Senate FAA Bill Leaves Much to Be Desired on Reforms

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Photo credit: Elliott P.

More from Americans for Tax Reform

There are no related posts.

Top Comments

103 Years of the Income Tax: Then and Now

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Monday, April 18th, 2016, 3:20 PM PERMALINK

As Americans finish yet another tax filing season, let’s take a look at the 103-year history of the income tax.

  • In 1913 the top marginal income tax bracket was 7% -- today it is 39.6% (plus 3.8% Obamacare surtax)


  • In 1913 the marginal income tax bracket range was 1% - 7%. Today the range is 10% - 39.6% (plus 3.8% Obamacare surtax)


  • In 1913 there were 400 pages in the tax code. Today there are 74,608 pages in the code.


  • In 1913 the family standard deduction was $96,000 in today’s dollars. The family standard deduction now is just $12,600.


  • When the income tax started in 1913, only 358,000 Americans had to file a 1040. Today 150,000,000 Americans file 1040s.


"The American income tax is perhaps the most dramatic example of how government grows at the expense of liberty," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Slowly. Constantly. Inexorably."

Photo Credit: 

Top Comments

Brendan Trainor

If I had a nickel for every constitutional amendment desired by conservatives I would not have to worry about taxes!
You don't need to repeal the 16th amendment. You don't have to pass a new amendment! The problem with the Individual Income tax is not how long Title 26 is--most people do not have to bother with more than a few statutes represented in Sub A, C and F.
The problem is that the law contains words of art like "trade or business" or "wages" etc that do not mean what they mean in everyday life. The IRS publishes bulletins that say words like "taxpayer" and everyone, including libertarian think tanks, conservative politicians, lawyers, cpa's etc think, without evidence, that "taxpayer" means them. No, a Taxpayer is someone who is liable for the income tax. So, go look up who is liable, it is all in Sub A, there is no need to look up 77,000 pages, that is a red herring!

Brendan Trainor

The IRS is an out of control agency. However, the libertarian/conservative establishment will never reform or abolish it until they understand the tax. They have to re-examine some basic facts of history and stop the 16th Amendment fetishization. The US Individual Income Tax is the American version of the British Public Office Duty. Now read McCullough v Maryland to learn the actual scope of federal jurisdiction, which extends to those things that exist as its creations, or exist with its permission, or that it can prohibit. Does your right to work in the ordinary occupations of life constitute a natural right? Does it predate the federal government? Does your right to labor exist merely with the government's permission? Can the feds prohibit your right to work? If the answer is no, then the federal government cannot tax it.
But they do tax it, you say? I say not in the law itself. They tax it through extralawful coercion backed by a compliant federal judiciary on the principle that the governments right to its taxes trumps individual rights almost all the time.
However, the IRS does grant full refunds to those who file educated returns of income, SS and Medicare taxes to many thousands of Americans.
Do you have the intellectual curiosity to challenge the mainstream libertarian conservative view on the income tax? go to

James Richard Spriggs

The [[United States Code]] has become so long that it defies human comprehension. This is due, in part, to a [[ratchet effect]] in the legislative process. To break the ratchet and allow the law to be simplified, I suggest that to remain a law, a statute should have to have continuing support from both houses of congress. For example, the constitution could be amended as follows:

1. Without action by the Senate or the President, the House of Representatives may repeal any statute or title, chapter, section or subsection of a statute.

2. Without action by the House of Representatives or the President, the Senate may repeal any statute or title, chapter, section or subsection of a statute.

3. The repeal of a statute shall not be construed to re-enact any previous statute. When necessary and appropriate, common law shall apply.

-- James Richard Spriggs

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


Better yet, how about legislation to terminate the FDA? Let the government busybodies of this world find real jobs that add real value for once in their useless lives. Now that would be "change we can believe in!"

$1,000 Gun Tax Pushed as “Role Model” for States

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Monday, April 18th, 2016, 12:51 PM PERMALINK

Steep gun tax concept endorsed by Hillary Clinton in 1993 beginning to take hold

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A $1,000 per gun tax should serve as a “role model” for states, according to the governor of the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands, which imposed the $1,000 gun tax earlier this month. An idea first endorsed by Hillary Clinton in 1993, steep gun taxes have now taken hold in Cook County, Ill. the city of Seattle, and now a U.S. territory.

