Congress Must Stop Obamacare Bailouts

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Toni-Anne Barry, Alexander Hendrie on Tuesday, October 18th, 2016, 10:00 AM PERMALINK

Six years after it was signed into law, Obamacare is failing. Insurers are hiking premiums or leaving Obamacare marketplaces because they cannot make any money. Taxpayer financed co-ops are collapsing despite generous loan terms. Individuals on the exchanges are losing their plans and find their already limited healthcare choices narrowing.

The President should acknowledge that the law is broken and work to reform the system to lower costs, improve quality, and ensure all Americans have access to healthcare that best suits their individual needs. Instead, the Obama administration is pushing several taxpayer funded bailouts of the law through the risk corridor and transitional reinsurance programs.

In the past few years, the government has stolen a total of $8.5 billion in taxpayer dollars to illegally fund Obamacare through programs like reinsurance. If Congress fails to act, the law could provide more than $170 billion in corporate welfare payments to special interests.


Over 50 conservative groups have signed a coalition letter urging congress to stop the Obamacare bailouts. Congress must reassert their authority and stop the Obama administration from using taxpayer dollars to bail out the failed programs.

Reinsurance Bailout Costing Taxpayers $3.5 Billion: In order to disguise the costs to American families, the law has relied on a web of confusing spending programs, subsidies, and taxes. One program, known as transitional reinsurance imposed a fee on each individual with private health insurance to raise $25 billion, including $5 billion that would go back to taxpayers via the Treasury general fund.

In both 2015 and 2014, the program failed to take in the expected sums, so the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decided to illegally funnel funds to Obamacare insurers. As announced earlier this year, Obamacare insurance companies would receive $7.7 billion through the reinsurance program – $6 billion obtained from a fee on private health insurance and $1.7 billion taken from the Treasury general fund.

Because HHS did the same last year, a total of $3.5 billion has been stolen from taxpayers using the reinsurance program.

Section 1341 of Obamacare, which establishes reinsurance, explicitly allocates that taxpayer dollars “shall be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury of the United States and may not be used for the [reinsurance] program established under this section.”

Multiple legal opinions have concurred that the reinsurance bailout is illegal:

  • A opinion released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that HHS was ignoring federal law by diverting funds from Treasury to Obamacare insurers.
  • Similarly, a memo released by analysts at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that federal law “unambiguously” states funds must be deposited into the Treasury general fund.
  • Former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray also called the diverting of funds “unlawful” and questioned how it could possibly withstand legal scrutiny.


Congress a duty to step in and block this illegal action. They can do so by passing the Taxpayers Before Insurers Act, legislation introduced by Congressman Mark Walker (R-N.C.) and Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) that forces HHS to return the stolen $3.5 billion to taxpayers. This pro-taxpayer legislation forces the Obama Department of Health and Human Services to obey the law and return billions in funds to their rightful owner – the American people. If they fail to do so, the legislation strips HHS of billions in taxpayer funds.

Risk Corridors Settlements Will Cost Taxpayers Billions More: Like the reinsurance program, the risk corridor program was created as a “stabilization” program when Obamacare was passed into law. The program was designed to encourage insurers to take on higher risk individuals by transferring funds from insurers who made financial gains to those that posted losses. Because insurers were unable to make any money from operating on exchanges the program failed to work as expected.

For the 2014 season, insurance providers requested $2.87 billion in payments but the program took in $362 million, just 12.6 percent. Federal law requires the program to be budget neutral, so the federal government was unable to pay out the remaining $2.5 billion to insurers off the backs of taxpayers, as they attempted at the end of last year.

Despite this restriction, the Obama administration is now looking to pay out this money in their final days of office. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) blatantly announced in a memo that it intends to circumvent federal law and the will of Congress by offering settling with insurance companies that have sued over the Risk Corridor program. The federal government will do this by offering them settlements from the Judgment Fund, which is outside the scope of Congressional appropriations.

Like the reinsurance bailout, there is no question this action is illegal. The Government Accountability Office has again said there is no legal justification. Their analysis shows that when a government agency cannot pay its dues, it must get funding through Congress. Even the Obama Department of Justice has said that insurers aren’t entitled to the billions that CMS wants to pay them. 

