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


Hillary Open to Carbon Tax, Says Campaign Chief

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alex Hendrie and John Kartch on Tuesday, July 26th, 2016, 7:11 PM PERMALINK


Hillary Clinton is open to the idea of a carbon tax, Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta said Tuesday. Podesta’s remarks came shortly after the 2016 Democrat party platform was shown to formally endorse a carbon tax.

As reported by Politico Pro:

“Right now we’ve not proposed a carbon tax,” John Podesta told reporters here, after speaking at an event hosted by green groups. “We believe we can get the job done. But if Congress wants to come forward with one, we’ll take a look at it.”

Podesta is not the only Democrat plotting with Hillary Clinton to eventually impose a carbon tax. In June 2015, Senate honcho Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said a Hillary victory could pave the way for a carbon tax. He said:

“There's one sort of [value-added tax] Democrats might be for — and that's a carbon tax. So you might get a compromise along those lines.”

The 2016 Democrat Party platform carbon tax language states:

“Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean economy and help meet out climate goals.”

The move by Democrats to impose a carbon tax comes in clear contrast to the 2016 Republican Party platform opposition to any carbon tax:

“We oppose any carbon tax.”

Americans for Tax Reform is tracking all of Hillary’s tax hike positions at its dedicated website, www.HighTaxHillary.com

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

illnino4545

Scam!

Carbon credits/exchanges will destroy the economy and force people who live in rural areas to move to the cities, since power bills will be too expensive.

Defendthebillofrights

That has been the goal of the NWO since the 1990's. Force the populations into the cities. Everyone's living quarters would be reduced to the size and shape of the containers you see on Container Ships or on the highways.
The also plan to eliminate all religions except the Global Green Religion. Currently the UN has distributed packages to all the churches showing how they fit into the global green BS. Even the pope has bought it.

Defendthebillofrights

He is in fact a Trilateralist and what you describe is just part of what they have in store for humanity. Communism, Fascism, or any means to get them to their goal are just tools.


Burgers, Fries and Taxes: Kerala Levies a Heavy Tax on Fast Food

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Brady Wilson on Tuesday, July 26th, 2016, 3:47 PM PERMALINK


Last week, the Indian state of Kerala implemented a tax on fast food that has been called the "fat tax."  The tax is levied at a rate of 14.5%.  While currently limited to one state, the policy sets a precedent that the rest may soon follow especially after seeing the revenue that the fat tax brings Kerala.  

The state is adding the tax for one reason: money.  Kerala is not looking to fight for the health of its citizens, it just sees the chance to squeeze more money from working people.

India claims that it is using the tax to combat obesity, yet the tax falls short of that objective.  The tax only applies to brands such as the major chains McDonald's, Burger King, Domino's, and KFC.  Thus, the tax aims to push citizens away from these businesses and toward local foods which as one cafe owner noted, "A lot of local food is more fatty and unhealthy."  A dietician echoed that thought, “Why just burgers and fries? Indian food is also laden with empty calories, which give no concrete nutrition.” The tax is not truly altering the dietary habits of Indians, it is targeting certain multinationals that the government does not approve of.  

Indian lawmakers pointed to past attempts at the fat tax as their inspiration for the policy.  However, they ignore that the tax was a resounding failure in Denmark, the one country where it was previously implemented.  In short, the Danish tax led to inflation, job loss, and cross-cross border shopping while requiring massive administrative costs to operate.  When the Danish saw the drawbacks coupled with a lack of success at combating obesity, they wisely disbanded the tax in less than a year.

In a study examining the Danish fat tax, the think-tank Institute of Economic Affairs concluded that the fiasco has created lessons for policy-makers considering that tax.  The study explained that the effects on calorie consumption and obesity will be minimal while the tax itself is regressive, inefficient, and unpopular.  Yet three years later, Kerala is ignoring the evidence from Denmark to create a ridiculous tax. 

Right now it is just a small state in southern India, but as other nations see Kerala’s tax, they will see another opportunity to add to their coffers.  Countries are already debating their version of the tax including in Italy while Barbados was forced to quash rumors of a fat tax that arose after Kerala’s new policy. 

Just as other states will copy this ridiculous tax, it begs the question, what else will governments tax?  One Indian newspaper quipped that next will be a skinny tax, or a sick tax, or maybe even a dumb tax to control the behavior of its people.

