Hillary Clinton: At War with Affordable and Reliable Energy

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bradley Wyatt on Monday, May 16th, 2016, 11:13 AM PERMALINK


The 2016 Presidential campaign is one unlike any before and we are certainly witnessing the change of the Democratic electorate. With presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) brining a new form of “outsider” energy to the DNC, Hillary Clinton is certainly facing much adversity on a large number of her stances from both Republican and Democrat voters. Clinton has yet to realize that some of her attacks, such as her recent attacks on hydraulic fracturing and coal miners, are not simply attacks on a small portion of voters, but affect a large number of the electorate.

Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has helped millions of Americans by bringing much need economic growth, lower energy prices for middle-class families, and jobs. Hillary Clinton, Obama and his army of EPA bureaucrats, have certainly made many attempts to over-regulate the production and distribution of affordable and reliable energy.

Fracking has increased economic opportunity for many people, especially those in key swing states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, where fracking supports well over 250,000 jobs. Clinton has neglected the interests of these states, recently stating that once she begins regulating, “I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue.” Her anti-energy policies are now showing through as she’s deadlocked with Donald Trump in both states.

Along with trashing the fracking, she has also put down the coal mining industry. Hillary Clinton is on the record “vowing to put coal miners...out of business.” Clinton is now illustrating that she has no regard for the middle-class with reckless statements such as this. With Obama and Clinton already teaming up on their infamous “carbon rule,” a Clinton White House would only be a continuation of Obama’s reckless, job-destroying, agenda.

With the continuation of attacks on affordable and reliable energy from Clinton, Obama, and unelected Bureaucrats, many may wonder how the electorate would respond.  According to NBC, Clinton received merely 86,354 votes on Tuesday’s loss to Senator Bernie Sanders in West Virginia. Based off records from the 2008 Clinton campaign, that is an outstanding 65% drop in support for Hillary Clinton. 

Voters are starting to realize that Clinton’s disrespect and total disregard for the energy will leave serious economic problems behind. For low to middle income families, Clinton’s outlandish proposals on energy would leave little to no disposable income with an increase of energy cost and the loss of thousands of jobs.

 

Photo credit: Marc Nozell

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


ATR Recognizes Kentucky Pledge Signers Ahead of Tuesday's Congressional Primary

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alec DiFruscia on Monday, May 16th, 2016, 10:58 AM PERMALINK


Today, Americans for Tax Reform recognizes the Kentucky incumbents and candidates who have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to the American people ahead of Tuesday’s primary. These candidates have made a written commitment to their constituents and the American public to oppose tax hikes.

Incumbents:

  •   Sen. Rand Paul
  •   Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02)
  •   Rep. Thomas Massie (KY-04)
  •   Rep. Hal Rogers (KY-05)
  •   Rep. Andy Barr (KY-06)

 

Candidates: 

  •   Jamie Comer
  •   Jason Batts
  •   Mike Pape
Photo Credit: 
Brock Whittaker Photography

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Trump Takes a Stand Against a Carbon Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Friday, May 13th, 2016, 5:17 PM PERMALINK


Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump today took to twitter to make it clear that under no circumstances would he support a carbon tax. Trump’s move to disavow a carbon tax comes as some clueless state and federal lawmakers and far left energy advocates have made the case for a carbon tax this year. 

Trump’s opposition to a carbon tax shows that he is well aware of just how economically disastrous such a tax would be for the country. The imposition of a carbon tax would not only impact the competitiveness of the U.S. economy, but also would drive up energy prices, inevitably leading to higher consumers costs and reduce the household income of millions of American families. 

For the U.S. economy as a whole, projections show a carbon tax would lead to a drop in U.S. GDP of at least $146 billion by the year 2030, impacting both investment and labor. It is projected that over a 3-year span after enactment, over 400,000 jobs would be lost, with losses reaching more than a million jobs by 2030. 

The impact of a carbon tax on energy costs would ripple throughout the economy, with energy prices estimated to see cost increases of 20 to 30 percent.

The resulting increase in energy costs would be wholly regressive, impacting the nation’s most vulnerable. Low to middle income families, who spend a larger portion of their income on energy, would be disproportionately impacted as more and more of their household budget is consumed by rising energy costs.

These same families would be doubly impacted by a carbon tax due to the fact that resulting increases in the costs of energy would also drive up the price of consumer goods, further depleting the disposable income of millions of Americans.