The law is clearly imploding. Rather than push bailouts to Obamacare at the expense of taxpayers, the administration should work with Congress to find fixes to the law.  

Photo Credit:

Top Comments

Hillary Can’t Stop Stealing Furniture From the American People

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Laurens ten Cate on Tuesday, October 18th, 2016, 9:40 AM PERMALINK

Furniture owned by the American taxpayer keeps disappearing when Hillary is in charge

The FBI on Monday released a new batch of interview summaries related to the investigation into Clinton’s private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. These so-called 302s were released under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) and include some interesting new facts about Hillary Clinton’s scandal marred Secretary of State term.

As shown on page 44 of this FBI document, Hillary and her staff walked out with taxpayer-funded furniture and lamps and took them to her Georgetown home:

“Early in CLINTON’s tenure as Secretary of State, she and her staff were observed removing lamps and furniture from the State Department which were transported to her residence in Washington, D.C.”

This observation comes from an interview held on the September 2, 2015 with a Special Agent of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). The agent also mentions that he does not know whether the items were ever returned after Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State ended.

Helping herself to the public’s furniture seems to be a recurring theme in Hillary’s political career. When the Clintons transitioned out of the White House the Washington Post reported that the Clintons took with them nearly $200,000 worth of furniture, artwork, china and rugs.

They received these items initially as gifts to the White House and the donors obviously expected that they remain there. Like Joy Ficks, widower of the manufacturer of a table given during the 1993 White House redecoration project, told the Washington post that “it was meant for the White House, not the Clintons, and she thought it would stay there.”

Then White House chief usher Gary J. Walters told the Washington Post: "As far as we were concerned, they were government property," he said of all the gifts obtained for the $396,000 redecoration project.

The Post also notes:

This week, they [Clinton] agreed to return another set of gifts that had been donated to the White House in earlier years, including six items they had not previously disclosed as having been taken. These included the coffee table, the armoire, the gaming table and the wicker table that Walters has asked about a year ago.

Not long after the Washington Post broke this story the Clintons had to return over $114,000 worth of these gifts. That wasn’t enough for Congress though, they requested an official investigation in this matter and a report was made in 2002 by the Committee on Government Reform.

The Committee found:

The committee also finds that the subcommittee’s investigation revealed startling information about retained gifts, valuation of gifts, missing gifts, legal rulings about gifts, and other findings”


“The fact that so many gifts were undervalued raises many questions. The fact that gifts were misplaced or lost shows sloppy management and maybe more. The fact that U.S. Government property was improperly taken is troubling.”

And lastly, most concerning:

“And, the fact that, after the former First Lady’s election to the U.S. Senate and before she was subject to the Congress’ very strict gift acceptance rules, the former First Family accepted nearly $40,000 in furniture gifts and the First Lady solicited nearly $40,000 in fine china and silver is at the very least disturbing.”

The fact that the Clintons steal everything they can is a recurring issue and lays bare deeper character flaws that show up in their tendency to promote extreme tax policies. As they don’t have a moral issue with taking what’s not theirs, opposition to their proposed tax hikes must seem absurd to them.

Photo Credit: 
La Décor Home,

Top Comments

School Choice 2.0: Why You Should Support Education Savings Accounts

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Rayanne Matlock on Monday, October 17th, 2016, 9:20 AM PERMALINK

On September 29th, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that upheld its Education Savings Account (ESA) program as constitutional. Passed by the Nevada legislature in 2015, these savings accounts are revolutionizing K-12 education by providing a marketplace for parents to choose where to send their children to school.

Americans nationwide are familiar with more than 15 tax-advantaged savings accounts that exist in healthcare, retirement and higher education. Relatively new are savings accounts for K-12 education, formally called Education Savings Accounts (ESAs).

This movement started with Arizona, the pioneer state of implementing Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) in 2011. This year, Arizona expects 2900 students to enroll in its Education Savings Account (ESA) program, up from 302 participants in 2013. In 2013, 71% of parents who had children enrolled in the program were satisfied with their ESA.

ESAs give parents the flexibility to tailor their child’s education to meet their needs. The program places the money that would normally be spent on a child in public school into an account that is given to the parents. Parents can then use that money to pay for school tuition at charter, private, and online schools.

