Romney flip-flops, sides with California over Trump on auto waiver

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz on Thursday, September 19th, 2019, 8:46 PM PERMALINK

Mitt Romney is now criticizing President Trump for actions he claimed he would have carried out as president, had his own campaigns not failed.

Today, in a complete reversal of his previous stance on auto fuel efficiency standards, Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) publicly criticized President Trump’s decision to revoke California’s waiver allowing the state to set separate greenhouse-gas standards for cars, calling Trump’s action a “big mistake.”

According to Politico, Romney went on to advocate for increasing the Obama-era mandate that would require auto manufacturers to produce cars averaging nearly 55 miles per gallon on average by 2025, stating “we should encourage more strict fuel economy standards, not weaken them."

Romney’s harsh remarks of President Trump come as a shock given his past statements, including those given as a presidential candidate in both 2008 and 2012, were strongly critical of fuel economy standards and California’s ability to operate beyond federal requirements.

Romney on the Campaign Trail in 2008 says CAFE Standards drop an “anvil on Michigan”

According to reports after a Presidential Primary debate in 2008, Romney “talked up his roots in the auto industry and criticized fuel economy standards, saying the 35 miles-per-gallon target by 2020 passed by Congress in December ‘dropped yet another anvil on Michigan.’"

Romney is now calling for “more strict fuel economy standards” than Obama’s 55 miles per gallon requirement.

Romney backs stripping California’s waiver in 2008 press release

"When Michigan makes the same cars and trucks regardless of whether they are bound for California, Vermont or (even) Massachusetts, it makes more sense to have one set of federal rules to address CO2 emissions from vehicles rather than a patchwork of different state regulations."

While campaigning for President In 2012 Romney calls CAFE standards “disadvantageous” and says “we need to get the government out of these companies’ hair.”

“The government put in place CAFE requirements that were disadvantageous for domestic manufacturers. We need to get the government out of these companies’ hair and let them go to work to become competitive — not only in the U.S. but globally. The world is changing in the auto industry and we’ve got to get these companies on a global footing as opposed to kowtowing to Washington.” 

Romney and Campaign called CAFE Standards "extreme" and cause consumers to "pay thousands of dollars more upfront for unproven technology."

In June of 2012, Romney called  told The Detroit News that he'd seek "a better way of encouraging fuel economy" than the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements. A campaign spokesperson reiterated Romney's opposition, saying that CAFE will force consumers to "pay thousands of dollars more upfront for unproven technology that they may not even want."

 

Photo Credit: Joeff Davis

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Michigan Governor Wants to Run Up Tax Rate on Sports Betting

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Doug Kellogg on Thursday, September 19th, 2019, 5:32 PM PERMALINK

Sports betting is advancing down the legislative field in Michigan. A House committee advanced a package of bills to legalize sports betting Tuesday.

The current legislative package (HB 4916) would legalize sports betting with a tax rate of 8%, and a licensing fee of $100,000 – very competitive policies.

For whatever reason, Governor Whitmer and some others would like to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and are pressing for a much higher tax rate of 15%, perhaps more.

It has been a rough past few years for Michigan sports teams, but that’s no reason for the Governor to steer the state toward losing tax policy on sports betting.

Michigan would be in a good place on sports betting tax rates with HB 4916. Neighboring Indiana has a 9.5% tax rate on adjusted gross revenue. Michigan’s tax rate would come in under that, and well under nearby Illinois’ 15% tax rate.

If anything, the debate in Michigan should be about lowering the rate. Increasing the tax rate, as Governor Whitmer wants, would put the state at a massive disadvantage.

It would then be easy for neighboring states that have not legalized, like Ohio, to come in with a lower tax rate than their regional rival. The Buckeye State has yet to legalize sports betting, but it is a ripe target for legislators in Columbus who finished work on their two-year budget this summer.

