Supercut: Team Biden Vows to Impose Carbon Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Tuesday, December 1st, 2020, 9:00 PM PERMALINK

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have endorsed a carbon tax on the American people.

And as shown in the video below, they are surrounding themselves with others pushing a carbon tax, including climate czar John Kerry, OMB pick Neera Tanden, and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen:

A carbon tax would impose burdens on households due to higher costs of cooling and heating, transportation, and groceries.

Even Hillary Clinton in 2016 decided to oppose a carbon tax after she learned the following from an internal Clinton report prepared by policy staff:

The Hillary memo states that a carbon tax would devastate low-income households: “As with the increase in energy costs, the increase in the cost of nonenergy goods and services would disproportionately impact low-income households.”

The Hillary memo states that a carbon tax would cause gas prices to increase 40 cents a gallon and residential electricity prices to increase 12% - 21%: “In our analysis, for example, a $42/ton GHG fee increases gasoline prices by roughly 40 cents per gallon on average between 2020 and 2030 and residential electricity prices by 2.6 cents per kWh, 12% and 21% above levels projected in the EIA’s 2014 Annual Energy Outlook respectively. 

The Hillary memo states a carbon tax would cause household energy bills to go up significantly: “Average household energy costs would increase by roughly $480 per year, or 10% relative to the levels projected in EIA’s 2014 Outlook.”

The Hillary memo states that a carbon tax would increase the cost of household goods and services: “The cost of other household goods and services would increase as well as companies pass forward the higher energy costs paid to produce those goods and services on to consumers.”

(Source: MEMORANDUM FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON -- Jan. 20, 2015)

Carbon taxes are highly unpopular with voters. In fact, carbon tax advocates can’t even get a carbon tax passed in a single blue state, as this timeline shows.

Carbon taxes also saddle state and local governments with huge costs. For example, a school district in Canada was forced to kick 400 kids off the school bus program in order to pay a $3.3 million carbon tax bill.

It's no wonder conservative groups wrote a letter to Congress Stating: "We oppose any carbon tax." The official Republican Party platform also rejects "any carbon tax."

Biden's carbon tax will also shatter his pledge to each and every American making less than $400,000 that he will not raise a single penny of any tax.

 

 


Congress Should Pass the Craft Beverage Modernization Act

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alex Hendrie on Tuesday, December 1st, 2020, 2:33 PM PERMALINK

If lawmakers fail to act by the end of the year, breweries, distilleries, and wineries across America will face a tax increase.

The Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act (CBMTRA) was first enacted through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. This bill provided federal excise tax relief for breweries, wineries, and distilleries, allowing these businesses to hire more employees, purchase new equipment, and expand production.

Unfortunately, this tax relief was temporary and is set to expire at the end of the year. Congress can make these tax cuts permanent by passing S. 362/H.R. 1175, legislation introduced by Reps. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) and Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) and Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo). 

This legislation is overwhelmingly bipartisan and has been co-sponsored by 350 members of the House of Representatives and 76 Senators. Congress should pass this legislation, either as a stand-alone proposal or as part of a broader legislative package.

ATR has kept a running list of dozens of distilleries, breweries, and wineries that have been able to expand production, hire new workers, and invest in the economy thanks to the CBMTRA. Making these tax cuts permanent will help businesses continue supporting the economy and workers.  

Examples of businesses that have already seen benefits from the CBMTRA include:

Alexander Valley Vineyards

 (Healdsburg, California) – The vineyard was able to create new jobs, buy new equipment, and remodel their tasting rooms because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:

“The craft beverage bill has been an incredible boost for our industry and this extension allows us to continue investing in our wineries by buying new equipment, remodeling tasting rooms, hiring new employees and more,” said Hank Wetzel, founder and family partner of Alexander Valley Vineyards and Chairman of Wine Institute. “All of this benefits local communities in the form of jobs, tax revenue and support for the hospitality industry.” – Dec. 20, 2019, Southeast Farm Press article.