As reported by the Saipan Tribune:

The administration of Gov. Ralph DLG Torres defended the CNMI’s new gun control laws on Friday as a law that could be “a role model” for other U.S. states and jurisdictions facing seemingly uncontrolled and continued gun violence.

The administration was responding to queries regarding its position on recent reports that the a legal challenge to the new law, Public law 19-42, was likely, particularly over a provision that assesses a $1,000 excise tax on pistols.

The threat of such a tax serving as a role model for other politicians to impose is not an idle one. Consider the following:

Seattle Gun and Ammunition Tax: On Jan. 1, 2016, Seattle’s $25 per gun tax took effect, as did a two cent to five cent tax per round of ammunition. The new taxes have already forced at least one major gun dealer to leave the city.

Cook County, Ill. Gun and Ammunition Tax: On June 1, 2016, Cook County’s new ammunition tax takes effect, at a rate of one cent to five cents per round of ammunition. The ammo tax comes on top of the existing gun tax regime of $25 per gun.

Hillary Clinton’s 25% Gun Tax Endorsement: In passionate testimony to the Senate Finance Committee in 1993, Hillary Clinton gave her strong personal endorsement to a new national 25% sales tax on guns and endorsed a steep increase in the gun dealer fee, to $2,500. "I am speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that,” said Clinton at the conclusion of her endorsement.

“The Left is now seeking to tax guns out of existence,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The Second Amendment makes it difficult to legally ban guns, but Hillary has led the way to explaining you can achieve the same thing with high taxes.”

In newly released footage from Americans for Tax Reform, Clinton is shown nodding enthusiastically as she endorsed the 25% gun tax and as legal gun dealers were described as “purveyors of violence.”

Further details are available at ATR’s dedicated website,


Photo Credit: 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


It just makes it harder for the poor to defend themselves. Democrats hate the poor.


This would be unconstitutional as it infringes on the 2nd.


Feminists don't love women. They just hate men.

ATR's Federal Affairs Manager Testifies before House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Cecelia Mitchell on Monday, April 18th, 2016, 9:28 AM PERMALINK

On April 13, 2016 Katie McAuliffe, Federal Affairs Manager at Americans for Tax Reform and Executive Director of Digital Liberty, testified before the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology’s Legislative Hearing on Seven Communications Bills.

McAuliffe provided testimony in support H.R. 4884, Controlling the Unchecked and Reckless Ballooning of Lifeline Act of 2016, also known as the CURB Lifeline Act of 2016. The legislation focuses on placing a cap of $1,500,000,000 a year on the currently unbudgeted Lifeline program. The legislation would also prohibit using the Lifeline money for subsiding the purchase of a mobile device and prohibits the funds for being used for voice-only mobile services. Lifeline started as a program in the 1980s to provide low income Americans with basic telephone service. Since then the program has expanded to include mobile service and will soon cover broadband Internet service.

McAuliffe testified on the necessity for a budget on the Lifeline program, noting that all other programs under the Universal Service Fund do have set budget caps. McAuliffe expressed that $1.5 billion is an ample budget for the program and that a budget is absolutely necessary to control waste, fraud, and abuse.

Also noted in her testimony, is the fact that affordability is no longer the main deterrent of accessing broadband Internet service at home. Rather, a lack of interest is the key reason for households not subscribing to broadband Internet service. Furthermore, in many cases the use of smartphones has satisfied many Americans Internet needs, making a broadband Internet connection no longer a necessity.

McAuliffe also cited a 2013 experiment done by the FCC that involved 15 experimental broadband Lifeline offerings. The experiment results with less than 10% of the predicted number of new subscribers signing up for the service. In fact, most applicants for the program were rejected because they already had some type of broadband service within the past six month. Hence, the experience showed that the subsidies will most likely go to those already using broadband service, and not connecting the disconnected as intended.

Finally, McAuliffe cited previously successful efforts to cut waste, fraud, and abuse of the Lifeline program. In 2012, abuse of the program was cut by nearly $670 million. McAuliffe stated that with the creation of the National Eligibility Verifier and a firm budget cap, even more waste, fraud, and abuse will be cut from the Lifeline program.

After her testimony, several Congressmen presented McAuliffe with questions about how placing a cap on the Lifeline program would impact program users and potential users. McAuliffe held firm that low income individuals needing the program would receive assistance even with a capped budget and once again articulated that setting a budget on the program is the best way to cut waste, fraud, and abuse.