States that have legalized sports betting with lower tax rates have succeeded, New Jersey was the first and has seen industry performance catch up with Nevada already. Meanwhile, states that have not had the results they hoped for tend to have high tax rates: Pennsylvania with an effective 36% tax rate, Delaware and Rhode Island take over 50% of betting revenues.

There is a ways to go before the finish line on sports betting in Michigan, and some things will change. One thing that should not happen is making the tax rate higher.

Photo Credit: Michiganradio.org


ATR Opposes Pelosi Drug Pricing Plan

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alex Hendrie on Thursday, September 19th, 2019, 3:57 PM PERMALINK

Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled H.R. 3, the “Lower Prescription Drugs Now Act.” This proposal imposes new government price controls, a 95 percent tax on manufacturers, imports foreign pricing schemes, and imposes a new charge on manufacturers in Medicare. Members of Congress should oppose the Pelosi plan.

 “Pelosi’s drug pricing plan imposes a confiscatory tax in the service of price controls that will end innovation and inevitably lead to a collapse of the healthcare system and put everyone into one sized fits all government monopoly,” said Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform.

Pelosi’s bill contains an excise tax on manufacturer sales of between 65 and 95 percent. The proposal allows government bureaucrats to set the prices of the top 250 prescription medicines. If a manufacturer does not agree with this price, refuses to “negotiate” or tries to walk away, they are hit with a 65 percent tax, or “non-compliance fee” on the gross sales of their drug. This tax increases by ten percent every quarter topping out at 95 percent.

Foreign price controls would be imposed on medicines. Under the proposal, no drug in the US can be more than 1.2 times the volume-weighted average price in six countries – Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

H.R. 3 would also impose retroactive inflationary rebate penalty for all drugs covered under Medicare Part B and Part D. This would require manufacturers to pay the government for any price increase that was greater than inflation since 2016 and for any future price increase. 

Finally, the proposal imposes a 30 percent charge on manufacturers in Medicare. This charge is imposed at the catastrophic phase of the Part D coverage benefit and distorts the insurance program while doing nothing to directly help seniors. It will fall disproportionately on high cost medicines.  

The Pelosi plan is not a good faith effort to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. It will end innovation in the US and prevent the development of the next generation of life-saving and life-preserving medicines.

At present, the U.S. is the world leader in medical innovation with almost 60 percent of drugs being developed in the country. 

This innovation benefits the U.S. in the form of high-paying jobs, a stronger economy R&D, and access to more life-saving medicines.

In fact, of the 290 new medical substances that were launched worldwide between 2011 and 2018, the U.S. had access to 90 percent. By contrast, the United Kingdom had 60 percent of medicines, Japan had 50 percent, and Canada had just 44 percent. The socialist style policies used in Europe delay new drugs coming to market by an average of 14 months, according to one study.

American innovation does not come easily – on average, it takes more than a decade to bring a new drug to market. Of all the experimental drugs under development, 90% do not receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration and never come to market. In 2016 alone, American drug companies invested $90 billion for therapy research and development of drugs, more than three times the R&D money spent by the National Institutes of Health.

Rather than promote new innovation and improve the healthcare system, H.R. 3 will serve as a stepping stone to Medicare for All.

By implementing government price controls and taxes, the Pelosi plan will smooth the pathway for a complete takeover of the healthcare system with dramatically higher spending and taxes, and narrower choice and access. This plan will end healthcare for over 150 million Americans and is already supported by a majority of House Democrats and several leading Democrat presidential candidates.

Photo Credit: AFGE


Booker: “My plan would reverse those toxic Trump tax cuts”

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Adam Sabes on Thursday, September 19th, 2019, 3:49 PM PERMALINK

Democrat presidential candidate Cory Booker said he would repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act if elected president.

"My Plan would reverse those toxic Trump tax cuts," Booker said during a CNN interview on Wednesday.