Now, approximately 22 states have implemented or considered adopting their own version of ESAs. Five states currently have ESA programs in place.

Arizona, TennesseeFlorida, and Mississippi limit the program to students with special needs or military connections. While this is a great start, ultimately all students should have access to schools that best suit their needs. This is why Nevada has perhaps the most robust ESA program: all 450,000+ K-12 students in the state are eligible to register, no matter their circumstance.

While voucher programs, tax credit scholarships, charter schools and the like have done wonders in improving education, states with such programs in place should not stop there. Though ESAs and vouchers have some similarities, ESAs take school choice a step further: 

1.       ESAs do not operate as a use-it-or-lose-it concept

Like most state voucher programs, the allotted money for a child to attend public school is instead used towards tuition to attend a different school. In a voucher program, any extra money after paying tuition is given back to the state. But with an ESA program, parents get to keep the money left over.

2.       ESAs put parents in control

In most voucher programs, parents choose the school they want their child to go to and the state then transfers the money to the school of choice. But in most ESA programs, parents are given a special debit card or account and can pay school tuition directly. Not only that, but some schools decline to accept vouchers, limiting the school choices for parents.

3.       ESAs have flexible spending

Since any extra money in the voucher program goes back to the general education fund, it can only be spent on tuition. With ESAs, any money left over after paying tuition can be used for other school expenses. That includes textbooks, school supplies, some therapies, and even college savings accounts.

Parents know what’s best for their children, and education is no exception. While voucher programs are a great function of school choice, states with vouchers shouldn’t stop there. ESAs put parents in charge, can provide children from all economic backgrounds a quality primary education, and a chance at saving for college. An ESA program is a logical policy that expands school choice. 

For these reasons, Americans for Tax Reform urges all states in their 2017 legislative sessions to look at implementing an ESA program.


Photo Credit: 

Top Comments

Tax-Hungry California Cities Threaten to Impose Netflix Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Margaret Mire on Friday, October 14th, 2016, 2:18 PM PERMALINK

Local governments in CA should avoid the “Netflix tax”

Californians’ monthly Netflix bill may soon go up thanks to money-hungry government officials. 

Nearly 50 cities in The Golden State are interested in targeting online movie and TV streamers as a source of revenue through what is commonly known as the “Netflix tax.”

The “Netflix tax,” levied on online streaming subscriptions, is currently in place in just Chicago and Pennsylvania. Chicago’s 9% “amusement tax” was extended to include "cloud services" in July 2015, and Pennsylvania extended its 6 percent sales tax to digital downloads in August 2016.

Nationwide, lawmakers should take note: following the “Netflix tax” trend would be a horrible mistake. “Netflix taxes” are wrong on many levels, including in that they raise constitutional questions.

Indeed, in July of this year, Cook County Circuit Court judge, Anthony Walker, allowed a lawsuit against Chicago’s “cloud tax” to move forward. The lawsuit – filed by the Liberty Justice Center – asserts taxing Internet streaming services violates the commerce clause of the US Constitution, and the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Unfortunately, concerns with the Netflix tax do not end there. “Netflix taxes” set a dangerous precedent for government to further intrude into our lives.

These days, books, music, and other forms of entertainment can be accessed more conveniently via the Internet. It will not be long before government starts targeting those services as well. This is already the case in Pennsylvania, as it extends its sales tax to downloadable books and music, online games, apps and e-greeting cards.

All of these items have made the lives of Americans more convenient. So, lawmakers should consider the repercussions of implementing such burdensome taxes on innovative businesses.

“Netflix taxes” and the like require businesses to stay on top of numerous taxing jurisdiction across the country. In California alone, for example, the cities considering taxing Netflix, Hulu, and other services would require businesses to collect and remit tax rates ranging from 1-11 percent.

By imposing such complexities on business operations, “Netflix taxes” make it more difficult for companies to succeed. With fewer creative businesses, Americans could have less access to technology that makes life easier.

And more immediately, hardworking Americans have already been dealt Obamacare’s 20 new or higher taxes over the last seven years. Many of them would like to come home from a hard day’s work and catch up on their favorite shows online without lawmakers are shaking money out of almost every activity of their lives.