Clearly Trump has done his homework on the carbon tax, and realizes it would be a huuuuuge mistake and terrible deal for the American people.

 

Photo credit:  Ed Ouimette

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

GoddessLilith

Thank you.... have been following for years this issue since it's original name Rio and not the new Parisagreement signed this past earthday.

Climate charge is more like it not change. They are using the basis of such not to fund back nature but to allocate funds to fund NWO. If you follow the money and leave the science out of it and read the parisagreement, specifically the goals 5.6 and 3.1, outlines many unconstitutional matters of our freedom. Limited by the people, but government control. Which will have clear means to take property, limit births and force in areas to live limited of freedom by law of climate. There are additional restrictions, cost of funds come from consumers at the end. The poor will hurt the worst, forcing as we see in areas. Harvard did a study back in 2008, over 2.00 more on a kilowatt and gas increase of .80 per gallon. That was 2008. Increase cost limits use and affordable mobility, it reduces middle class to poor, forcing most to Live in areas of Subsidized development buildings, losing homes, cannot afford a car, have to be forced into areas of public transportation. Many will die. 70 to 100,000 births is the goal to survival. 3.1 goal outlines. Rio Agenda21 hence Paris agreement was written as not a treaty since congress both sides would never approve it back in 2008 rio. New world order posses as this is for the climate change, but it is not. They have placed matters of beyond climate change in the agreement. . Nothing going back to the climate, trillion dollars agreed to united nations signed by Obama this past earth day, was and will be deemed unconstitutional, executive power. Trust that. It was rushed , and when did you ever see over 197 countries agree on anything. If you read the agreement and the agreements stated you will be furious that it is a manor to raise not only control but monies for government with allocation not back into nature at all, but funds from each country to increase spending. Our foods will be gmo modified for mass, and demands on vaccines increased each year, we the test rats, the nature will have less chemical but we will be losing so many since our immune systems each different will and have increased deaths, cancers,and beyond our children government owned until age 5 forced vaccines that have beyond shown to many again each different immune system, harm. I lost my son to food allergies 7 years old. I have beyond seek truth, into all areas to help the next. He was 7, now an angel, by food. It is what our immune system combined in mass can handle by vaccines and food gmo and environmental chemical spraying such as roundup, to be forced by government to for loss of life, is not an option. God bless all. I support no climate charge by the facts of human life. Nature has survived but what we have overlooked is nature regardless of our help will evolve, space air and our sun has been not growing, I watch and pay much attention to space weather activities the earth quacks being results. Our Corona hold is perfect, this is more than what is being said. Chemical spraying al gore admitten it, again more chemical are killing our bees amd many marine life, when men alters nature results are more harmful. Mother earth will be here, but our children deserve a life.


KY-01: Comer, Pape, and Batts Promise Never to Raise Taxes

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Adam Radman, Alec DiFruscia on Friday, May 13th, 2016, 3:21 PM PERMALINK


Three of the four candidates in Tuesday’s Republican primary in Kentucky’s First Congressional District have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to Kentucky taxpayers. The Pledge is a written commitment to the constituents of the First Congressional district and to all Americans to oppose higher taxes. Former Agriculture Commissioner James Comer, Congressional Aide Mike Pape, and Hickman County Attorney Jason Batts are all competing for the seat being vacated by the retiring Rep. Ed Whitfield.

The three gentlemen have all had distinguished careers in public service. James Cormer served twelve years as a state representative, safeguarding the taxpayers from greedy politicians in Frankfort. Mike Pape has worked in this congressional district for over twenty years and knows the needs and the challenges facing the constituents. Jason Batts serves as Hickman County Attorney, where he ensures the Constitution is upheld, in addition to his service as Judge Advocate in the Army Reserves.

“The American people are tired of the tax-and-spend policies coming from Washington and they are looking for solutions that create jobs, cut government spending, and get the economy going again. Signing the Pledge is the first step in that process.”

The Taxpayer Protection Pledge has been offered to every candidate for federal office since 1986. In the 114th Congress, 218 Congressmen and 48 Senators have signed the Pledge.

“We are ecstatic about Cormer’s, Pape’s, and Batts’ commitment to the taxpayers of Kentucky. I challenge all candidates to make the same commitment to taxpayers by signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge today,” continued Norquist.

Cormer, Pape, and Batts will face off in the Kentucky Primary on Tuesday, May 17th. 

