Happy Bday Clean Power Plan, Thanks for the Job Losses and Billions in Costs!

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016, 12:53 PM PERMALINK


Today marks exactly one year since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Obama Administration formally unveiled their coveted Clean Power Plan (CPP). While EPA bureaucrats and the Obama Administration tout the so-called “benefits” of the CPP, the truth is the rule has already begun destroying the livelihoods of thousands of hard-working Americans even before enactment. With the rule turning one today, it is only fitting to reflect on the CPP's journey to this point since it was first proposed.  

In February of this year, the CPP suffered a major blow when the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued a stay of the rule, meaning that the Obama Administration and EPA may not continue with enactment until all legal challenges have played out. 

The SCOTUS ruling reinforced what CPP opponents have been arguing since the rule was proposed: that the CPP exemplifies federal overreach; would be disastrous for states and the U.S. economy; and is premised on backwards and illogical legal grounds. Even President Obama’s legal mentor, Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe, has argued that the CPP “is a remarkable example of executive overreach and an administrative agency’s assertion of power beyond its statutory authority.”

Aside from the misleading and unlawful legal gymnastics the Obama Administration had to do just to propose the rule with a straight face, the CPP’s impact on the American economy is already being felt. Despite the fact that the CPP has not yet been enacted, in 2015 alone over 11,000 coal miners lost their jobs and a number of energy companies have filed for bankruptcy. Clearly Obama is comfortable with the state of things as long as his “green legacy” is preserved.

Even Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has expressed her support for the CPP and its impact on jobs and the economy. At a Town Hall in Ohio in April Clinton proudly stated that she is the only candidate with a policy to bring renewables “into coal country, because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” Apparently Clinton is not up to date on the news because such policies are already devastating American workers.

On top of the economic extermination already taking place as a result of the CPP, the projected economic impacts if the rule is actually enacted are even more drastic. The rule is projected to cause a 12 to 17 percent increase in electricity prices. Every state in the continental U.S. will see rate increases, with an estimated 44 states seeing double-digit rate increases, and 17 states facing price increase of over 20 percent.

The CPP is also slated to decrease household spending power between $64 and $79 billion, with annual compliance costs projected to reach up to $73 billion. Such impacts are economically unsustainable for many businesses and families. Sadly, the low-to-middle income Americans President Obama has claimed will benefit from the CPP will actually be those hardest hit by reduced income, job losses, and higher energy costs.

Thus as the Clean Power Plan turns one year old today, Americans should thank President Obama and the EPA for birthing this tremendously disastrous and unlawful regulation. Americans can also thank the President and his EPA lackeys for the CPP’s contributions to the American economy: thousands of jobs lost; bankruptcy; reduced U.S. economic output and household income; and skyrocketing energy costs.

Happy Birthday Clean Power Plan! Hope it’s your last!

 

Photo credit: Steve Jurvetson

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


14 States Sue to Stop EPA's Disastrous Methane Rule

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bradley Wyatt on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016, 11:50 AM PERMALINK


For 2016, the Obama Administration and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have once again put affordable and reliable energy production on the chopping block with new rules targeting methane emissions. In addition to the Clean Power Plan, Ozone Standard, and the Waters of the U.S. Rule, the Administration is once again using the EPA as a vehicle to impose costly and burdensome regulations on American consumers and the energy industry. The EPA’s own estimates show the Methane Rule will cost up to $200 million in 2020, and may reach as high as $500 million by year 2025.

This week 14 states filed lawsuits with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals asking the court to review the EPA’s Methane Rule, arguing that the rule is a “gross demonstration of federal overreach” and the Agency has exceeded it’s authority. The states that have filed suit include Texas, West Virginia, Michigan, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Kansas, Arizona, Alabama and Montana, as well as state agencies from Kentucky and North Carolina.

The Texas Attorney General’s office stated that the EPA did not consider the “steep” costs imposed on the energy industry. In addition to not considering the steep costs, EPA experts also failed to take into consideration that methane emissions from hydraulically fractured natural gas wells are down 79 percent from 11 years ago, even as gas production has increased 44 percent. Researchers estimate that less than 2 percent of methane is lost during natural gas production. Clearly this is a regulation in search of a problem.

In order for businesses, especially in the energy industry, to provide low cost services to the low and middle-income families that depend on them, the last thing government should do is over-regulate and overtax job creators, producers, and the energy industry.