If the government truly wanted to help its people make a more healthy option, it should have launched an educational campaign to help its citizens make an informed decision.  Instead, the government is using a high tax to remove the ability to choose from its people while stealing money from hardworking citizens.  

 

 

Photo Credit: Zhao

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Democratic Platform Calls for Carbon Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Tuesday, July 26th, 2016, 10:56 AM PERMALINK


The 2016 Democratic Party platform endorses a carbon tax on the American people. The carbon tax language, added at the last minute, states:

“Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean economy and help meet out climate goals.”

The move by Democrats to impose a carbon tax comes in clear contrast to the 2016 Republican Party platform opposition to any carbon tax:

“We oppose any carbon tax.”

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, predicts the Democrat call for a carbon tax will have electoral consequences: “When counting to 270 – the number of electoral votes needed to win the presidency – the Republicans may have already won the election in five short words: ‘We oppose any carbon tax.’ Note the overlap between new fracking states – Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Colorado – and the swing states to reach 270 for any candidate.”  

 

Photo credit: Jim Hutchison

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

308btsp

Take your tax and shove it up your Hillary.

John (magnum)

A lot of people have brought up the fact that they won't vote for Trump if he's the eventual nominee.

Lets put something in perspective.

Justice Scalia's seat is vacant. Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, and Thomas is 67. Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after 75.

These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology.

Think about that... 7-2. If the next President appoints 5 young justices, it will guarantee control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation. And 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than 5-4 decisions which are seemed to be lacking in mandate.

Hillary has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2nd Amendment. She has literally said that the SupremeCourt was wrong in its Heller decision stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.

Everyone saying that they won't vote for one candidate or the other if they are the GOP nominee, please realize this. If Hillary Clinton wins and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another Conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for the rest of your life. Ever.

If you are a Conservative, a vote for anyone but the GOP nominee, whomever that will be, is a vote for Hillary Clinton.

Inspector Todd

....because that's why man-made global warming/cooling/climatechange or whatever they've named it this month was invented..
To bilk Americans out of more tax dollars. That's all it is, a scheme...and a made-up one at that.


Hillary’s Phony $250,000 Tax Pledge

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Toni-Anne Barry, John Kartch on Monday, July 25th, 2016, 2:17 PM PERMALINK


A real pledge or a lie to get votes?

Hillary Clinton 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.

During a July 31 CBS 60 Minutes interview, correspondent Scott Pelley asked Clinton about her tax pledge:

Scott Pelley: “Who gets a tax increase? Who gets a tax cut?”

Hillary Clinton: “The middle class will not get a tax increase. That has been my pledge.”

Scott Pelley: “What does middle class mean?”

Hillary Clinton: “Well, we say below $250,000”

But when pressed on the issue on ABC’s This Week in Dec. 2015, Clinton balked and said her pledge was actually just a “goal”:

George Stephanopoulos: “You are also saying no tax increases at all on anyone earning $250,000. Is that a rock solid read-my-lips promise?”

Clinton: “Well, it certainly is my goal. And I’ve laid it out in this campaign. And it’s something that President Obama promised. It’s something my husband certainly tried to achieve. Because I want Americans to know that I get it.”

So, Clinton’s “pledge” is not real. She admitted as much.

“She’s up front saying ‘I’m going to lie my way into office,’” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

In addition to reducing her pledge to a mere “goal” Clinton referenced two presidents – Obama and Bill Clinton – who raised taxes on the very people they promised to spare.

As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama made the same promise. Speaking in Dover, New Hampshire on Sept. 12, 2008, Obama said:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” [Video]

In an address to a joint session of Congress on Feb. 24, 2009, President Obama restated the promise in forceful terms:

“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” [Transcript] [Video]

But Obama broke that promise. He signed into law eight tax increases that directly hit Americans making less than $250,000 per year. There are seven tax increases in Obamacare that are in violation of his pledge, such as the individual mandate non-compliance tax; an income tax hike on those with high medical bills; tax hikes on flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts; and even a 10 percent “indoor tanning tax.” Combined, these tax increases target tens of millions of Americans.

Obama first broke his pledge on the sixteenth day of his presidency, when he raised taxes on cigarettes. At the time, the median income of smokers was less than $40,000. The Associated Press rightly called out Obama for the broken promise in a national piece titled “Promises, Promises: Obama Tax Pledge Up in Smoke.”