Portland Cider Company

 (Clackamas, Oregon) – Because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the owner was able to create new jobs and invest in new equipment:

Jeff Parish, Co-Founder of Portland Cider Company and Committee Member of the United States Association of Cider Makers: “As a cider maker, the temporary CBMTRA allowed me to purchase new equipment, hire new staff and grow my business. If the excise tax credits go away, I have to reverse those choices. We're hopeful the permanent version of the bill passes, so we can plan with certainty for a growth-future." – Feb. 6, 2019, U.S. Senate Finance Committee press release.

Central Standard Distillery

 (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) – The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act allowed the distillery to hire four new employees, invest in a new facility, and ordered a new bottling line:

"Central Standard Distillery co-owner Evan Hughes said his business was able to grow faster than it normally would because of the act. He attributes four key growth areas to the success of the act, including: Central Standard hired four new employees, bringing staff totals to 22 people. The company invested in a 15,000-square-foot facility on Clybourn Street. In addition, Central Standard ordered a new bottling line for improved efficiency and offered health care to all of its employees.

"It gave us the courage to expand our business quicker than we normally would," Hughes said. – Dec. 10, 2019, Milwaukee Business Journal.

Bar Cento

 (Cleveland, Ohio) – The tax cuts allowed the bar to add new jobs and invest more in their facility:

Sam McNulty, co-founder of multiple Cleveland brewery/restaurants including Market Garden Brewery and Bar Cento, credited the tax break with helping his operations expand at an accelerated rate, "which in our case meant several million dollars of investment in our facility as well as the creation of a large number of full-time positions."

Not having certainty for the tax cut beyond next year could stymie other, more long-term investments.

"As in life, so it goes in business, where if the future is uncertain, you are more likely to be less secure and optimistic and thus more conservative and frugal," McNulty said. "There's not a bank on the planet that will finance a business that has only a one-year lease. And so a one-year extension is appreciated, but it is not enough to really fuel this growing industry and reach the full promise of the economic benefits of local craft beer." – Dec. 17, 2018, Crains Cleveland article.

Photo Credit: Darren Maloney


ATR Supports Nathan Simington for FCC

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Katie McAuliffe on Tuesday, December 1st, 2020, 9:44 AM PERMALINK

Today, Americans for Tax Reform sent a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urging him to confirm Nathan Simington as Federal Communications Commissioner before the end of this year.

The continue reading for the full letter text or click here.

 

December 1, 2020

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Senate Majority Leader
S-230, The Capitol
Washington DC, 20510
 
Re: Support of Nomination of Nathan Simington to the Federal Communications Commission
 

Dear Majority Leader McConnell:

I write in support of Nathan Simington’s nomination to the Federal Communications Commission.

In the past four years, the FCC, under Chairman Ajit Pai’s leadership, has made major accomplishments in promoting resilient networks that spurred broadband deployment and investment. This foresight and swift action during the pandemic, kept Americans connected through the volatile and uncertain times faced by families as COVID-19 emerged globally.

Right now, Joe Biden is poised to inherit a Democrat-led FCC on day one.  Under long-standing tradition, the current Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai will step down in January.  Likewise, current Republican FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly will leave the agency when Congress adjourns in a few weeks because his term has expired.  This means that the normally five-member FCC would be controlled by Democrats, 2-1, starting on January 20.  That would give the agency the opportunity to jam through a partisan Biden agenda.  While floor time is limited during the Senate’s lame-duck session, confirming Simington this year would ensure a 2-2 FCC that could forestall billions in economic damage.

The Commission’s role in Restoring Internet Freedom to stop so-called net neutrality prevented regulations that would have treated broadband providers like utilities under Title II of the Communications Act. This created an environment for $80 billion of dollars in investment from 2018 through 2019.  It also prevented giving states and localities the ability to institute their own taxes and fees on broadband networks.

Republicans should not underestimate the harm that a Democrat-led FCC could impose on the American economy during Biden’s first 100 days.