Lawmakers need to realize that President Obama and the EPA’s Methane Rule has an underlying agenda that will harm more than help taxpayers, consumers, and the economy. President Obama’s “one-size fits all” style government regulatory regime must be reined in before further economic damage is done. 

 

Photo credit: Joe Crimmings

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


ATR Recognizes Taxpayer Protection Pledge Signers in Tuesday’s Primary

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alec DiFruscia on Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016, 1:17 PM PERMALINK


Americans for Tax Reform recognizes the incumbents and candidates who have taken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to the American people ahead of today's primary. The Taxpayer Protection Pledge is a written commitment to their constituents and the American public to oppose tax hikes.

Photo Credit: 
John Williams

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


ATR Opposes Oroho-Sarlo Gas Tax Hike in New Jersey

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Paul Blair on Monday, August 1st, 2016, 5:39 PM PERMALINK


Proponents of big and unreformed government in the Garden State are demanding hundreds of millions of dollars in tax hikes as part of a proposal to fund the now-broke Transportation Trust Fund (TFF). The New Jersey State Senate was scheduled to hold its first series of votes in over a month today, including a vote on a proposal being pushed by Senators Steve Oroho (R-Sussex) Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), which would raise the gas tax by 23-cents per gallon.

This effort comes on the heels of an Assembly-passed plan, backed by Governor Chris Christie (R-N.J.), which would have raised the gas tax but been paired with a greater net tax reduction of the state sales tax. That plan would have reduced the state sales tax from 7 to 6 percent.

In the current fiscal year, the Oroho-Sarlo tax plan represents a $760 million tax increase.  Over ten years, this plan would result in between $3.9 and $4.5 billion in tax increases, assuming a phase-in of several tax cuts, including the estate tax repeal and an increase in tax exemptions for pension income.

For lawmakers who have signed it, voting for the Oroho-Sarlo tax plan would clearly constitute a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

Elements of the Oroho –Sarlo plan include:

Estate Tax Phase-Out

  • An immediate increase in the exemption of estate tax income, to $2 million;
  • An phased-in increase in the exemption of the estate tax income to the federal level of $5.45 million in 2 years;
  • An planned repeal of the estate tax entirely in the years following
  • If fully phased-in, this tax reduction would equal a $4.2 billion net tax cut over 10 years.

 

Exemption of Pension & Retirement Income from State Income Taxes

  • Five-year phase-in of an increase in the state exemption for pension and retirement income taxes from $100,000 to $150,000 annually;
  • If phased-in this tax reduction would result in $1 billion-$1.4 billion net tax cuts over 10 years.

 

Increase in Earned-Income Tax Credit

  • An increase in the Earned-Income Tax Credit (EITC) to 40% of the federal level.

 

Significant Increase in State Gas Tax

  • A 23-cent gas tax increase, which would bring the state gas tax to 37.5 cents-per-gallon;
  • This gas tax hike would make gas sold in New Jersey roughly the 7th highest taxed in the nation, and would rise with higher gas prices;
  • When implemented, this tax hike would result in an immediate $850 million gas tax hike, increasing to over $1 billion in new and higher taxes in annually and in perpetuity;
  • Tax hike breaks down as follows: 7% Petroleum Products Gross Receipts Tax, 10-cent-per-gallon PPGRT tax on motor fuel, and a 3-cent-per-gallon PPGRT diesel surcharge imposed at the wholesale level.

 

The fiscal note and table can be seen here. 

Americans for Tax Reform opposes the Oroho-Sarlo transportation tax hike and urges the legislature to consider reforms that drive down the cost of building and maintaining transportation infrastructure while working to protect taxpayers from further job-killing anti-competitive tax hikes like this. 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Hey Hillary, The Tax Code Is Already Steeply Progressive

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie, John Kartch on Monday, August 1st, 2016, 11:45 AM PERMALINK


Hillary’s “Buffett Rule” tax hike is a solution in search of a problem

With Warren Buffett today, Hillary Clinton will claim upper income earners do not pay their “fair share” of federal taxes. But the most recent government data shows the tax code is already steeply progressive. A Clinton “Buffett Rule” tax increase or similar gimmick is a solution in search of a problem. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:

-The top one percent of households pay 38.3% of federal income taxes and 25.4% of total federal taxes.

- The top 20 percent of households pay 88% of federal income taxes and 69% of total federal taxes.