Booker's promise to repeal the tax cuts is a promise to raise taxes. If the tax cuts were repealed:

  • A family of four earning the median income of $73,000 would see a $2,000 tax increase.
  • A single parent (with one child) making $41,000 would see a $1,300 tax increase.
  • Millions of low and middle income households would be stuck paying the Obamacare individual mandate tax.
  • Utility bills would go up in all 50 states as a direct result of the corporate income tax increase.
  • Small employers will face a tax increase due to the repeal of the 20% deduction for small business income.
  • The USA would have the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world.
  • Taxes would rise in every state and every congressional district.
  • The Death Tax would ensnare more families and businesses.
  • The AMT would snap back to hit millions of households.
  • Millions of households would see their child tax credit cut in half.
  • Millions of households would see their standard deduction cut in half, adding to their tax complexity as they are forced to itemize their deductions and deal with the shoebox full of receipts on top of the refrigerator.

Even left leaning news outlets confirm the good news about the GOP tax cuts:

CNN: “The facts are, most Americans got a tax cut.”

CNN: "In fact, estimates from both sides of the political spectrum show that the majority of people in the United States of America did receive a tax cut."

New York Times: "Most people got a tax cut."

Washington Post: “Most Americans received a tax cut.”

FactCheck.org: "Most people got some kind of tax cut in 2018 as a result of the law."

FactCheck.org: "The vast majority (82 percent) of middle-income earners — those with income between about $49,000 and $86,000 — received a tax cut that averaged about $1,050.

H&R Block: “The vast majority of people did get a tax cut.”

New York Times also noted the “sustained -- and misleading -- effort by liberal opponents of the law to brand it as a broad middle-class tax increase.”

In Booker's home state of New Jersey, households making the average income of $80,088 received an average tax cut of around $1,709, according to a recent Tax Foundation report

Stay up-to-date on Democrat tax hike threats at www.atr.org/HighTaxDems.

See more:

Stephen Colbert Calls Out Warren for Dodging Middle Class Tax Question

Video: Warren Dodges MSNBC’s Middle Class Tax Questions

Elizabeth Warren is Still Dodging the Middle Class Tax Question

Video: 2020 Democrats Promise Higher Taxes

Biden Caught Lying about GOP Tax Cuts

Bill De Blasio: “As President, I Would Issue a Robot Tax”

Bill De Blasio: “As President, I would issue a robot tax”

Biden Endorses Carbon Tax

Kamala Harris Calls for Ban on Plastic Straws

Elizabeth Warren's Climate Plan Calls For "Reversing" GOP Tax Cuts

Sanders: We’re Going to “Absolutely” Raise the Corporate Tax Rate

Elizabeth Warren on Corporate Tax Cuts: “I really want to see them rolled back.”

Bill de Blasio Calls for Corporate Tax Rate Hike

Amy Klobuchar: Raise the Corporate Tax Rate to 25%

Biden on capital gains tax: “We should raise the tax back to 39.6 percent”

Kamala Harris Threatens to Repeal GOP Tax Cuts 3 Times in August

Joe Biden: “I’m going to eliminate most all” of GOP Tax Cuts

Cory Booker Calls for Repeal of "Toxic" GOP Tax Cuts

Marianne Williamson Joins Dems Calling for TCJA Repeal

Kamala Admits Her Plan Would End Employer Insurance

“Medicare for All” is a Middle Class Tax Increase, Say Dems

Elizabeth Warren Can’t Dodge the Middle Class Tax Question Forever

Dem Socialized Healthcare Plan Will Lead to Middle Class Tax Hikes

Elizabeth Warren "Wealth Tax" was described by the WaPo editorial board as having "a certain authoritarian odor"

Supposed “Moderate” Democrat John Delaney Wants to Impose Carbon Tax on the American People

Klobuchar Suggests Capital Gains Tax Hike and “Doing Something” About TCJA

VIDEO: 2020 Democrats Will Raise Your Taxes

Kamala Harris Campaign Headquarters Located in Opportunity Zone Created by GOP Tax Cuts

Julian Castro: “We’re going to have to raise taxes.”