A Biden Administration will likely lean on the FCC to help push through an agenda focused on taxpayer funded broadband, as it did during the Obama years. Many states have opposed taxpayer funded municipal broadband networks, while other states have pursued this path. The courts prevent the Obama era FCC from inserting itself into states who opposed municipal broadband networks. Meanwhile, we have watched networks consistently fail in states that chose to pursue taxpayer funded networks.

A Democrat-controlled FCC is expected to significantly increase its spending of Americans’ hard-earned dollars.  They can do so immediately through the FCC’s Universal Service Fund without any input or check from the Senate simply by adding charges to American’s telephone bills. Democrats have also called for massive increases in in the FCC’s Lifeline and E-Rate programs. Internet connectivity has become even more vital as many of us continue to work, educate, visit doctors, and entertain from home. However, this does not necessarily mean increases in spending are necessary. The FCC has done much to redirect funding  and audit subsidies.

5G connectivity has been a rallying cry across the isles, and while spectrum auctions are sure to continue, another democrat priority may involve rolling back FCC rules that limit how much cities can charge telecom companies for 5G cell sites. Bringing cities in line with market rates has encouraged and expedited the spread of important 5G infrastructure.

By confirming Simington now as Commissioner to the FCC, the Senate can forestall the impending economic harms and damage to deregulatory policies from the last four years.  While the Senate calendar is tight, spending the necessary floor time to get Simington confirmed to the FCC is the most economically beneficial use of Congress’s time.

Americans for Tax Reform urges you to confirm Nathan Simington to the FCC before the end of this year. Simington’s confirmation now would ensure a 2-2 FCC at the outset of a Biden Presidency.  The FCC could continue to pursue important initiatives on a bi-partisan basis, but it would be blocked from jamming through partisan initiatives—whether those involve profligate spending or an anti-growth agenda. Should you have any questions or comments on this matter, please reach out to me, or our Director of Federal Policy, Katie McAuliffe, kmcauliffe@atr.org.

Onward,

Grover G. Norquist
President
Americans for Tax Reform

Photo Credit: David Berkowitz


Georgia Middle Class Families Will Pay Higher Taxes If Warnock and Ossoff Win

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tom Hebert on Tuesday, December 1st, 2020, 7:45 AM PERMALINK

If Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff are elected to the Senate by winning the January 5, 2021 runoff elections, they will rubber stamp the Biden-Harris agenda of higher taxes on the American people.

Joe Biden has promised  $4 trillion in new or higher taxes on the American people and has pledged to repeal the Trump- Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act “on day one.” This would raise taxes on middle class Americans all across the country – a family of four with the median annual income of $73,000 will see a tax hike of more than $2,058. 

This means that if Warnock and Ossoff win on January 5th, their first order of business will be to raise taxes on all Georgians by repealing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. 

Using IRS data from 2017 and 2018, ATR calculated the average decrease in tax liability for various income thresholds thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Families with AGI of between $50,000 and $100,000 saw a tax cut of roughly double that families with AGI of over $1 million received. The breakdown for Georgia is below: 

  • Taxpayers with AGI of between $25,000 and $49,999 saw their average tax liability drop from $2,553.19 in 2017 to $2,312.76 in 2018, a 9.4 percent reduction in federal tax liability.
  • Taxpayers with AGI of between $50,000 and $74,999 saw their average tax liability drop from $5,459.71 in 2017 to $4,829.49 in 2018, a 11.5 percent reduction in federal tax liability.
  • Taxpayers with AGI of between $75,000 and $99,999 saw their average tax liability drop from $8,803.29 in 2017 to $7,675.99 in 2018, a 12.8 percent reduction in federal tax liability.
  • Taxpayers with AGI of between $100,000 and $200,000 saw their average tax liability drop from $17,824.57 in 2017 to $15,881.30 in 2018, a 10.9 percent reduction in federal tax liability.
  • Taxpayers with AGI of over $1 million saw their average tax liability drop from $786,363.64 in 2017 to $737,697.06 in 2018, a 6.2 percent reduction in federal tax liability.
     