The full testimony can be found here.

Photo Credit:

More from Americans for Tax Reform

There are no related posts.

Top Comments

New Reforms Make Clear That Tariff Reductions Are Tax Cuts, Not Earmarks

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Monday, April 18th, 2016, 8:00 AM PERMALINK

When the Republican Congressional majority implemented its ban on earmarks in 2010, it signaled a commitment to ending the culture of corruption and influence peddling in the legislative process. But there has been one unintended consequence of this important ban: temporary tariff reductions, or Miscellaneous Tariff Bills (MTBs) have also been counted as earmarks since the ban went into effect.

The truth is, repealing a tariff is in no way comparable to creating an earmark. There is no such thing as a "tax earmark," since letting families and employers keep their own money is not government spending. Rather than being a tool for wasteful, cronyist spending – as earmarks are – MTBs serve to provide important relief for American manufacturers.

MTBs are closely controlled to ensure they are not abused – the process is only available for imports where there is no domestically made alternative and any single tariff reduction must not exceed $500,000 in lost revenue. By definition, they are non-controversial in nature.

The last time Congress passed MTBs, these tariff cuts supported more than 90,000 U.S. jobs and increased GDP by $3.5 billion, according to the National Association of Manufacturers. Evidently, the benefits of these tariff cuts are enormous. 

Fortunately, Congress is poised to kick-start this long stalled process. House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently introduced the American Manufacturing Competiveness Act of 2016, legislation to reform the process of approving MTBs and make clear they are not earmarks.

The legislation requires local businesses to petition the independent International Trade Commission rather than a Member of Congress, which eliminates all concerns linking MTBs to the unethical nature of earmarks. Under the reforms, the Senate Finance and House Ways & Means committees would be given final say over whether to exclude tariff cuts from the final package, but would be unable to add any new ones.

ATR supports these important reforms and recently joined with a coalition of conservative organizations calling on Congress to swiftly approve these reforms and once again grant American manufacturers important tariff relief.

Photo Credit:

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Florida Gov. Rick Scott Signs $400 Million in Tax Cuts into Law

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tony Smith on Friday, April 15th, 2016, 1:52 PM PERMALINK

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) signed into law this week $400 million worth of one-time and recurring tax cuts. Of that $400 million, $290 million comes reducing the state property tax rate for schools by 5 percent, and $110 million involves extending tax holidays, such as the back-to-school tax break and permanently cutting sales taxes on manufacturing equipment. The back-to-school tax holiday will last three days from August 5-7, shorter than the originally proposed 10 days. In addition to these cuts, there are also smaller breaks including an exemption on food and drinks sold by veterans’ organization and phases out a sales tax on asphalt used by the government over a three-year period.

Initially Gov. Scott asked for $1 billion in tax cuts at the beginning of the year, but big spenders in the legislature, who insisted on expanding Medicaid and other spending programs opposed the proposal. Scott had also proposed $250 million in business-recruitment incentives.  Despite the legislature’s opposition to the larger but modest tax cut proposal, Gov. Scott remained ever the optimist, stating, “We are headed in the right direction.”

The Governor has quite the reputation for cutting taxes, and is a signer of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a written commitment he has kept, unlike his predecessor Charlie Crist.

In 2015 alone, the Governor signed a $429 million tax-cut package into law that included lower cell phone and cable taxes for Florida residents. That package, along with his most recent pro-growth plans, bring his total to more than $3 billion in tax cuts through his tenure as Governor of Florida. These massive pro-growth policies have led to the creation of one million jobs, cutting unemployment nearly in half and driving economic growth in the country’s fourth largest economy. 

Photo Credit: 
Olin Gilbert

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


More money in the education system does not improve education. Please look at the last 50 years of American education, money spent went up and test scores went down. This would seem to prove that the more money spent in education has the reverse effect.

David Netzoff

The first place any red-blooded 'Murican would cut taxes is education, right? Educated people wouldn't put up with nonsense like this. Glad I'm in a state that sees the wisdom in a good education for all kids. Sorry for you guys back there in the Confederacy.