Biden and Harris: Raise the Corporate Tax Rate

Biden tweet: Ignore the fact I’ve already called for middle class tax hikes

Kamala Harris: “I Will Reverse” Trump’s Tax Cuts

Kamala Harris Calls for Repeal of Tax Cuts Four Times in Three Minutes

Julian Castro Caught Lying about GOP Tax Cuts

NYT: Bidencare Will be Funded by “rolling back” GOP tax cuts

Kamala Harris: I Will Repeal “That Tax Bill”

Cory Booker: “I do support” Imposing Carbon Tax on Americans

Harris: “We are Going to Repeal That Tax Bill”

Biden: I Will Raise Corporate Tax Rate to 28%

Kamala Harris Continues to Lie about Tax Cuts

Jay Inslee: “Repeal the Trump Tax Cuts”

Biden Running Ads to “Repeal Trump’s Tax Cuts.”

VIDEO: Ten Times Biden Threatened to Repeal Tax Cuts

Here’s what happens if Dems repeal tax cuts

VIDEO: 10 Times 2020 Democrats Have Threatened to Repeal TCJA

Kamala Harris: When I Enter Office "I Will Repeal" the TCJA

Biden: “First thing I would do as President is Eliminate the President’s Tax Cut.”

Bernie Sanders claims people would be “delighted to pay more in taxes”

Biden: Tax Cuts Will be “Gone” If I’m Elected

Kamala Harris: I Will Repeal Tax Cuts “on day one”

Biden again says capital gains tax is “Much too Low”

Biden: Capital gains tax “much too low”

VIDEO: Five Times Biden has Threatened to Repeal Tax Cuts

Biden: “First thing I’d do is repeal those Trump tax cuts.”

Joe Biden broke his middle class tax pledge

“Mayor Pete” Calls for Steep Tax Hike on Homes and Businesses

Kamala Harris Vows Repeal of Tax Cuts “on Day One”

Biden: “When I’m President, if God willing I am, we’re going to reverse those Trump tax cuts.”


A Trump Ban on Flavored E-Cigarettes Will Cost Him the 2020 Election: Data on 12 Important Swing States

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Paul Blair on Wednesday, September 18th, 2019, 5:49 PM PERMALINK

Over the past week, President Donald Trump has been considering an outright ban on nearly every electronic cigarette and vapor product on the market. Not only would the implementation of a flavor ban be disastrous for public health, but it may cost Trump the election in 2020.

In a piece for the Washington Examiner, I explained:

"Internal polling conducted by Americans for Tax Reform in October 2016, just five months after the Obama administration announced their own timeline for a de facto e-cigarette ban, found that 4 out of 5 adult vapers' vote-moving issue was where a politician stood on the issue of taxing, regulating, and banning e-cigarettes."

What might that mean in 2020? If you look at the 12 states which will likely determine the outcome of the election, based on the margin of victory or loss by Donald Trump in 2016 and changing political currents, there are at least 4.15 million adults in battleground states that use electronic cigarettes, according to FDA-funded survey data. Those states include Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, Arizona, and Nevada.

Here's how that breaks down per state (click to enlarge): 

(Click to enlarge an excel version of this graphic.)

If voter turnout holds flat in 2020 over 2016, there are roughly 2.55 million vaper voters scattered across these 12 key battleground states. The data on the number of adult vapers may underestimate the true figure because adult use of these products has increased in the last two years. To ignore that these adults have used e-cigarettes to quit smoking cigarettes, something that they're proud of and strongly believe in would be among the biggest political miscalculations of the presidential campaign in 2020. Not only do these people rightly attribute the use of flavored nicotine products to saving their lives, but their family members, friends, and neighbors have likely heard their stories as well.