Incumbent Republican Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler have been consistent advocates of lower taxes and limited government. Sen. Perdue voted for the TCJA, which reduced taxes for Georgians across the board. While Sen. Loeffler was not in Congress at that time, she has consistently voiced support for lower taxes and has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge signer, a written commitment to her constituents to oppose any and all income tax increases.

The distinction is clear – Perdue and Loeffler will fight for low taxes and a strong economy while Ossoff and Warnock will vote for the Biden agenda of higher taxes on all Georgians and Americans across the country. 

Photo Credit: John Ramspott


Biden OMB Pick Wants National Soda Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alex Hendrie on Tuesday, December 1st, 2020, 7:30 AM PERMALINK

Neera Tanden, President-elect Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), wants to impose a steep national soda tax.

Tanden endorsed the “Medicare for America Act,” legislation introduced by House Democrats that imposed a one cent tax per 4.2 grams of caloric sweetener in sugary drinks.

The Center for American Progress, which is currently led by Tanden, also called for a tax on sugary drinks as part of their “Medicare Extra for All” plan. This plan would impose several “public health excise taxes” including a tax of 1 cent per ounce to finance new spending on liberal priorities.

If one of these sugary drink taxes were imposed, it could result in a 55 to 67 cent tax on a 2-liter bottle of Coca-Cola. A single 2 liter bottle of Coca-Cola costs anywhere from $1.25 to $1.70, so this tax could total 50 percent of the cost of the product. With the Tanden soda tax burden, the cost of a 12-pack of soda could increase by $1.11 to $1.44.

A tax on sugary drinks would also be extremely regressive and disproportionately harm low-income Americans. In fact, according to a 2018 report from the Tax Foundation, 47 percent of the tax collections from a sugary drink excise tax would come from households with income under $50,000.

Even Bernie Sanders came out against a soda tax.

During his 2016 presidential bid Bernie Sanders slammed Hillary Clinton’s endorsement of a soda tax. Sanders said:

“The mechanism here is fairly regressive. And that is, it will be increasing taxes on low income and working people.”

Sanders went on to note that Clinton’s embrace of a soda tax violated her pledge to the American people not to support any tax increase on Americans making less than $250,000 per year.

"Frankly, I am very surprised that Secretary Clinton would support this regressive tax after pledging not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. This proposal clearly violates her pledge," Sanders said.

Needless to stay, this tax would violate Biden’s pledge to not raise a single penny of any tax on any American making less than $400,000 per year. 

The OMB Director is responsible for implementing the President’s policy priorities across the executive branch. If confirmed, Tanden would play a key role in shaping and implementing policy proposals under a President Biden.

Biden has already called for $4 trillion in new or higher taxes on American families and businesses. With Tanden as OMB chief, a sugary drink tax could be next.

Photo Credit: Center for American Progress


Ohio Commuters Taxed by Cities Where They Used to Work

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Sheridan Nolen on Wednesday, November 25th, 2020, 4:17 PM PERMALINK

Ohio’s current local income tax structure allows municipalities to tax employees even if they do not physically work in the city that is taxing them.  

This is a common rationale: employees can be taxed based upon where they work because they are using city resources like police, fire, and other public services while they are at work. 

However, what happens when people stop actually working at that location?  Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s statewide COVID-19 Stay-at-Home order earlier this year has forced many employees to work from home. This means Ohioans are paying taxes to cities whose services they no longer use. 

At the beginning of the pandemic in March, lawmakers passed HB 197 which deemed all work performed at private homes during the public health emergency to have been performed at the employees’ principal place of work for the purposes of taxation. In other words, cities were permitted to collect income tax dollars as though businesses were operating under normal circumstances.  

This was originally passed under the assumption that it would be a temporary law, only to stay in place until 30 days after Gov. Mike DeWine ended his state of emergency declaration. As the pandemic has carried on far longer than initially anticipated, the temporary nature of the law has been strained.  

In July, The Buckeye Institute and three of its employees filed a lawsuit against the City of Columbus and the State of Ohio. The lawsuit asserts it is unconstitutional to allow cities to tax income of workers who do not live there, and were not permitted to work there during the Stay-at-Home order. 