Photo Credit: 
Gage Skidmore, Mike Pape, Jason Batts

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Michael Adams

James Comer routinely broke his ATR No-Tax Pledge. He calls it "stepping up to the plate." What good is ATR's No-Tax Pledge if ATR ignores it when the person making the pledge breaks the pledge? http://goo.gl/JZk6a6

richardsloat

Does the Taxpayers protection pledge actually work in our real world? Where is the shrunken Government that could be drowned in a bathtub that Norquist promised us. Do we have smaller government or more debt? A no brainer, unless politicians are willing to cut government expenses, no new taxes forever may sound wonderful but only means more debt for us all and our children! That is our real world!

My political satire, entitled "Taking the Tea Party Republican Tax Pledge", is on YouTube. Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...


Arizona Continues to Lead the Way on the Sharing Economy

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Dennis Cakert on Thursday, May 12th, 2016, 5:22 PM PERMALINK


Today, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law three bills that make Arizona a friendly state for innovative sharing economy services.

“It’s time for our laws to get with the times,” said Governor Ducey. “The sharing economy offers people great services at the tip of their finger and the click of an app. Now, Arizona leads the nation in embracing the Sharing Economy, including the growing homesharing industry. We are committed to doing everything we can to support 21st-century companies that employ Arizonans, advance the way we do business and improve the way we live.

The bills address three of the most pressing issues facing innovators today. Taken from the Governor’s press release:

HB 2652: While other states punish companies for utilizing independent contractors, Arizona will give new start-ups the freedom to choose how to structure their business model — a vital issue in the Sharing Economy. HB 2652 gives certainty to online platforms operating in our state.

SB 1350: Arizona recognizes that in order for the sharing economy to thrive, government needs to adjust and innovate. This bill empowers companies to pay taxes on behalf of their customers, a big issue for homesharing participants.

SB 1524: Regulations should come from lawmakers – not bureaucrats – and only when absolutely necessary. As the economy innovates, this bill will ensure that regulators can’t rush to action and hamper entrepreneurism by applying antiquated regulations to new, evolving ways of doing business.”

Top Comments


To Assure Justice, No More DOJ Strong-Arm Tactics

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Daniel Savickas on Wednesday, May 11th, 2016, 5:31 PM PERMALINK


In a letter to the Judiciary Committee, Americans for Tax Reform supported H.R. 5063, which would put an end to interest group favoritism by the Obama Administration.

Currently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) forces private companies, who settle lawsuits, to donate to administration-friendly groups. This is a bold-faced abuse of power and has caused many in Congress to take action.

The Committee just approved the bill by an 18-6 vote. Committee Chair, Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Antitrust Subcommittee Chair, Tom Marino (R-PA) offered praise for the legislation. This is an important first step in getting this crucial legislation passed to rein in executive overreach.

Read the full letter below:

 

May 11, 2016

Dear Members of the Judiciary Committee:

We urge you to support H.R. 5063, the “Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act.”

HR 5063 would stop the shakedown of companies forced to pay special interest groups friendly to the Administration.

As part of their settlement agreements, the DOJ is forcing companies that settle lawsuits with the government to donate to special interest groups. It is never appropriate to favor a particular advocacy group or political position in this manner. This is a huge abuse of power.

No executive branch, Republican or Democratic, should have that kind of banana-republic power. These settlements are clearly abusive. We must maintain real justice under the law.

We encourage the Judiciary Committee to send this legislation to the floor for full consideration. It is common sense legislation that would ensure that the executive branch, no matter the administration in power, does not circumvent Congressional authority.

Please contact Katie McAuliffe by email, kmcauliffe@atr.org, or phone, 202-785-0266, with any questions or comments.

Onward,

Grover G. Norquist

 

Photo Credit: 
US Mission Geneva

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Coalition of 60 Organizations Oppose Obama Ozone Rule

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bradley Wyatt on Tuesday, May 10th, 2016, 2:12 PM PERMALINK


In a recent letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), 60 organizations, including Americans for Tax Reform, voiced their opposition to President Obama and the EPA’s recent ozone regulations. The coalition also expressed the need for reform to the rulemaking process for ozone and other pollutants under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

The letter argues that if the current ozone regulations are not reformed, communities and businesses will face a tremendous economic burden. According to the EPA’s own estimates, the regulation will cost an estimated $1.4 billion annually. The EPA has also admitted that the cost of the regulation greatly outweighs the benefits of further ozone reductions. It is abundantly clear the new ozone regulations are all cost and no benefit for American taxpayers.