Photo Credit: 

Top Comments

IRS Wastes $12 Million on Unusable Email System

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Friday, October 14th, 2016, 12:46 PM PERMALINK

The IRS spent $12 million on an unusable email system, according to a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The agency purchased two years’ worth of email software subscriptions before finding out the system was not unusable. 

The IRS was required to procure new software because of a 2014 Office of Management and Budget directive that required federal agencies to manage permanent and temporary email records starting December 2016.

As the report notes, the IRS failed to perform the required and necessary cost analysis, security assessments, and requirements analysis prior to purchasing the software. As the report notes:

“The purchase was made without first determining project infrastructure needs, integration requirements, business requirements, security and portal bandwidth, and whether the subscriptions were technologically feasible on the IRS enterprise.”

As a result, the software was never used despite $12 million in taxpayer funds being spent acquiring two years’ worth of licenses. In addition, the IRS failed to ensure the contract was awarded with full and open competition as required by federal law. As the report notes:

“The IRS violated the Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements by not using full and open competition in its acquisition of Microsoft Office 365 ProPlus and Exchange Online monthly subscriptions.”

This is not the only time the IRS has struggled with technology. A TIGTA report released last year found that the IRS failed to upgrade Windows software on its computers and servers by end of life deadlines, despite being expected to spend almost $140 million in taxpayer funds. At the time of the report, the agency had spent nearly four years upgrading this technology, but had only upgraded half of its servers.

Photo Credit: 

Top Comments

Community Banks Under Siege By Dodd-Frank

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Johnathan Sargent on Friday, October 14th, 2016, 12:39 PM PERMALINK

Regulations imposed by Dodd-Frank have crippled America’s community banks. In the years following its passage, the financial services industry has witnessed a steady decline in the number of community banks operating in America. As these banks disappear, so does the valuable services that they provide communities and small businesses every day.

The Dodd-Frank Act was an attempt by Washington to impose a new regulatory regime upon the financial services industry. With the goal of promoting financial stability and protecting consumers, Dodd-Frank brought about some of the most significant changes to financial regulation since the Great Depression. The result has been over 22,000 pages of large and complex regulations affecting the entire industry.

These regulations have not only made American banks less competitive, but also led to the decline in community banks. While larger banks can afford to hire compliance personnel, smaller banks simply do not have the same capacity to read and understand, let alone comply, with these complex, burdensome regulations.

According to a study by the Mercatus Center, 90 percent of banks stated that compliance costs have increased since the passage. These higher compliance costs have forced community banks to discontinue certain products and services. This trends has only continued as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has begun to actively regulate mortgage lending, which has further led to increased costs faced by community banks. According to the report a majority of banks are considering changing or even eliminating certain services such as residential mortgages, home equity lines of credit, and overdraft protection.

These added costs have led to smaller banks being sold to larger banks, leading to an unprecedented trend of consolidation in the financial services industry. According to one article, since the passage of Dodd-Frank one in five American banks have disappeared and virtually no new banks have been formed within the same time period. Community banks find themselves competing with larger banks that have vastly more resources.

In most cases, as we have seen over the past 6 years since Dodd-Frank has been enacted, has been to close completely. Leading communities across the country to lose the kind of detailed and personally tailored services that only community banks can provide.

Fortunately, the House Financial Services Committee approved H.R. 5983, the Financial CHOICE Act, to ensure the survival of American community banks. This piece of legislation, introduced by Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), undoes the regulations imposed by Dodd-Frank and helps create a fairer environment for community banks to compete in.

The efforts made by Representative Hensarling and other lawmakers are greatly needed in order to ensure that communities across the country continue to receive the crucial services that community banks provide.


Photo Credit: Third Way Think Tank 

Top Comments

It’s Time to Modernize Beer Laws

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Quinn Gasaway on Thursday, October 13th, 2016, 4:52 PM PERMALINK

Current regulations, highlighted in a recent study by the Mercatus Center, make it difficult for brewers to enter and operate within the market, which in turn limits consumer choice.