- The top one percent of households pay an average income tax rate of 23.6% while the middle quintile pays an average income tax rate of 2.6%.

- The top one percent of households pay an average total tax rate of 34% while the middle quintile pays an average total tax rate of over 12.8%.  

- The top 20 percent of households pay an average total tax rate of 26.3 percent while the middle quintile pays an average total tax rate of 12.8%.

The data is shown below:

See also: 

Photo Credit: 
Brett Weinstein

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Rousseau Welch

Wrong hand, Hillary; that should be the right hand.


Hillary Opposes Lowering the Corporate Tax Rate, Says Top Advisor

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Friday, July 29th, 2016, 12:52 PM PERMALINK


Hillary Clinton would oppose lowering the corporate tax rate as President, a top advisor suggested. This position puts the campaign far outside the mainstream of both Democrats and Republicans including President Barack Obama and Speaker Paul Ryan who have called for lowering the 35 percent federal income tax rate to a more globally competitive rate.

As reported Thursday by PoliticoPro, Clinton advisor Neera Tanden suggested that Hillary would oppose any effort to lower the corporate income tax rate. Tanden argued that “the U.S. has been doing pretty well when it comes to competitiveness." 

Hillary’s refusal to endorse lower tax rates puts her at odds with her fellow Democrats that have called for lowering business tax rates. In past budget proposals, President Obama has called for lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent. Similarly, Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) proposed lowering the corporate tax rate to 24 percent in his tax reform plan.

The Trump tax plan calls for lowering the corporate rate to 15 percent, while the House Republican blueprint proposes lowering the rate to 20 percent. Like Clinton, other Democrat plans propose a net tax increase, while Republican plans all call for a net tax cut.


Chart by Strategas Research Partners using Tax Foundation and OECD data

Lowering the corporate tax rate has broad, bipartisan support because the U.S. has the highest rates in the developed world. At more than 39 percent, our business taxes far exceeds the developed average of 25 percent, not to mention competitors like Canada (26.3 percent), the United Kingdom (20 percent), and Ireland (12.5 percent).

As a result, our businesses cannot compete with those in the rest of the world. Close to 50 American businesses have left the country through an inversion in the past decade, according to data compiled by Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee.  America has also lost an additional $179 billion worth of assets through acquisitions by foreign competitors, according to a report by Ernst and Young.

American business tax rates have not changed since tax reform was passed 30 years ago in 1986.  At the time, we lowered our rate to 39 percent – below the developed average of 44 percent. Since then, other countries have cut their rates aggressively. 31 of the 34 OECD countries have reduced their corporate rates since 2000. Only the U.S. and Chile have higher corporate tax rates than they did in 2000.

Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at inversions including an “exit tax” on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. How much? The campaign doesn't say.

In all, Hillary has formally proposed $1 trillion net tax increase including a $350 billion income tax increase, a $275 billion business tax increase, and $400 billion in “fairness taxes.”

The campaign has also called for capital gains tax increases and a tax on stock trading. Her campaign has failed to release specific details on these proposals so the true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion.

 

See also: 

Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes

"Everyman" Tim Kaine Tried to Raise Taxes on Adult Beverages

Hillary Opens the Door to a Carbon Tax

Hillary's Soda Tax Endorsement Violates Middle Class Tax Pledge

Video Shows Hillary's 25% Gun Tax Endorsement

Democrat Platform Calls for Carbon Tax

Tim Kaine Pushed Income Tax Hikes on Working Families Making As Little as $17,000

Photo Credit: 
Toms Norde

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

H.D. Rennerfeldt

MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE JOBLESS & HOMELESS!
This Shrill Harpy Harridan insists to help DESTROY
our economy for the One World Government of the
Communists behind the NEW WORLD ORDER of
installing a totalitarian oppressive regime.
Finish us off in what Obama began.
Cloward-Piven Strategies
& Alinsky's Rules for
Radicals
-


Full List of Hillary’s Planned Tax Hikes

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch and Alexander Hendrie on Thursday, July 28th, 2016, 2:56 PM PERMALINK


Hillary Clinton has made clear she intends to dramatically raise taxes on the American people if elected. She has proposed an income tax increase, a business tax increase, a death tax increase, a capital gains tax increase, a tax on stock trading, an "Exit Tax" and more (see below). Her planned net tax increase on the American people is at least $1 trillion over ten years, based on her campaign’s own figures.