If Trump wants to depress voter turnout or turn voters away from his winning message in states where the margin of victory could be just a few thousand votes, banning flavored nicotine e-cigarettes would be a great way to go about it.

More from Americans for Tax Reform


In major win for consumers, Trump revokes California’s waiver on auto emissions standards

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz on Wednesday, September 18th, 2019, 4:47 PM PERMALINK

This morning President Trump announced that his administration will revoke California’s waiver that permits the state to set its own fuel economy regulations separate from national standards. This action from the president brings the U.S. closer to a single, unified fuel economy standard.

“The Trump Administration is revoking California’s Federal Waiver on emissions in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER,” The President stated on twitter. “Many more cars will be produced under the new and uniform standard, meaning significantly more JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! Automakers should seize this opportunity because without this alternative to California, you will be out of business.”

Issued under President Obama, the California waiver forces auto manufacturers to build more expensive cars in compliance with California’s regulations. Under the waiver, auto manufacturers can comply with federal standards yet still barred from marketplace in California.

However, no other state is permitted a waiver from federal rules, meaning if another state would like to set less stringent fuel economy rules compared to federal requirements, it does not have that option. As auto manufacturers can’t economically build two separate vehicle fleets, the waiver effectively allows California to dictate national requirements for vehicles in 49 other states.  

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s announcement:

"Today’s decision by President Trump is a major win for consumers and the US economy. Letting California dictate emission standards for the 49 other states is a proven disaster for jobs, vehicle safety and affordability. 

No one living in Ohio, Michigan or Florida voted for California’s nanny state politicians. Gavin Newsom’s bureaucrats have no business telling them what car they can or can’t drive. That decisions rightly belongs to consumers. Americans for Tax Reform applauds President Trump for revoking California’s waiver and freeing consumers from Californian bureaucrats."

Revoking California's waiver is step one of the administration’s anticipated reform to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, with step two expected to be finalized later this year.

The administration’s proposed rule to freeze CAFE standards at 2020 levels is projected to save American consumers nearly $2,500 on the price of a new vehicle, putting more Americans behind the wheel of newer and safer cars. If finalized, the Department Transportation projects the rule would lead to a reduction of up to 1,000 lives lost annually in fatal vehicle crashes.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Stephen Colbert Calls Out Warren for Dodging Middle Class Tax Question

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Adam Sabes on Wednesday, September 18th, 2019, 11:34 AM PERMALINK

In a face-to-face interview, CBS's Stephen Colbert called out Elizabeth Warren on The Late Show for repeatedly refusing to answer the question of whether or not she would impose tax increases on middle class Americans:

Here is the key exchange:

Stephen Colbert: "You keep being asked in the debates 'How are you going to pay for it? Are you going to raise the middle class taxes?' How are you going to pay for it? Are you going to raise the middle class taxes?"

Elizabeth Warren: "So, here's how we're going to do this. Costs are going to go up for the wealthiest Americans, for big corporations."

Colbert: "Taxes which will be in those costs?"

Warren: "Yeah. Hard working, middle class families are going to see their costs go down."

Colbert: "But will their taxes go up?"

Warren: "Well, but here's the thing."

Colbert: "No, but here's the thing. I've listened to these answers a few times before, and I just want to make a parallel suggestion for you about how you might defend the taxes that perhaps you're not mentioning."

This is at least the sixth time Warren has dodged the middle class tax question. 

In July, Warren got into a heated exchange with MSNBC's Chris Matthews while refusing to answer Matthews' question on middle class tax hikes. She also dodged the question during the CNN and ABC debates.

In POLITICO Jeff Greenfield noted that Warren could be holding back an admission that "Medicare for All" will lead to higher taxes for the middle-class because she is worried about losing voters.

Greenfield wrote:

This leaves an obvious question that will follow her through the campaign: “Bernie Sanders is frank enough to acknowledge the obvious, and then explain it. Why won’t you?” The answer may be as simple as: If you say you will raise middle class taxes, an unmeasurable but likely significant number of voters simply will not bother to wait for the rest of your explanation.