The EPA and Obama Administration’s efforts to promote the new ozone regulation, touted as “one of the most expensive regulations in history,” have failed to persuade lawmakers. Given the substantial economic impact the ozone regulations are projected to have, it should come as no surprise some in Congress are working to push back against this federal overreach.

As cited in the letter, Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) have introduced the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016 (H.R. 4775, S. 2882), which would help to combat the impact of the ozone regulation and achieve much needed reforms to the NAAQS rulemaking process.

ATR was proud to join the 60 other organizations in supporting Rep. Pete Olson and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito’s Ozone Standards Implementation Act, and in calling for reforms to the rulemaking process under the NAAQS.

 

Photo credit: ThatMakesThree 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Obamacare Chief Caught Lying Under Oath About State Exchange Cash

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Tuesday, May 10th, 2016, 1:12 PM PERMALINK


Obamacare chief Andy Slavitt lied before a Congressional hearing investigating wasted Obamacare state exchange funds, according to a new report by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. While under oath, Slavitt claimed that “over $200 million” in funds had been returned to the federal government. In actuality, just $21.5 million has been recovered despite state exchanges receiving $4.5 billion in taxpayer funds. In addition, the $21.5 million figure represented leftover funds, not money that had been recovered as a result of federal oversight.

During a hearing on December 8, 2015, Slavitt assured Congress that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency in charge of administering Obamacare dollars, would act to recover unspent and improperly spent funds. Slavitt announced that more than $200 million had been returned to the federal government, with more to come:

“Over $200 million of the original grant awards have already been returned to the Federal Government, and we’re now in the process of collecting and returning more.”

But as the report notes, Slavitt’s claim that more than $200 million has been returned is not supported by any government documentation.

In addition, Slavitt misled Congress about CMS’ oversight efforts. Contrary to implications by Slavitt and the media, the returned funds were not a result of federal oversight over wasteful or inappropriate funds. Rather, the funds were “de-obligated,” meaning the grantee had completed all work or the grant end date had been reached. As the report notes, this money was simply leftover because the grant had ended.

CMS provided documentation that confirmed these findings after months of follow up emails and calls from Congressional investigators, many of which were ignored.

Despite the efforts of Energy and Commerce Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), taxpayers have seen billions wasted on failed and barely functioning state exchanges.

Since 2011, billions in taxpayer dollars have gone to states with failed or failing systems, including Oregon, Vermont, Minnesota, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, and New Mexico. Despite this long list of failures, CMS has continually failed to exercise oversight over taxpayer dollars.

Of all state exchange failures, the most alarming story is clearly the Cover Oregon state exchange. A recently uncovered email confirmed accusations that the $305 million exchange was run by partisan political advisors focused on then-Governor John Kitzhaber’s 2014 reelection.

The decision to shutter the exchange in early 2014 was made based solely on the governor’s election prospects even though Cover Oregon's infrastructure was close to 90 percent complete. Transferring to the federal system cost an additional $41 million.

As recently as February this year, Slavitt assured Congress that the federal government will “recover its fair portion” of funds from failed state exchanges. Given the findings in this new report, this is clearly not the case. 

Below is a timeline of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s investigation into the misleading statements, highlighting the many ignored inquires:

Dec. 8, 2015: CMS Acting Administrator Andrew Slavitt testified before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on struggling state exchanges. Mr. Slavitt testified that “[o]ver $200 million of the original grant awards have already been returned to the Federal Government, and we’re now in the process of collecting and returning more.”

Dec. 9, 2015: Committee staff emailed CMS staff to request a staff level briefing concerning Mr. Slavitt’s testimony. Specifically, committee staff asked CMS staff to answer “how did CMS take back the $200 million from the state exchanges?” and “[f]rom which states and for what?”

Dec. 11, 2015: Committee staff and CMS staff discussed the committee’s request for a briefing.

Dec. 16, 2015: Committee staff emailed CMS staff to reiterate the committee’s request for a briefing, after hearing no response.

Dec. 17, 2015: Committee staff and CMS staff discussed the committee’s request for a briefing. CMS staff is reluctant to provide the requested briefing.

Dec. 28, 2015: CMS staff offers dates to schedule a briefing.

Jan. 12, 2016: CMS staff briefed committee staff on follow-up questions to the state exchange hearing. CMS staff clarified that the $200 million figure referred to grant money that had originally been allocated but not disbursed, and that CMS simply chose not to disburse the money in some of the grants.