Hillary has endorsed several tax increases on middle income Americans, despite her pledge not to raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000. She has said she would be fine with a payroll tax hike on all Americans, she has endorsed a steep soda tax, endorsed a 25% national gun tax, and most recently, her campaign manager John Podesta said she would be open to a carbon tax. It’s no wonder that when asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if her pledge was a "rock-solid" promise, she slipped and said the pledge was merely a “goal.” In other words, she's going to raise taxes on middle income Americans.

Hillary’s formally proposed $1 trillion net tax increase consists of the following:

Income Tax Increase – $350 Billion: Clinton has proposed a $350 billion income tax hike in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.

Business Tax Increase -- $275 Billion: Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform, as described in a Clinton campaign document.

“Fairness” Tax Increase -- $400 Billion: According to her published plan, Clinton has called for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” These proposals include a “fair share surcharge,” the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.

But there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above. Her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. The true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion.

For instance:

Capital Gains Tax Increase -- Clinton has proposed an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the “tyranny of today’s earnings report.” Her plan calls for a byzantine capital gains tax regime with six rates. Her campaign has not put a dollar amount on this tax increase.

Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposed a new tax on stock trading. Costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.

“Exit Tax” – Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at inversions including an “exit tax” on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. How much? The campaign doesn't say.

This proposal completely fails to address the underlying causes behind inversions: The U.S. 39% corporate tax rate (35% federal rate plus an average state rate of 4%) and our "worldwide" system of taxation, which imposes tax on all American earnings worldwide. The average corporate rate in the developed world is 25%. Thirty-one of thirty-four developed countries have cut their corporate tax rate since 2000. The U.S. has not. Hillary's plan moves in the wrong direction.

ATR is tracking Clinton’s full tax record at its dedicated website, HighTaxHillary.com

See also: "Everyman" Tim Kaine Tried to Raise Taxes on Adult Beverages

Hillary Opens the Door to a Carbon Tax

Hillary's Soda Tax Endorsement Violates Middle Class Tax Pledge

Video Shows Hillary's 25% Gun Tax Endorsement

Democrat Platform Calls for Carbon Tax

Tim Kaine Pushed Income Tax Hikes on Working Families Making As Little as $17,000

 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Paul Knutson

Lets Make America Broke!

Treelea

Obama officially made us a beggar nation. It has just not hit us completely yet

Oger

If Trump is elected, the criminal federal reserve will conveniently raise interest rates, crash the economy and blame it on--

Trump's economic policies, white men, coal miners, veterans, Chic-fil-a, kittens, etc., etc....

Who have I missed who'll get some blame here?


Hiked Obamacare Premiums to Dry Out Californian’s Bank Accounts

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Natalie De Vincenzi on Thursday, July 28th, 2016, 9:46 AM PERMALINK


Obamacare premium increases are now depleting the pockets of California’s health exchange participants faster than California is losing water. As of next year, Californians can expect their health premiums to increase an average of 13.2%. This hike is more than three times that of the last two years increase and is sure to have a devastating effect on more than one million Californians.

Increasing medical costs and expiring federal programs that help insurers offset costs are causing some of the nation’s largest insurers to either significantly raise their rates or pull out of exchanges. The nation’s largest insurer, UnitedHealth, has already announced that it is pulling out of Covered California after only one year in the exchange due to insurmountable losses.

Just as concerning, two of California’s largest insurers—Blue Shield of California and Anthem Inc.—will have the biggest premium increases. Blue Shield and Anthem are two of the top four insurers that control more than 90 percent of Covered California enrollment. Blue Shield’s premiums are set to rise by more than 19 percent, and Anthem’s by more than 16 percent. Their high enrollment rates and soon to be higher premium rates will surely affect a significant portion of California families and pose significant concern to them.

When Obama was touting his Obamacare law, he promised he would “cut the cost of a typical family's premium.” Clearly, this is not the case.

High premium rates aren’t the only problem with the Covered California exchange. Earlier this year, nearly 2000 pregnant women were dropped from Covered California due to “computer glitches”. This isn’t the first report of people inexplicably being dropped from the exchange—it has been an ongoing issue since its launch. Enrollment and tax-related errors have plagued the exchange, leaving some with an unforeseen bill or without coverage for months.

With the $1.1 billion California was granted by the federal government for its exchange, there is no excuse as to why the exchange should be “accidentally” dropping pregnant women or others without coverage. To top it off, the exchange currently faces an $80 million deficit.