As ATR noted earlier, "Medicare for All" would require anywhere from $32 trillion and $36 trillion in higher taxes over the course of the next decade.

If you want to stay up-to-date on Democrats and their threats to raise taxes, visit www.atr.org/HighTaxDems.

 


Video: Warren Dodges MSNBC’s Middle Class Tax Questions

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Adam Sabes on Tuesday, September 17th, 2019, 2:49 PM PERMALINK


Warren's contentious exchange with MSNBC's Chris Matthews

Elizabeth Warren keeps dodging the middle class tax question. In the most recent Democrat debate on Sept. 12 in Houston, Warren dodged the question twice.

But an especially heated exchange between Warren and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews took place on July 30 following the CNN Dem debate. Matthews grilled warren asking if she would increase taxes on the middle class in order to shovel money to “Medicare For All.”

[Click here to view]

Chris Matthews: "Your pay won't go up. You dodged that tonight. Jake Tapper kept saying how much are your taxes going to go up.”

Elizabeth Warren: "How much are your costs going to go down?"

Matthews: "No, no, no, different question. How much will your taxes go up?"

Later in the interview, Matthews explicitly asked Warren: "Will you pay more in taxes?"

When she dodged the question, Matthews fired back and stated "Why don't you want to answer that question?”

During the CNN debate, Warren repeatedly dodged Jake Tapper's question asking if the middle class would pay more in taxes as a result of Medicare for All.

Warren is avoiding the reality that middle-class Americans would have to pay more in taxes, as Bernie sanders notes is necessary to fund Medicare for All.

"Yeah, [we'd have to] raise taxes on the middle class," Sanders told a CNN reporter after the July debate.

In POLITICO Jeff Greenfield noted that Warren could be holding back an admission that Medicare for All will lead to higher taxes for the middle-class because she is worried about losing voters.

Greenfield wrote:

This leaves an obvious question that will follow her through the campaign: “Bernie Sanders is frank enough to acknowledge the obvious, and then explain it. Why won’t you?” The answer may be as simple as: If you say you will raise middle class taxes, an unmeasurable but likely significant number of voters simply will not bother to wait for the rest of your explanation.

As ATR noted earlier, Medicare for All would require anywhere from $32 trillion and $36 trillion in higher taxes over the course of the next decade.

If you want to stay up-to-date on Democrats and their threats to raise taxes, visit www.atr.org/HighTaxDems.

See more:

Elizabeth Warren is Still Dodging the Middle Class Tax Question

Video: 2020 Democrats Promise Higher Taxes

Biden Caught Lying about GOP Tax Cuts

Bill De Blasio: “As President, I Would Issue a Robot Tax”

Bill De Blasio: “As President, I would issue a robot tax”

Biden Endorses Carbon Tax

Kamala Harris Calls for Ban on Plastic Straws

Elizabeth Warren's Climate Plan Calls For "Reversing" GOP Tax Cuts

Sanders: We’re Going to “Absolutely” Raise the Corporate Tax Rate

Elizabeth Warren on Corporate Tax Cuts: “I really want to see them rolled back.”

Bill de Blasio Calls for Corporate Tax Rate Hike

Amy Klobuchar: Raise the Corporate Tax Rate to 25%

Biden on capital gains tax: “We should raise the tax back to 39.6 percent”

Kamala Harris Threatens to Repeal GOP Tax Cuts 3 Times in August

Joe Biden: “I’m going to eliminate most all” of GOP Tax Cuts

Cory Booker Calls for Repeal of "Toxic" GOP Tax Cuts

Marianne Williamson Joins Dems Calling for TCJA Repeal

Kamala Admits Her Plan Would End Employer Insurance

“Medicare for All” is a Middle Class Tax Increase, Say Dems

Elizabeth Warren Can’t Dodge the Middle Class Tax Question Forever

Dem Socialized Healthcare Plan Will Lead to Middle Class Tax Hikes

Elizabeth Warren "Wealth Tax" was described by the WaPo editorial board as having "a certain authoritarian odor"