Entering the craft brewing scene is costly and time-consuming. Before opening the doors for business, brewers must go through both federal and state hurdles.
At the state level, an aspiring brewer must acquire a license from the state’s alcoholic beverage regulator. The next step requires the approval of the brewer’s beer labels and, in some cases, formulas.

Now enter the high fees associated with entering the marketplace. For example, Virginia has strict fees based on the amount of barrels a brewer produces. According to Mercatus:
“The [Virginia] brewery license will cost $350 if she brews fewer than 500 barrels of beer in one year, $2,150 if she brews between 501 and 10,000 barrels in one year, or $4,300 if she brews more than 10,001 barrels.”

This structure deters growth, which in turn limits job creation and consumer choice. A better policy would repeal the licensing fees. The combination of nearly a dozen federal and state regulation hurdles, the roughly three-month waiting period required to complete these stages, and the dollars invested in licensing costs before a bottle of beer is sold all make for formidable barriers to entering the market.

If a brewer is fortunate enough to leap these hurdles, they find more waiting on the other side. At the state level, two of the most restrictive laws concern self-distribution laws and beer franchise laws.

Self-distribution laws require brewers to sell their product to wholesalers rather than selling directly to retailers. Once the product is sold to the wholesaler, the brewer loses influence as to how its beer is handled.

Adding to this load are beer franchise laws. These regulations strictly govern contracts between brewers and wholesalers, such as when and how a brewer can cancel or renew a contract with its wholesaler.

These laws make it very difficult for a brewer to switch to another wholesaler if they feel their current one is not meeting standards. Jacob Burgdorf further explains how these laws harm brewers:

“Even if a brewer can demonstrate good cause, many laws provide another level of protection for wholesalers by requiring advanced notice and a period, often 60 or 90 days, in which the wholesaler is allowed to address the grievance before termination or nonrenewal is allowed.”

This harsh regulatory climate limits the expansion and freedom craft brewers are entitled to as operators in a free market.

Both of these regulations restrict the freedom of choice for fans of craft beer. Data shows that states with tough self-distribution and franchise laws “averaged only 9.30 breweries per million people.” On the other hand, states with flexible regulations “had an average of 20.34 breweries per million people.”

Clearly, less regulation allows for craft brewers to expand not only their business, but also their product, which in turn benefits consumers. For example, look at California. The Golden State allows self-distribution and has no beer franchise laws.  Because of this, it has 518 breweries as of 2015, the most in the United States.

It’s obvious: neither craft breweries nor consumers benefit from the harsh regulations. Businesses and consumers would be best served by free market principles.


Photo Credit: Tama Leaver

Top Comments

Medicare Price Negotiation is a Destructive and Unnecessary Proposal

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Thursday, October 13th, 2016, 3:30 PM PERMALINK

Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough yesterday called for the government to “negotiate” prices for Medicare Part D prescription drug spending.

This is bad policy and would not fix the problems that Scarborough claims it would. Medicare Part D is a success because it empowers free market competition to ensure access to medicines at low prices.

The government shouldn’t mess with a program that isn’t broken, and doing so would do almost nothing to address runaway federal spending. Instead this proposal would decrease access to life-saving medicines and increase costs to the healthcare system over the long term.

Supporters of giving the government power to negotiate over Part D make it sound like a simple solution. But in practice the government would be a terrible negotiator.

Medicare Part D is a Success
Medicare Part D has been successful—for both beneficiaries and taxpayers—due to “rigorous competition in the program.” As noted by Grace-Marie Turner in Forbes, prices are already negotiated down because of “private sector competition through consumer choice and price negotiations by PBMs (Pharmacy benefit managers) and insurers.”  

There is a 90% satisfaction rate among Part D beneficiaries because the program provides a great number of choices for beneficiaries at affordable prices, without putting a price control on drug manufacturers. Part D spending is also 45 percent lower than initial projections and monthly premiums are just half the projected amount.

The program is effective because of “the competition among purchasers who also operate within the commercial market.” The clause that prohibits government interference in private negotiations has been crucial in the program’s success.  