Hillary’s husband Bill raised the gas tax, steeply increasing the tax burden on millions of middle income Americans.

“Hillary told us that her pledge is just a tactic to try and win the election, not a principle with which to govern,” said Norquist.

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Wayne Burger

Can't stop a liar from lying ever.

Thunderhorse

How about collecting from Al Sharpton?


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

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Toni-Anne Barry on Friday, July 22nd, 2016, 5:08 PM PERMALINK


As governor, Hillary’s High-Tax-Tim tried to hike taxes by billions of dollars

If prospective Hillary Clinton running mate Tim Kaine had his way, Virginia residents would be paying billions in higher taxes. As governor, Kaine sought to impose nearly $4 billion in higher taxes, including an income tax hike on families earning as little as $17,000 a year. He pushed for tax hikes on businesses and higher taxes on distilled spirits and cigarettes:

Income Tax Hike on Working Families: Kaine tried to Increase the bottom tax rate from 5.75% to 6.75%, directly affecting low income families earning as little as $17,000 annually.

Business Tax: Tax increase on businesses collecting sales tax bumping the state rate from 4% to 4.3% 

Alcohol Tax: Kaine pushed a 2% markup on distilled spirits.

Cigarette Tax: Kaine pushed a 60-cents per pack cigarette tax increase.

Kaine’s record in support of tax hikes makes him attractive to Hillary, who has proposed a series of tax increases totaling at least $1 trillion over 10 years.

To learn more about Kaine and Clinton’s tax hike records, visit ATR’s dedicated website, HighTaxHillary.com

Photo Credit: 
Fladems.com

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

sandnomad

And the fleeced will be the producers, while those who are being fed by the fleecers will continue their fleecing until there is nothing left to fleece, because it is impossible to fleece sheeple who grow no fleece.

jeffra

Tax the hell out of cigarettes....smoking sends you to hell. Sure it's legal to assasinate yourself....but when you get lung cancer after being a loser calling - in ' sick employee for the prior 15 years.....don't come begging uncle sam to prevent the death panel insurance companies from cancelling your sorry addicted dying carcass from their policy. Pay to die yourself. Stop being a burden on me. I work n pay taxes n dont call in sick. JUST SAY'N !

Renato

At that time illegals did not get pay $350 dollars every month for every child.; no wonder why they have so many kids; 10 kids = $3,500 dollars a months and that's nothing compared to what we have to pay for their education $ 35,000 per student, yearly, in Abbot districts. On top of that, welfare, food stamps, free medical, free dental, free rental, free education.The government spends (our taxes) more than 330 BILLIONS DOLLARS every year on illegals aliens. Nobody is indispensable, When they were not here the economy worked well. Yes, we need immigrant labor, but we do not need abusers, criminals, drug dealers and terrorists.


EIA Study Reaffirms CPP's Impact on U.S. Economy

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bradley Wyatt on Wednesday, July 20th, 2016, 1:16 PM PERMALINK


A new study released from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) discussed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan (CPP). Last August, the EPA released the final version of the CPP, which is projected to kill thousands of jobs, reduce GDP, and increase energy prices.

The EIA states that the CPP will mean higher prices for residential and commercial electricity, which translates over from the higher transmission and distribution costs. It is noted within the EIA study that electricity prices will increase with rising fuel costs and expenditures for electric transmission and distribution infrastructure. Also confirmed by this study is that residential and commercial electricity prices are significantly higher than industrial prices; this mainly reflects the higher costs of distribution services for residential and commercial customers.

In addition to the EIA study, multiple sources have stated that the EPA’s proposal of the CPP is harmful to economic growth and American families. The EPA’s proposal is the MOST expensive environmental regulation that has ever imposed on the electric power sector, costing at least $41 billion per year. This added expense will be especially harmful to low, middle, and fixed income families. The 60 million low and middle income households in America have witnessed a 22% decline in income and a 27% increase in energy costs; not to mention those who are dependent on Social Security, such as fixed-income seniors, are being hit the hardest by rising energy costs. Low and middle income households spend more than twice as much as high-income households for energy.