Supposed “Moderate” Democrat John Delaney Wants to Impose Carbon Tax on the American People

Klobuchar Suggests Capital Gains Tax Hike and “Doing Something” About TCJA

VIDEO: 2020 Democrats Will Raise Your Taxes

Kamala Harris Campaign Headquarters Located in Opportunity Zone Created by GOP Tax Cuts

Julian Castro: “We’re going to have to raise taxes.”

Biden and Harris: Raise the Corporate Tax Rate

Biden tweet: Ignore the fact I’ve already called for middle class tax hikes

Kamala Harris: “I Will Reverse” Trump’s Tax Cuts

Kamala Harris Calls for Repeal of Tax Cuts Four Times in Three Minutes

Julian Castro Caught Lying about GOP Tax Cuts

NYT: Bidencare Will be Funded by “rolling back” GOP tax cuts

Kamala Harris: I Will Repeal “That Tax Bill”

Cory Booker: “I do support” Imposing Carbon Tax on Americans

Harris: “We are Going to Repeal That Tax Bill”

Biden: I Will Raise Corporate Tax Rate to 28%

Kamala Harris Continues to Lie about Tax Cuts

Jay Inslee: “Repeal the Trump Tax Cuts”

Biden Running Ads to “Repeal Trump’s Tax Cuts.”

VIDEO: Ten Times Biden Threatened to Repeal Tax Cuts

Here’s what happens if Dems repeal tax cuts

VIDEO: 10 Times 2020 Democrats Have Threatened to Repeal TCJA

Kamala Harris: When I Enter Office "I Will Repeal" the TCJA

Biden: “First thing I would do as President is Eliminate the President’s Tax Cut.”

Bernie Sanders claims people would be “delighted to pay more in taxes”

Biden: Tax Cuts Will be “Gone” If I’m Elected

Kamala Harris: I Will Repeal Tax Cuts “on day one”

Biden again says capital gains tax is “Much too Low”

Biden: Capital gains tax “much too low”

VIDEO: Five Times Biden has Threatened to Repeal Tax Cuts

Biden: “First thing I’d do is repeal those Trump tax cuts.”

Joe Biden broke his middle class tax pledge

“Mayor Pete” Calls for Steep Tax Hike on Homes and Businesses

Kamala Harris Vows Repeal of Tax Cuts “on Day One”

Biden: “When I’m President, if God willing I am, we’re going to reverse those Trump tax cuts.”


ATR Supports Trump Administration's Schedule B Reform

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Samantha Capriotti on Monday, September 16th, 2019, 10:30 AM PERMALINK

The Trump Administration has proposed a rule to streamline the nonprofit filing process and prevent future administrations from targeting organizations by leaking sensitive information.  Under this proposal, many nonprofits including 501(c)(4)s, 501(c)(5)s, and 501(c)(6)s would no longer be required to submit a Schedule B form to the IRS.

The IRS has no need for the donor information and can enforce tax laws without it.  On top of having no use for it, the IRS has inappropriately used the information. In 2014, the IRS had to pay the National Organization for Marriage $50,000 after disclosing their donors to an oppositional organization who published it. 

Further, according to a 2016 study by the Government Accountability Office, the IRS has disproportionately targeted organizations based on religious, educational, and political views, specifically Tea Party groups.

Today, tax exempt organizations must disclose the name, address, and amount donated for each donation above $5,000. Schedule B forms are submitted to the IRS, redacted of names and addresses, and then the redacted version is made public. Under the proposed rule, “Guidance Under Section 6033 Regarding the Reporting Requirements of Exempt Organizations,” only 501(c)(3)s and 527s would still have to file the Form 990, Schedule B, but all non-profits would need to present the information upon IRS request.