Clinton Vows to Put Coal Miners “Out of Business”

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Friday, April 15th, 2016, 11:46 AM PERMALINK

At a recent Town Hall in Ohio, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton proudly stated that she was the only candidate with a policy to bring renewable energy “into coal country, because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

Such a statement not only evidences Clinton’s reckless indifference to the plight of thousands of hard-working Americans, but more importantly highlights the fact that Clinton is all to willing to capitalize on far left, populist talking points at the expense of low-and-middle income families. 

Tragically, Clinton’s pledge to put “a lot of coal miners…out of business” is already coming to fruition with her support for President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, or more commonly referred the “Carbon Rule.” Hillary’s support for the Carbon Rule shows that a Clinton Whitehouse would simply be a continuation of Obama’s war on affordable energy and the American economy.

Under Obama’s Carbon Rule, a projected 45,000 megawatts (MW) of coal-fired electric generating capacity will be forced to retire. To put that in perspective, 45,000 MW is more than the entire electricity supply of New England. So when Clinton boast of putting coal miners out of business, her support for the Carbon Rule is already doing so, as thousands of coal country jobs are already being destroyed.

Yet the impact of Clinton’s support for the Carbon Rule, and her pledge to further destroy the already fledgling coal industry once in office, doesn’t just end with coal jobs. As more and more electricity generation is forced to shift away from affordable and reliable sources, the cost of that shift is passed onto consumers in the form of higher rates. 

For instance, the Carbon Rule is projected to cause a 12 to 17 percent average increase in electricity prices. An estimated 44 states will see double-digit rate increases, with 17 states facing price increases of over 20 percent. While Clinton claims that her support for the Carbon Rule and related policy stems from her desire to protect the nation’s most vulnerable, the exact opposite is true.

Hillary’s support for, and future plans to increase economically disastrous energy policy, will only reduce the disposable income of low-to-middle income families as more and more of their budget goes towards increased energy costs. Taken together, increased energy costs and thousands of layoffs under Clinton would be an economic disaster.

Make no mistake, when Hillary Clinton claims that her policies will destroy good paying jobs for thousands of hard-working Americans, she means it. 


Photo credit: Marc Nozell

Top Comments



"have a jobs program for them, like so many other successful government-run programs"

like shovel ready jobs... didn't the gov already try that.

Dave Corsi

Isn't is about time the American people put the Clinton Foundation"out of business".


Someone should tell this demented hag that you can't replace the megawatts of power from a coal fired electrical plant with solar panels and windmills. If this dementia of getting rid of coal fired plants keeps going, liberals will find out the hard way about their idiotic policies when they are trying to charge up their phones by candlelight...

Congress Must Address Puerto Rico’s Economic Crisis by Passing PROMESA

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Thursday, April 14th, 2016, 4:00 PM PERMALINK

With a debt to GDP ratio of 70 percent, Puerto Rico is $72 billion in debt and has no realistic way to pay it back. The island’s energy infrastructure is ineffective and inefficient and its decade long economic crisis has led to 10 percent of Puerto Ricans leaving the island in that time. Because Puerto Rico’s 3.5 million residents are all U.S. citizens, Congress has an obligation to help the territory resolve its current ills.

To do so, Congress should pass H.R. 4900, the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) introduced by the House Natural Resources Committee and Congressman Sean Duffy (R-Wis.). This legislation is a responsible proposal that provides the tools to address the crisis without bailing out the island, granting the island Chapter 9 bankruptcy, or increasing taxes.

PROMESA creates an Oversight Board modeled off the success of the fiscal control board created for the District of Columbia in 1995. This independent board will oversee Puerto Rico and work with the legislature, executive, and government agencies to produce much needed financial statements and reforms. If stakeholders fail to come together to properly identify and reform wasteful spending, the Oversight Board has the ability to act unilaterally.

Importantly, this legislation does not retroactively grant Chapter 9 bankruptcy to Puerto Rico. Doing so would undermine the rule of law, allow the territory to alter existing contracts, and could destabilize municipal markets by setting a precedent allowing states to restructure constitutionally guaranteed debt.

Instead, the legislation facilitates a process where restructuring is voluntary between debtors and creditors. If restructuring cannot be reached voluntarily and is deemed necessary, the Oversight Board is given the authority to evaluate and resolve on a case-by-case basis. Any debt restructuring that Puerto Rico is given access to will not be extended to states because the legislation places this solution into the section of the U.S. code that relates to territories.