EIA projects that although energy consumption is projected to grow from 2015-2040, that higher energy prices could reduce the demand for energy. This is due to the fact that consumers will face higher energy costs if the EPA continues their over regulation. Consumers should not have to lose out on an abundance of affordable energy that America has to offer because of the Obama Administration’s and unelected bureaucrats “green” agenda. 

Charles McConnell, the former Obama Administration’s Department of Energy Fossil Fuel Director, recently told a congressional panel that the EPA’s plan of regulation is “ideological mumbo jumbo” and he states that it will NOT significantly affect global CO2 emissions. McConnell, now executive director of Rice University’s Energy and Environment Initiative, also explained that his ideology “is not against climate regulations, but against stupid regulations”, such as the Administration’s CPP plan.

A study from the Manhattan Institute points out the CPP will have no measurable impact on world climate. The study cites an EPA-sponsored climate model showing that the CPP will have an estimated impact of less than 0.01 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, which essentially is all cost and no benefit for U.S. consumers and businesses

Supporters of the EPA proposal ultimately argue that the U.S. must play a leadership role in reducing CO2 emissions. The EIA claims the initial impact of the CPP was to lower CO2 emissions; however, the EIA fails to mention the increase in CO2 emissions from emerging nations such as China, India, and Asian nations.  With the large amount of added expenses the CPP will burden consumers and businesses with; one would expect the CPP would have larger effects on domestic CO2 emissions.  Once again, we have failed leadership from our Administration that will only hurt, not help, American families and businesses.

 

Photo Credit: TexasGOPvote.com

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


U.S. JAN Hosts Governors Forum on Justice Reform in Cleveland

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Krista Chavez on Tuesday, July 19th, 2016, 10:03 AM PERMALINK


On Tuesday, U.S. Justice Action Network (U.S. JAN) and GOPAC Education Fund are hosting a Governors Forum on Justice Reform at the Republican National Convention. This will occur at 11 a.m. EST at the Great Lakes Science Center at 601 Erieside Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio. A live stream is available here.

Follow the forum on Twitter using the hashtag #JusticeReformRNC. Watch the live stream on Facebook here and at the bottom of this post. 

The discussion includes Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, Ohio Senate President Keith Faber, GOPAC Chairman David Avella, and U.S. JAN Executive Director Holly Harris.

ATR and the US Justice Action Network work to reform over-regulations and produce quality solutions to prevent recidivism and unnecessary incarceration within the US justice system. Both partner in the goal to work towards improving America's future.

At the event, there is a documentary screening featuring the above listed governors, exploring the accomplishments and challenges within their respective justice systems. The governors will conduct a panel discussion after the screening which is open to the press and includes a brief media availability with the governors.

Each panel member made a significant contribution to criminal justice reform in his or her respective state or organization. Specifically…

Georgia: In 2012, Georgia lawmakers, including Gov. Deal, passed a package to create a new system of graduated sanctions for burglary, forgery, theft, and simple drug possession. Low level, first time drug offenders were given community alternatives. Prison space is now reserved for the most serious offenses. The package improved probation, drug treatment programs, accountability courts, electronic monitoring, and data collections.

Kentucky: Gov. Bevin created the Criminal Justice Policy Assessment Council in June 2016 to study the state’s code and suggest improvements for the 2017 General Assembly to consider. Specifically, the council will focus on sentencing and corrections. The 23-member council includes bipartisan lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, police, clergy, business leaders, and community leaders.

Oklahoma: Gov. Fallin signed a justice reform package in April 2016 to reform sentencing laws, expand drug court jurisdiction, and change lesser, nonviolent felonies to misdemeanors.

Ohio: The 2013-2014 Ohio General Assembly created the Ohio Criminal Justice Recodification Committee to examine the state’s criminal code. Meetings started in May 2015. The committee will recommend comprehensive reforms to simplify the code and efficiently consume state resources by preventing recidivism by August 1, 2016.

GOPAC Education Fund: As the organization itself notes, it is, “dedicated to furthering the common good and general welfare…by promoting conservative policies for federal, state and local governments that lower taxes, limits the size of government and sets the right business environment for job creation.” After examining conservative success through states like Texas and Georgia, GOPAC supports efforts to implement conservative policies to reform federal and state criminal justice systems.

To RSVP, contact carl@pinkstongroup.com. Shuttles for delegates and the press are provided at delegation hotels with a 10 a.m. departure time to the Great Lakes Science Center.