In order to comply with Ohio’s emergency orders, which required nonessential businesses to close, The Buckeye Institute required its employees to work from home. According to The Buckeye Institute, this is unlawful taxation and “a clear violation of due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and violates Article I, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution.” 

Robert Alt, President of The Buckeye Institute, cited the Hillenmeyer v. Cleveland Board of Review Supreme Court decision from 2015. In Hillenmeyer, the Court unanimously decided that local taxation of a non-resident's services must be based on the location of that person when the work was performed.  

While the Ohio Supreme Court deliberates on the case, state legislators have said they plan to work on passing a new law before the end of the year. Two companion bills, inspired by The Buckeye Institute’s lawsuit, have been introduced in the Ohio Legislature.  

Rep. Kris Jordan, R-Delaware, has sponsored HB 754 and Sen. Kristina Roegner, R-Hudson, has introduced its companion, SB 352. Both pieces of legislation would amend income tax withholding rules for work-from-home employees related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Employees in Ohio would be taxed where they live rather than where they work.  

Sen. Roegner said, “I don’t believe it’s constitutional to be able to tax someone that doesn’t step foot in your city.”  

However, while various lawmakers like Roegner have expressed their beliefs that the law is unfair, cities across Ohio say repealing the temporary law would hurt city budgets. Organizations, such as the Ohio Municipal League, have also come out against such legislation.  

Ohio Municipal League Executive Director, Kent Scarrett, said that “any shift from how income taxes are collected with the coronavirus emergency measure needs extensive debate.” Membership to the Ohio Municipal League is given to any city or village in Ohio that pays annual dues. In other words, many people who are directly part of City Government are key members of the Ohio Municipal League.  

If a new law is not passed before the end of the 133rd General Assembly, Sen. Roegner has promised to bring a new bill back to the Statehouse in January 2021. 

The lawsuit and pending legislation of HB 754 and SB 352 could benefit taxpayers during the pandemic by simplifying how they pay taxes. 

Photo Credit: Nicholas Eckhart


Study Shows Expanding Unemployment Keeps Americans Out Of Work

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tom Hebert on Tuesday, November 24th, 2020, 2:55 PM PERMALINK

Democrats are fighting to expand several unemployment programs into 2021, including reviving the Pelosi $600-per-week increase in unemployment payments that subsidized welfare over work. 

This could endanger the economic recovery, as past expansions of unemployment programs have resulted in more Americans out of work and decreased labor demand, according to a 2019 study from the New York Federal Reserve.

On the heels of the Great Recession, Congress extended unemployment benefits for 13 weeks on top of the normal 26 week duration in June 2008. After President Obama took office, Congress passed a number of additional expansions to unemployment, eventually topping out at 99 weeks of benefits. 

Analysts from the New York Federal Reserve estimated that the unemployment rate would have been 2.2 percentage points lower in 2011 and 3 percentage points lower in 2010 if Obama’s benefit expansion did not exist. This means that the disincentive to work the benefit expansion created kept approximately 4 million Americans out of a job during the slowest economic recovery in modern history.

The report also found that extended durations of unemployment payments have a negative impact on labor demand, as “...firms would expect to bargain with workers entitled to high benefits at all future dates.” 

Democrats are pushing to revive the CARES Act’s temporary $600-per-week federal pandemic unemployment compensation (FPUC) benefit. Before the FPUC expired in July, it created a situation in which 68 percent of Americans got paid more on unemployment than in the workplace. 

The subsidy of welfare over work will have lasting impacts on the economy that will only worsen if brought back. A recent study conducted by the Heritage Foundation found that the FPUC will reduce GDP by between $955 billion and $1.49 trillion. 

The economy is recovering strongly from the pandemic, and several promising COVID-19 vaccine candidates are on the horizon. Since the April pandemic-low, 12.1 million jobs have been recovered as businesses continue to reopen and Americans continue getting back to work. Since October, over half of the jobs lost to the Coronavirus pandemic have now been recovered, and unemployment has fallen from a record high 14.7 percent to 6.9 percent. 