Part D works much better than government programs that have price controls, like the Veterans Affairs Agency. Part D is able to provide far more innovative, life-saving drugs, than the VA does. The VA currently negotiates prices, but has to be selective about which drugs it covers. As a result, veterans are frequently locked out of accessing life-saving medicines, resulting in worse health outcomes, and higher costs to the system.

Part D Protects Medical Innovation
Costs associated with medical development are already significant. On average it costs $2.6 billion and more than a decade of research time for each new medicine that hits the market.

While forcefully reducing the costs of medicine may succeed in reducing the upfront costs of drugs, over the long term it is an incredibly destructive policy. By forcing lower prices, the government creates a disincentive to innovate because there are less profits available to finance the next generation of life-saving and life-improving prescription medicines. In turn, this results in higher long term healthcare costs due to a lack of cures for a variety of illnesses.

As noted by Joseph Gulfo in the Hill, Part D ensures that medical innovation is encouraged:

The 2003 Medicare law exempts Part D drugs from "best price" rebates that drugmakers have been required to give to the state Medicaid programs since 1991. Medicare is prohibited from receiving "best price" to provide incentives to drugmakers to develop drugs for conditions that affect patients over 65 years of age. And this incentive is working — in the first few years after Medicare D was enacted, there was an estimated 40 percent increase in all clinical trials versus expected trends and a 59 percent increase in the number of drugs entering the final phase before FDA approval.

Part D Spending is a Small Percentage of Overall Medicare Spending
Scarborough is correct that spending on federal entitlements are unsustainable. By 2046, the Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security spending will account for half of all non-interest spending.

While there is a need to restrain these costs, Part D Medicare prescription drug spending accounts for a small percentage of overall Medicare spending (and an even smaller percentage of mandatory spending). As shown below, prescription drug spending accounts for just 12 percent of all Medicare spending -- roughly $76 billion. 

This is a small fraction of mandatory spending. In 2015, federal spending on Medicare totaled $634 billion, and all mandatory spending totaled $2.29 trillion according to CBO. Prescription drug spending equals roughly $76 billion.

Scarborough makes it sound as if this is the solution to runaway federal spending. However, reducing Part D prescription drug outlays would hardly dent federal mandatory spending.

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation (Note: Total Medicare spending differs because of updated CBO baseline)

Photo Credit:

Top Comments

Leaked Emails Show Team Hillary Worried About Her 25% Gun Tax Endorsement

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Thursday, October 13th, 2016, 2:08 PM PERMALINK

On Sept. 8, 2015, Americans for Tax Reform published documentation of Hillary Clinton’s 1993 endorsement of a new national 25% retail sales tax on guns. “I am all for that,” said Clinton of the tax as she testified before the Senate Finance Committee. 

As the story picked up steam in conservative media outlets, the Clinton campaign team began to worry.

On Oct. 4, 2015, Clinton advisor Mandy Grunwald emailed the team saying, “I also saw something about her supporting a 25% tax on gun sales back in 1993. I didn’t see q and a on either of these in the briefing.”

Later that day, campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri replied: “Being added today.”

It is unclear if the campaign team ever came up with talking points in an attempt to justify Clinton’s gun tax endorsement. The email thread either ended at that point, or any response has yet to be released by Wikileaks.

In the primary election, Clinton aggressively positioned herself to the left of Bernie Sanders on guns, and attacked Sanders relentlessly for his 1990s gun votes.

Hillary’s endorsement of the gun tax was reported at the time by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, NBC Nightly News and several other outlets.

As reported by the AP on Oct. 1, 1993:

Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., picked up Mrs. Clinton's support for his idea of slapping stiff taxes on ''purveyors of violence:'' a 25 percent sales tax on guns and $2,500 license fees for gun dealers.

''Speaking personally ... I'm all for that,'' said the first lady. But she stressed she was just speaking for herself.

''Well, let me say that there is no more important personal endorsement in the country today, and I thank you very much,'' said a pleased-as-punch Bradley.

And the Washington Post on Oct. 1, 1993:

"I'm all for it," she declared in a response to a suggestion by Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) that the Congress should impose a 25 percent sales tax on handguns to "tax directly the purveyors of violence."

The Sept. 30, 1993, NBC Nightly News reported the incident as follows:

“Others urge a hefty sales tax on guns, and much higher fees for gun dealers. Today, they got a powerful ally.