Follow the forum on Twitter using the hashtag #JusticeReformRNC.

ATR also encourages those who cannot attend to watch the live stream here.

 

Photo Credit: 
joiseyshowaa

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Government Says Pokemon Go is a No-Go

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Natalie De Vincenzi on Tuesday, July 19th, 2016, 10:00 AM PERMALINK


Nanny-staters are at it again. Heat Street reports that the government’s latest overregulation grab takes aim at Pokemon Go. Elected officials want to regulate the nation’s latest fad, the augmented-reality game Pokemon Go, rather than address real pressing issues our nation faces, like our rising national debt or our unsustainable criminal justice system. Felix Ortiz, Democratic New York Assemblyman, has claimed that the game brings about numerous public safety concerns and should be addressed with regulations.

Ortiz, an established “nanny-stater”, has a history of proposing too many unnecessary and unimportant regulations surrounding personal matters and choices. His past proposed regulations include banning salt in restaurants, taxing alcohol and sugary drinks, and banning admission to strip clubs. Why one’s guilty pleasure, be it a Dirty Martini or Pokemon Go, matters to the government is ludicrous.

Other critics trying to impose regulations on Pokemon Go include Senator Al Fraken, who questioned Niantic about how much information is being collected from users.

Pokemon Go has had many positive effects, all of which has been neglected. Users have reported significant spikes in their physical activity, and many have been given a reason to explore the area where they live. In fact, the employees at Cardiogram, an app for Apple Watch, found that 45 percent of users playing Pokemon Go were exercising 30 or more minutes on the day of the launch and that people were walking 62.5 percent more on the weekend after the launch than past weekends. 

Technology, its advances, and effects on personal lives hold no place in the government. Rather than focus on miniscule and irrationally drawn out “concerns” on the nation’s latest fad game, the government should focus on real issues and finding real solutions. No wonder why 3 out of 4 millennials have such a big distrust of government.

 

Photo Credit: 
iphonedigital

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


House Passes Interior-EPA Appropriations Bill to Rein in Costly Obama Regulations

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bradley Wyatt on Friday, July 15th, 2016, 11:23 AM PERMALINK


With a vote of 231-196, the Republican led House passed its $32 billon Interior-EPA spending bill, the first time in seven years that the House has passed such a spending bill. The final vote count was largely along party lines with 228 Republicans voting in favor and 181 Democrats in opposition. This spending bill contains a number of positive spending reductions and looks to rein in the Obama Administration’s over regulation.

The spending bill, H.R. 5538, enables reduction of wasteful spending and harmful, unnecessary regulations. The spending bill also provides $32.1 billion in funding, which is a $64 million reduction from fiscal year 2016 and $1 billion below the Administration’s budget request. Under the spending bill, the EPA would see a reduction of $164 million from FY 2016 levels, which is $291 million below the amount requested in Obama’s budget request. The Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund also see funding reductions under the bill.

The EPA-Interior spending bill would not only reduce EPA regulatory programs by 6 percent, but contains a number of provisions that would rein in costly regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan (CPP), and the Waters of the U.S. rule (WOTUS). The Obama Administration’s myriad of proposed and enacted regulations increase the price of energy in the U.S., reduce GDP, and threaten millions of American jobs.

Provisions of the bill meant to rein in Obama’s regulatory regime include:

  • Prohibiting EPA from implementing new greenhouse gas regulations for new or existing power plants;
  • Eliminating funding for greenhouse gas “New Source Performance Standards”;
  • Prohibiting EPA implementation of WOTUS;
  • Prohibiting EPA from changing the definition of “fill materials”;
  • Prohibitions on new methane requirements;
  • Prohibiting the regulation of the lead content of ammunition and fishing tackle; and
  • Prohibitions on harmful changes to the “stream buffer rule”


Americans for Tax Reform supports H.R. 5538’s spending reductions and measures that rein in costly executive overreach. The efforts of the bill’s Sponsor Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) and the House Republicans will help rein in spending and protect American taxpayers, consumers, and businesses, from the costly and harmful effects of regulations put forth under the Obama Administration.

 

Photo Credit: Daniel Mennerich

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Nita Shafer

Defund the EPA completely. I will enjoy watching EPA pukes clearing out their desks.


hidden
×