While workers who have been displaced by the pandemic through no fault of their own deserve a safety net, history tells us that extending these programs will do more harm than good. As our economy continues to rebound, lawmakers must keep these facts in mind and reject policies that would prolong high unemployment rates and discourage Americans from safely re-entering the workforce.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore


Texas Needs a Fiscally Conservative Game Plan to Navigate Budget Hardships

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Matt Owens on Tuesday, November 24th, 2020, 11:38 AM PERMALINK

As in other states, tax collections in Texas have taken a hit due to Covid-19 and subsequent shutdowns. Texas lawmakers will be faced with the challenge of reprioritizing state spending when they convene their biennial session in January. To assist Lone Star State lawmakers in this effort, the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) has published a conservative budget plan that would limit spending growth to the rate of population plus inflation, setting a max threshold for appropriations in the next budget at $246.8 billion.

TPPF is also urging Texas lawmakers to provide property tax relief in the coming year, a goal the Americans for Tax Reform supports. Texas is one of nine no-income-tax states, yet high property tax burdens are a problem. 2021 is a great time for Texas legislators to fix that. TPPF economist Vance Ginn highlighted the excessive property tax burdens facing Texans in testimony presented to the Texas House Ways & Means Committee in September:

“Texas looks to have at least the 7th highest local property tax burden in the nation,” Ginn told lawmakers. “This is according to an effective property tax rate of 1.81% per WalletHub.com or the share of property taxes paid to owner-occupied housing value of 1.69% per the Tax Foundation. While some claim this high burden is because Texas does not have a personal income tax, the two sources above show other states with no income tax tend to have a more competitive property tax burden. Texas’s high burden is from excessive spending.”

Even though Texas has a relatively competitive state tax code (minus the state’s margins tax), local municipalities throughout Texas notoriously squeeze residents through high property taxes. The coming legislative session presents an opportunity for Governor Greg Abbott and Texas legislators to consider restructuring that relationship in order to ease property tax burdens.

TPPF’s Ginn proposes swapping the state’s patchwork of local property taxes for a uniform sales tax to fund schools.

“For the sales tax swap, we recommend replacing school M&O property taxes with final sales taxes by mostly broadening the sales tax base,” said Ginn. “In 2017, the last year for which data is available from the Texas Comptroller’s website, Texas provided an estimated $42 billion in exemptions, exclusions, and discounts to the final sales tax base, requiring a higher tax rate and higher burden on those taxed.”

The new year will be full of challenges for state lawmakers in Texas and elsewhere. But the new legislative session also presents many opportunities. In addition to balancing the budget without raising taxes in 2021, tax reform that reduces onerous property tax burdens should be a high priority for Texas legislators, as should phasing out the state margins tax.

Photo Credit: Michael Barera


Biden’s Treasury Pick Supports $2 Trillion Carbon Tax, Says Capitalism is “Beginning to Run Amok”

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz on Monday, November 23rd, 2020, 5:38 PM PERMALINK

The Wall Street Journal reported today that Joe Biden plans to nominate former Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen to become the next Treasury Secretary.

Yellen is a founding member of the Climate Leadership Council (CLC), an “international policy institute” lobbying Congress to pass a carbon tax “starting at $40 a ton (2017$) and increasing every year at 5% above inflation.” Yellen is also the author of a recent study commissioned by CLC,  Exceeding Paristhat recommends a $43/ton carbon tax.

According to an internal report conducted by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential Campaign, a near-identical model of CLC's carbon tax plan “would generate $219 billion a year, on average, between 2020 and 2030.” The same internal report also concluded a $42/ton carbon tax “increases gasoline prices by roughly 40 cents per gallon” and found “average household energy costs would increase by roughly $480 per year.”

Yellen: “Capitalism is beginning to run amok”

“There really is a new kind of recognition that you’ve got a society where capitalism is beginning to run amok and needs to be readjusted in order to make sure that what we’re doing is sustainable and the benefits of growth are widely shared in ways they haven’t been,” Yellen told Reuters in an October interview promoting CLC’s carbon tax plan.