The legislation also contains several pro-growth reforms including a provision allowing the island to adjust minimum wage requirements for workers under the age of 25, and excludes Puerto Rico from the Department of Labor’s proposed overtime rule. While these provisions are a step in the right direction, more pro-growth reforms will be needed either from the Control Board or through legislation to ensure the island can move past its current fiscal crisis.

The bottom line is that the Puerto Rico crisis is a failure borne from government inefficiency. PROMESA address this problem in a responsible way through a control board to cut down on waste, instead of through tax increases or a taxpayer funded bailout. Members of Congress should have no hesitation supporting and voting for this bill. 

Photo Credit:

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Yes, I am sure, once this is passed, that chapter 9 will never be "reconsidered", the taxpayers will never be hit up for some "temporary humanitarian aid", the PR plan will never be used as a model for any further "help" for bankrupt states, etc.

The fact that PR residents are US citizens does not in any way qualify for "help", otherwise, why aren't US mainland citizens entitled to "help" when we make bad deals and are corrupt and irresponsible?

You should be ashamed of yourself, Grover. You ae now fully a shill for the political elite. Let PR go its own way, cut it loose. Let Wall St. absorb its losses. They bought those bonds at a huge discount anyway, if they get back 40%, they are whole.

Let PR and the investors hire a professional mediator to impose discipline and work out a solution. The Congress has nothing to do with this. Let them eat cake.

Jeff Wilson

"why aren't US mainland citizens entitled to "help" when we make bad deals and are corrupt and irresponsible?"

How easily people forget the bail-out the government provided to American companies totaling Trillions. Plus, much of the debt was created by offering assistance at exorbitant rates benefitting Wall Street vultures.

Newly Released Footage Shows Hillary’s 25% Gun Tax Endorsement

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Thursday, April 14th, 2016, 5:55 AM PERMALINK

In 1993 Senate testimony Hillary Clinton endorsed a new national 25% retail sales tax on guns. Newly released footage shows her nodding vociferously as gun owners and dealers are described as “purveyors of violence”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In passionate Senate testimony on Sept. 30, 1993, Hillary Clinton endorsed a new national 25% retail sales tax on guns. Today, Americans for Tax Reform has released newly discovered footage of Clinton’s visceral facial expressions which shows her nodding fiercely as she endorses the gun tax and as gun owners and dealers are described as “purveyors of violence.”

Clinton concluded her gun tax endorsement by saying, "I am speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that."

The newly released footage is available here and at ATR’s


"Hillary has made it perfectly clear to the millions of gun owners in the United States: she doesn't like us, she doesn't trust us and she wants us to go away," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The Second Amendment makes it difficult to legally ban guns, but Hillary has led the way to explaining you can achieve the same thing with high taxes.”

In advance of Tuesday’s New York primary, Clinton is relentlessly attacking Bernie Sanders for his 1990s gun votes, bragging that she is to the left of Sanders on gun control. She has yet to face any recent media questioning of her gun tax endorsement, which was reported at the time by the Associated Press, New York Times, Washington Post, and NBC News.

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.

Here’s 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."

On 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."

Clinton’s gun tax endorsement is an especially potent threat considering the recent imposition of gun taxes in Seattle and the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas Islands.

Seattle’s $25 per gun sales tax – as well as a two to five cent tax per round of ammunition -- went into effect on Jan. 1, 2016 and has already forced one gun dealer out of the city. This week, the Northern Marianas enacted a $1,000 per gun tax.

“Hillary and the Left are now seeking to tax guns out of existence,” said Norquist.

Clinton and Sanders face off in a debate tonight hosted by CNN at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The state of New York is home to a proud history of gun manufacturing and according to a new report from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms and ammunition industry employs 7,673 workers in the state.


Photo Credit: 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Her and her commie hubbie have committed over 70 murders - guns, knives, cars, poison, you name it. In her case people kill people, not guns.

Frank Gugino

Hillary's plan to raise minimum wages will get her votes from the gullible new 18 year old voters,but it will kill the jobs for young first job seekers,along will many bussinesss!!


This TNUC will never be able to tax guns sold on the black market. If they tax Gun manufacturers, sellers and buyers out of existence, people will find other ways to obtain weapons without paying a tax. Even if it makes an honest citizen into a criminal. Where there is a will there is way.