Ms. HILLARY CLINTON: I'm all for that. I just don't know what else we're going to do to try to figure out how to get some handle on this violence.”

The Bill Clinton White House made it clear that Hillary's 25 percent gun tax endorsement was hers and hers alone, as shown by the Oct. 1, 1993 White House press briefing transcript:

Q: "Do you know if the President supports the First Lady's endorsement of an idea yesterday by Senator Bradley that there be a 25 percent tax on the sale of guns in America?"

WH Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers: "Well, as you know, she was expressing her opinion."

On April 14, 2016, ATR released previously unseen video footage from a non-C-SPAN camera showing Hillary’s visceral facial expression during the moments she endorsed the gun tax and as gun owners and dealers were described as “purveyors of violence.”

On June 5, 2016, during an interview on ABC’s This Week hosted by George Stephanopoulos, Clinton had the video footage played to her and was given the opportunity to renounce her gun tax endorsement. She refused to do so. In fact, Clinton has never renounced the tax, and her aggressive anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment statements do nothing to indicate she’s changed her mind.

On Sept. 20, 2016, ATR noted yet another Clinton gun tax endorsement from 1993: a doubling of the existing federal excise tax on guns. In a closed-door meeting, she told the anti-gun Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-Ill.) that his bill to double the tax was a “great idea."

Clinton’s deeply held belief in higher taxes on the American people is documented at ATR’s dedicated website,

Photo Credit: 
UN Geneva,

Top Comments


Those that buy guns to protect themselves are "purveyors of evil," and that tax would not affect the illegal guns purchased in Chicago by gangs that actually use them for evil.

Such a tax would not make a single American safer!


About 243 years ago a tax on tea paved the way to #2A. #NeverHillary

Hillary Clinton: Dodd-Frank Passed for "Political Reasons"

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Thursday, October 13th, 2016, 1:42 PM PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton has made it a point throughout her campaign to make it clear that she is the candidate that will hold Wall Street and the banking industry accountable, and continue to carry the torch of big government control over the market that was lit by the Dodd-Frank Act six years ago. Clinton even made it a point to have the Dodd-Frank poster child, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), appear with her repeatedly on the campaign trail.

However recently released e-mails from inside the Clinton campaign detail excerpts from her infamous paid speeches to Wall Street that show her so-called principled stance against Wall Street and support for Dodd-Frank was not so much principled as it was a complete and outright lie to the American people.

In a speech to Goldman Sachs in 2013, Clinton evidenced her true lack of support for the Dodd-Frank Act, alluding to the fact that Dodd-Frank and the over 20,000 pages of resulting regulations were not passed for the benefit of American consumers, but simply for political optics at the time. Clinton stated that: 

“There was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and…everybody in the press is saying it’s all the fault of Wall Street, you can’t sit idly by and do nothing…and I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all.”

In similar remarks to Deutsche bank in 2014, Clinton made it clear that deep down she thought financial reform following the financial crisis should come from the financial industry, thus calling into question her praise of Dodd-Frank. Clinton remarked that:

“Teddy Roosevelt…took on what he saw as excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn’t want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populist reaction…Today there’s more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself…and I really believe that our country and all of you are up to that job.”

Thus the questions that arise are if Dodd-Frank was passed solely for “political reasons” and not as a real and necessary response to the financial crisis as Americans were lead to believe, then why is Clinton still supporting Dodd-Frank and how many other lawmakers supported Dodd-Frank solely for political reasons?

If big government “excesses in politics” are not the answer but instead, as Clinton remarked, the industry and market itself should correct such issues, why does Clinton continue to advocate for anti-free market policy such as Dodd-Frank? 

Clearly Mrs. Clinton has no problem playing politics when it benefits her, and is all too willing to support legislation that throws the economy and American consumers under the Dodd-Frank bus solely for political reasons. 

Sadly, average Americans do not see the benefit of Clinton’s political reasoning, and are instead stuck with the Dodd-Frank behemoth that has led to increased financial costs, reduced access to capital, and a general sense of helplessness in the face of an out of control regulatory regime.


Photo credit: Brookings Institution 

Top Comments