CMS did not provide the Committee with any documentation or information supporting the $200 million number, such as which states the funds came from, why CMS decided not to allocate the money, when the decision was made, etc. Committee staff again requested that information.

Jan. 13, 2016: Committee staff emailed CMS staff with a list of follow-up questions from the briefing, including the initial underlying question that had not been answered: “a breakdown of the $200 million recouped by CMS from state exchanges – by state, amount, date and why the funds were returned.”

Jan. 21, 2016: Committee staff emailed CMS staff about the outstanding request, after hearing no response.

Jan. 27, 2016: Committee staff emailed CMS staff again about the request, after hearing no response. CMS staff responds, “we’re working on those Qs and should get you something shortly.”

Feb. 11, 2016: Chairman Murphy called Mr. Slavitt to ask about the status of the follow-up information on the $200 million from state exchanges. Mr. Slavitt responded that CMS staff was working quickly to response to committee requests.

Feb. 12, 2016: Committee staff calls CMS staff to follow-up on Chairman Murphy’s call, and CMS staff promised to prioritize the $200 million state exchange grant information, and hoped to send it to the committee the week of February 15.

Feb. 17, 2016: CMS staff emailed Committee staff that the information would not arrive this week.

Mar. 3, 2016: Committee staff emailed CMS staff for an update on the requested information – no response from CMS.

Mar. 15, 2016: Chairman Murphy and Mr. Slavitt have a phone conversation about outstanding committee document and information requests, including about the request regarding the $200 million from state exchanges. Mr. Slavitt reports to Chairman Murphy that CMS is still “checking the numbers,” but CMS should be able to provide that information to the committee by the end of the week.

Mar. 18, 2016: CMS staff provided the Committee with information and a chart regarding the $200 million figure

Photo Credit: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/charlesfettinger/

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Efre

Nothing -they move on to their next government opportunity and then retire at full pension...and then come back as a consultant for twice as much.

Fogey0

What happens to all the people in this administration who lie under oath?


West Virginia: Are You Ready for Hillary's 25% Gun Tax?


Posted by John Kartch on Tuesday, May 10th, 2016, 12:40 PM PERMALINK


In 1993 Senate testimony Hillary Clinton endorsed a new national 25% retail sales tax on guns. She has never renounced her position. Video footage of her gun tax endorsement also shows her nodding fiercely as gun dealers are described as “purveyors of violence”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – West Virginia voters beware: Hillary Clinton is on record endorsing a new national 25% retail sales tax on guns. Video footage of Clinton's endorsement -- made in passionate Senate testimony on Sept. 30, 1993 -- shows her nodding fiercely as she endorses the 25% 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 video footage, discovered by Americans for Tax Reform, is available here and at ATR’s www.HighTaxHillary.com

"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.”

Clinton relentlessly attacks 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 Mariana 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. Last month, the Northern Mariana Islands enacted a $1,000 per gun tax.

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

Gun ownership is important to West Virginians regardless of party affiliation, and according to a new report from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms and ammunition industry employs 1,389 workers in the state.

via GIPHY

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

4x4Murica

Crooked Hillary enjoys her Secret Service protection 24/7. But she doesnt think your family deserves that same level of protection.

TRUMP-16


Norquist: “Hillary is on the Wrong Side of History on the Gig Economy”


Posted by Americans for Tax Reform on Monday, May 9th, 2016, 4:50 PM PERMALINK


ATR President Grover Norquist was a guest on CNBC’s Squawk Box today. He pointed out Hillary Clinton’s threat to “crack down” – her words -- on independent contractors in the sharing economy.

Norquist said:

“Hillary is on the wrong side of history on the gig economy, the sharing economy. She wants everyone in America to have a boss. And what Trump and the others who are advocating for the sharing economy and for Uber drivers and Lyft drivers and Airbnb and TaskRabbit -- all the various ways that people are choosing to organize their lives. It gives them more flexibility so they can work when they want to. Not everybody punches in 8:00 – 5:00. Not everybody wants to spend $1,000 of their income every year paying union dues to some guy who is supposed to be smarter and better than they are. They want to run their own lives and make their own deals. And that’s what Uber and companies like Uber have given to people.

And what Hillary has announced, she wants to take away with her ‘cracking down’ on independent contractors which makes Uber illegal. As they just tried to do in Austin. Watch Austin, that’s the opening shot by the Left against the sharing economy.”

Top Comments


hidden
×