for re-election this year, with a candidate-filing deadline coming up on Friday. In a letter to lawmakers yesterday, ATR president Gover Norquist expressed opposition to this tactic: 

“It is beyond reprehensible that legislators are postponing an open debate on the budget until they’re sure to get re-elected this year. Only cowards hide from voters when passing tax hikes on them in the dark of night.”

In February, Gov. Fallin proposed a number of tax hikes, including an expansion of the state sales tax ($200 million tax increase) and tobacco taxes ($182 million tax increase), tax hikes that ATR opposed. Fallin's support for these efforts constituted a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a written commitment that she made to Oklahoma voters when she was elected as governor in 2010.

Fortunately, the Oklahoma Constitution requires a ¾ vote by both legislative chambers and the signature of the governor to pass tax increases. Unfortunately, the threshold for referring a tax hike to the ballot only requires a simple majority. Voting to refer a tax hike to the ballot constitutes a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge unless voters are also provided the option of reducing their taxes at the same time.

ATR will continue to monitor these efforts in the coming days and weeks.

Click here for a copy of the letter sent to lawmakers. 

Photo Credit: 
Ben Dunham, Flickr

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Clarification on ATR's Support for Solar Market Reform Efforts in Maine


Posted by Paul Blair on Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016, 5:56 PM PERMALINK


In 2015, the Maine legislature passed a bill that required the development of an alternative pricing model for solar customers in the state by the end of 2016. Legislators have been working with the private sector over the past year to meet that mandate. At the crux of this debate is a policy and problem in the energy market know as net metering. 

In a November 2013 article entitled "Cautionary Tale About Solar Energy" for the Maine Wire, I explained:

"When a solar customer generates more power than they immediately need, utilities pay the customer for the power that is sent back onto the energy grid. A customer’s electricity meter spins backwards and the customer’s power bill is credited.

When the sun goes down, however, solar customers need energy to keep the lights on and thanks to a well maintained power grid and power generation stations, energy flows back to homes with solar units. The utility pays a higher retail rate for the energy they get from homeowners, creating a system where solar customers aren’t paying their fair share for energy use. 

The result of net metering is that traditional energy consumers end up subsidizing the use of solar power by their neighbors, as those costs are shifted to non-solar consumers. This is a problem. 

The Associated Press recently reported that "Grover Norquist Supports Maine Solar Bill" without providing the whole story. ATR did weigh in on the effort to address net metering in Maine, in a letter to lawmakers on the Maine Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Technology.

ATR did not endorse a specific piece of legislation. In fact, we noted,

"The proposal to increase the cap on solar power generation in Maine over the next 5 years without substantially changing the inherent cost shifting for current customers is somewhat concerning. "

We did, however, outline our support for ending or preventing the cost-shifting inherent in net metering, which the current legislative compromise does for future consumers. 

ATR's support for specific reforms contained within a compromise (like ending any sort of net metering for customers after a specific date) does not equate to supporting every element of that compromise. This important distinction was ignored by the Associated Press. 

Chris Rauscher, the director of public policy for Sunrun Inc., a massive solar company that pushes for the crony capitalism inherent in state solar energy market policies has expressed concerns with the compromise for the very reasons ATR supports elements of it. It puts in place an end to net metering, despite not doing so soon enough. 

He recently explained that his company would, "continue to fight for net metering as an option in the bill. He said net metering is the best way to ensure that solar customers receive a return on their investment." 

That letter in its entirety can be read here:

Dear Legislator,

I write today in support of efforts to address the consumer cost shifting inherent with net metering policies for solar power customers in Maine. Without this important reform - in the long term - traditional energy consumers will continue to subsidize the use of solar power by Maine customers who are not paying for their use of the energy grid.

Generous state and federal tax credits and subsidies have resulted in a large number of electric utility customers installing rooftop solar and other distributed generation (DG) power sources on their homes and businesses. Because on-site power storage remains to be cost-prohibitive, these customers rely heavily on the energy grid for power in inclement weather, at night, and when they generate excess power, which is sent back onto the grid.

Utilities are required to compensate these customers at the retail rate of power when this power is sent to the grid. As a result, rooftop solar and DG customers have their power meter rolled backwards (net metering) and utility companies are forced to pay customers at a much higher rate than it cost them to produce that energy by traditional means. The retail rate of electricity paid by traditional consumers includes the cost of building and maintaining the electric grid. In Maine, solar and DG customers are therefore not paying for their use or the maintenance of the grid.

The legislative compromise to address this problem isn’t perfect but it takes a step in the right direction.

The proposal to increase the cap on solar power generation in Maine over the next 5 years without substantially changing the inherent cost shifting for current customers is somewhat concerning. On the plus side, as new customers sign up, the contract price set by the Public Utilities Commission paid would decrease as the level of installation grows and the cost of solar installation declines. This introduces somewhat of an equitable and free market-oriented ratchet down compared to net metering policies.

The greatest benefit of the current compromise before the legislature is that if the new program is successful, net metering will not present the cost-shifting problem to the energy market for future solar customers, as it will not be available when certain benchmarks for capacity generation are met. The result is less volatility in the state solar and Maine’s overall energy market.

Americans for Tax Reform applauds efforts by the legislature to address the problems solar power generation presents to Maine energy consumers.

Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


It’s Time for Presidential Candidates to Weigh In on the Overregulation of Vapor Products

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Paul Blair on Wednesday, March 16th, 2016, 5:22 PM PERMALINK


When the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) designates that a federal regulation or rule is significant, or having an effect on the economy of more than $100 million, the agency must send a report to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and both houses of Congress. This requirement was signed into law in 1996 in the form of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and it allows legislators to introduce a resolution of disapproval to rescind a regulation. If successfully passed, the rule “may not be reissued in substantially the same form.”

Though the requirement to inform the GAO or Congress is often ignored, the requirement and important oversight authority of CRA do provide a legislative tool for Congress if it becomes necessary to provide a check on burdensome federal regulations. 

The American Action Forum predicts that given the current House and Senate calendars, President Obama will have until May 17, 2016 to issue significant regulations without fear the next Congress and succeeding administration will use the CRA to repeal the regulations. 

One such significant regulation is the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) proposed “deeming regulation” for electronic cigarettes and vapor products in the U.S. Without Congressional intervention, the FDA is poised to deem that these tobacco-free technology products be regulated like tobacco products under the Family Smoking and Prevention Tobacco Control Act. Predictions on the impact of this regulation range significantly, with some estimates suggesting that the cost of compliance would range from $2 to $10 million per product currently being sold to consumers. The total impact on the economy would far exceed the $100 million threshold for notice and Congressional oversight. This includes closed businesses, job losses, compliance costs, and a significantly negative public health impact in the short and long term. 

The first and easiest way to address the yet-to-be-announced deeming regulation for vapor products would be to amend what is known as the “predicate date” for the introduction of what the FDA labels as tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. A House Resolution (HR 2058) sponsored by Oklahoma Congressman Tom Cole does just that, and has 51 Republican co-sponsors in the House. ATR supports this effort. 

But given the inaction over this issue, it’s time for the next President to weigh in. Without Congressional action and assuming the FDA does finalize its deeming rule for vapor products, the next president will play an important role in potentially utilizing the CRA in conjunction with Congress to prevent the FDA from destroying thousands of small businesses and harming public health.

E-cigarettes are at least 95 and as much as 99 percent less harmful than combustible cigarettes.  This is no small issue and deserves the attention of those seeking America’s highest office.

In testimony to the Senate Commerce Committee, Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids explained,

“Responsibly marketed and properly regulated, e-cigarettes could benefit public health if they help significantly reduce the number of people who smoke conventional cigarettes and become sick and die as a result.”

Where do Donald Trump, Gov.John Kasich (R-Ohio), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) stand on the FDA’s attempt to kill the vapor product industry? To date, none of these candidates have weighed in.

Given the fact that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that there were at least 9 million consumers of these products in 2014, silence on these issues may not be a sustaining political tactic. 

Photo Credit: 
Rafer Weigel, Fox 2 St. Louis

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Grimm Green

Yeah... you're just super trolling now , well played

Elizabeth Merchant

uuuuummmm what planet are you from??? You don't get "High" from vaping e-liquid. That has got to be the most ignorant thing I have heard thus far. Gee, read much?

Elizabeth Merchant

Vaping is 95 to 99% safer Than smoking. That has been proven. There is NO tobacco in vaping Liquid. No second hand "smoke", it's vapor.. No cancer causing Tar or any of the other thousands of chemicals found in cigarettes. Why is it so hard to understand. Vaping is saving Millions of peoples lives?


Governor Cuomo’s Budget Proposal Stands to Destroy Market for Prescription Drug Innovation

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Paul Blair on Tuesday, March 8th, 2016, 12:07 PM PERMALINK


In his 2016-2017 budget, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) recently proposed not only significantly intrusive disclosure requirements for the pharmaceutical and biotech industries but price controls on the drugs they sell to consumers. This proposal is the latest in a misdirected anti-free market campaign to get to the bottom of rising health care and prescription drug costs in the United States. It also stands to destroy the market for innovation in the prescription drug market.

Gov. Cuomo’s drug plan would task the state’s health commissioner with developing a list of prescription drugs for which “there is a significant public interest in ensuring rational pricing by drug manufacturers.” These manufacturers would be required to disclose the cost of developing, manufacturing, producing, and distributing the drug. Research and development costs would also fall under the list of mandatory disclosure items.

This unprecedented level of mandatory disclosure about the cost of developing, manufacturing, producing, and distributing prescription drugs will have significant impact on innovation for the companies producing life-saving drugs in New York.

The goals of these mandates have nothing to do with transparency and everything to do with government price-controls. Letting governments decide how much companies can charge for their products or harassing them with nanny-state disclosure requirements is a guaranteed prescription for the end of pharmaceutical innovation in the United States.

Research is expensive. Bringing a potentially life-saving prescription drug to market is expensive. After hundreds of millions of dollars and a decade of time spent developing a drug, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves only 12 percent of potential medicines that enter clinical trials. Price-control caps on the after-trial cost of these drugs will serve one purpose, ending the free-market incentive to actually bring drugs to market for consumers and patients in need. 

As the National Bureau of Economic Research has acknowledged,

"Numerous economic studies indicate that price controls, by cutting the return that pharmaceutical companies receive on the sale of their drugs, also would reduce the number of new drugs being brought to the market. So, a short-run benefit for consumers could lead to a long-run negative impact on social welfare."

The New York legislature should reject Gov. Cuomo’s misguided crusade against prescription drug and biotech companies and focus it’s effort on driving down health care costs which have increased as a direct result of government intervention in the health care market. That begins with reform to the state's Medicaid program and a pairing back of Obamacare’s mandates on health insurance providers and plans. 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Pages

hidden
×