Support for Carbon Adjustment Fee and Carbon Customs Unions

In the same Reuters report, Yellen expanded upon Biden’s support for a “carbon adjustment fee” on imports from countries that fail to cut emissions under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. “Our thinking is that countries with carbon pricing would form essentially clubs, or carbon customs unions, within which there would be frictionless trade,” Yellen said.

Further Support for Carbon Taxes

In an October 19 interview on Bloomberg television, Biden's Treasury pick Janet Yellen said:

"What I would recommend for the United States -- that hopefully we will in the years ahead, go in this direction -- is simply to put in place a carbon tax."

WATCH:

Biden's Own Support for a Carbon Tax

Biden endorsed a carbon tax during on CNN town hall on September 24, 2019:

CNN's Anderson Cooper asked Biden: "Would you support a carbon tax?"

Biden replied: "Yeah, no, I would."

Photo Credit: IMF

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Biden Treasury Pick Wants Carbon Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by John Kartch on Sunday, November 22nd, 2020, 11:31 AM PERMALINK

Joe Biden's Treasury Secretary pick wants to impose a carbon tax on the American people. Biden and Kamala Harris have also endorsed a carbon tax, an idea so radical that it was rejected by Hillary Clinton because it would devastate low income households.

In an October 19 interview on Bloomberg television, Biden's Treasury pick, Janet Yellen said:

"What I would recommend for the United States -- that hopefully we will in the years ahead, go in this direction -- is simply to put in place a carbon tax."

WATCH:

Biden endorsed a carbon tax during on CNN town hall on September 24, 2019:

CNN's Anderson Cooper asked Biden: "Would you support a carbon tax?"

Biden replied: "Yeah, no, I would."

Harris endorsed a carbon tax. "Under my plan there will also be a carbon fee," she said. CNN asked her, "How do you make sure that [companies] don't do what they will try to do, which is immediately pass that on to consumers?” 

Harris replied: “That should never be the reason not to actually put a fee, in particular, a carbon fee."

Another key Biden adviser -- Jennifer Hillman -- said she expects Biden to impose a "very high" carbon tax. Hillman is reportedly in the mix for a job in the Biden administration.

A carbon tax would impose burdens on households due to higher costs of cooling and heating, transportation, and groceries.

Even Hillary Clinton in 2016 decided to oppose a carbon tax after she learned the following from an internal Clinton report prepared by policy staff:

The Hillary memo states that a carbon tax would devastate low-income households: “As with the increase in energy costs, the increase in the cost of nonenergy goods and services would disproportionately impact low-income households.”

The Hillary memo states that a carbon tax would cause gas prices to increase 40 cents a gallon and residential electricity prices to increase 12% - 21%: “In our analysis, for example, a $42/ton GHG fee increases gasoline prices by roughly 40 cents per gallon on average between 2020 and 2030 and residential electricity prices by 2.6 cents per kWh, 12% and 21% above levels projected in the EIA’s 2014 Annual Energy Outlook respectively. 

The Hillary memo states a carbon tax would cause household energy bills to go up significantly: “Average household energy costs would increase by roughly $480 per year, or 10% relative to the levels projected in EIA’s 2014 Outlook.”

The Hillary memo states that a carbon tax would increase the cost of household goods and services: “The cost of other household goods and services would increase as well as companies pass forward the higher energy costs paid to produce those goods and services on to consumers.”

(Source: MEMORANDUM FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON -- Jan. 20, 2015)

Carbon taxes are highly unpopular with voters. In fact, carbon tax advocates can’t even get a carbon tax passed in a single blue state, as this timeline shows.

Carbon taxes also saddle state and local governments with huge costs. For example, a school district in Canada was forced to kick 400 kids off the school bus program in order to pay a $3.3 million carbon tax bill.

It's no wonder conservative groups wrote a letter to Congress Stating: "We oppose any carbon tax." The official Republican Party platform also rejects "any carbon tax."

Biden's carbon tax will also shatter his pledge to each and every American making less than $400,000 that he will not raise a single penny of any tax.

 


×