The Covered California exchange is far from successful and is only indicative of the further failed Obamacare law. 

Photo Credit: 
http://asmdc.org/members/a14/news-room/district-reports/october-2014-bonillas-capitol-connection

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


“Everyman” Tim Kaine Tried to Raise Taxes on Adult Beverages

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Wednesday, July 27th, 2016, 4:47 PM PERMALINK


Norquist: "If Kaine’s other tax hikes drove you to drink...he got you again.”

The DNC is attempting to fashion VP nominee Tim Kaine as an “everyman.” But what kind of everyman tries to make your adult beverages more expensive? That’s exactly what Kaine did as governor when he pushed an across the board tax hike on beverages sold in Virginia’s fully monopolized state-owned retail stores.

By law, Virginia residents and businesses must purchase distilled spirits from the monopoly Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) stores. Residents can’t even escape the regime by buying their beverages elsewhere, because Virginia only allows residents to bring home one gallon from another state.

Rather than reform the system, Kaine tried to squeeze more money out of hard working Virginians. He called for a two percent across the board markup, which would have raised the retail price for people shopping in ABC stores as well as those enjoying a beverage in a restaurant. Virginians would have had no choice but to pay the Kaine-imposed markup.

Kaine’s attempted $8 million beverage tax hike was part of his final budget proposal, released Dec. 18, 2009. Kaine’s same budget called for an income tax increase on all Virginians, even those households making $17,000 per year.

“Tim Kaine ran for governor promising not to raise taxes. Days after taking office he released a massive plan to hike taxes by $1 billion,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “Adding insult to injury Kaine wanted to hike the price of spirits. If Kaine’s other tax hikes drove you to drink...he got you again.”

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Cliché Guevara

Nice VP pick by Killary. Guess her handlers didn't tell her you never go full retard.

ET

Tiny Tim and Hitlery = Kaine and Not Able

ET

Phony "Practicing Catholic" = Actual Incipid A-hole.


Six Years Later Dodd-Frank Has Cost Almost $40 Billion

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bradley Wyatt on Wednesday, July 27th, 2016, 12:35 PM PERMALINK


Last week the American Action Forum (AAF) released a new study on the higher costs and uncertain benefits associated with the Dodd Frank Act. Passed six years ago and signed into law by President Obama, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) has reduced consumer choice, while driving consumer costs and the compliance burden higher.

The stated purpose of the Dodd-Frank Act was to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes. However, the Dodd-Frank Act has proven a failure on all accounts, as consumer choice, credit unions, and small banks are being phased out.

According to the AAF study, the Dodd-Frank Act has imposed more than $36 billion in final rule costs and 73 million hours of paperwork. AAF also found in recent research that the law had resulted in a 14.5 percent decline in revolving consumer credit. The law has added complexity and confusion for consumers and financial intuitions, which is detrimental to the housing market, work force, and free market in general.

 Even more alarming is the fact that not all provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act have been enacted, and there are still at least 61 rulemakings remaining within the Dodd-Frank Act. These rules, still in proposed form, are slated to be finalized soon and only add to the already massive compliance costs and burden. Combined, the Dodd-Frank Act rulemakings still yet to be finalized would add another $3.3 billion in additional costs and almost one million more hours of paperwork.

Additionally, ending the “Too Big to Fail” (TBTF) was a main stay behind the Dodd-Frank Act. However, it seems that the Dodd-Frank Act has yet to resolve any TBTF issues. Within the AAF study, it is noted that the top five banks among the nation’s large commercial intuitions have accounted for a majority of the market in 13 of 23 quarters since Dodd-Frank has been law. Using the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI), data reveals that in recent years Dodd-Frank has likely contributed to a more concentrated banking sector.

In response to these issues, House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) recently introduced the Financial CHOICE Act (FCA), which looks to rein in a myriad of onerous and costly regulations enacted under the Dodd-Frank Act. In introducing the Act, Chairman Hensarling hopes to give Americans new ability to achieve financial independence and raise their standards of living, while also promoting economic growth for the economy as a whole. 

With the sixth anniversary of Dodd-Frank approaching, more than $36 billion in costs and 73 million paperwork burden hours have been imposed. As agencies like CFPB and FHFA grow, it is clear that the regulatory burden will only continue harming consumer choice, and with over 61 regulations remaining, it is expected that costs will continue to rise.

 

Photo Credit: Antonio Campoy

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


hidden
×