The information that is public will not change under the proposed rule, though money and time will be saved on both sides by eliminating this tedious process.  In fact, The Institute for Free Speech estimates that nonprofits would save about  $63 million if Schedule B were repealed. 

Critics have falsely stated that the rule will allow for illegal foreign transactions.  However, there are already measures in place to track these transactions, and it is highly unlikely that anyone will admit to funneling illegal money on the form.  Even if the IRS did suspect laws were being broken, it has no authority to share the information it collects with the FCC and the DOJ, the two agencies with the ability to enforce campaign finance laws.

The proposed rule would hold the IRS more accountable and protect free speech of donors and those working for non-profits.  American citizens have the right to associate with and donate to organizations freely and privately.  If a Schedule B is leaked, the IRS can and has faced legal consequences.  In 2014, the IRS had to pay the National Organization for Marriage $50,000 after disclosing their donors to an oppositional organization who published it. 

The proposed rule, “Guidance Under Section 6033 Regarding the Reporting Requirements of Exempt Organizations” will be open for comments until December 9.  ATR urges support for Schedule B reform to eliminate the unnecessary time and effort of the process, while protecting privacy and free speech.

Photo Credit: Flickr - Martin Haesemeyer


60+ Groups to Congress: Defend American Workers from Union Coercion and Oppose the PRO Act


Posted by Olivia Grady on Monday, September 16th, 2019, 10:00 AM PERMALINK

Today, a coalition of more than 60 groups and activists, led by Americans for Tax Reform, sent a letter to Congress. The letter urged members of Congress to vote against the PRO Act because of the harm the Act would do to American workers.

The full letter can be found here or below:

September 16, 2019

Dear Member of Congress,

We are writing in opposition to the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. Senator Patty Murray and Congressman Bobby Scott introduced the PRO Act in the Senate (S. 1306) and House of Representatives (H.R. 2474) on May 2, 2019. 

We oppose the PRO Act because the legislation would harm workers and taxpayers by codifying many of the Obama-era rules and decisions that led to higher unemployment and a stagnant economy. Representatives who vote for this bill are simply helping labor union bosses, their campaign contributors, at the expense of American workers. 

For example, one of the Act’s harmful provisions would codify the National Labor Relations Board’s 2015 Browning-Ferris Industriesdecision. That decision expanded the definition of joint employer and increased liability for many businesses, especially franchises. In fact, the International Franchise Association has found that the expanded joint employer rule costs the franchise sector as much as $33.3 billion annually and has led to 376,000 lost job opportunities. Codifying this NLRB decision would effectively eliminate this business model, putting many employees and small businesses out of work. However, big labor would benefit from this provision because they could unionize these employees more easily.

This bill would also force all private sector workers to pay fees to labor unions, whether they wanted to support them or not. This would effectively invalidate all state Right-to-Work laws and would deny First Amendment rights to these workers. This provision hurts workers because right-to-work laws have benefited workers. From 2008 – 2018, for example, the percentage growth in the number of people employed in right-to-work states was 10.8%, while the percentage for those in forced-unionism states was much lower at 5%. Invalidating these laws would, therefore, hurt workers and employers, but would provide more dues to unions. 

Another business model that is severely threatened by this legislation is the gig economy. The PRO Act would codify California’s new “ABC” test to determine who is an independent contractor and who is an employee. This test makes it harder for employers to hire independent contractors, but makes it easier for unions to unionize workers. According to the Federal Reserve, about 3 in 10 Americans work in the gig economy, and these workers would be at risk for losing their jobs. 

One final example is the provision that would codify the Obama-era ambush elections rule. That rule shortened the time frame of an election to unionize workers and provided the contact information of workers without their consent to labor unions. This rule harmed workers by providing them with an inadequate amount of time to learn how unionization would affect them. In addition, unions would be able to violate the privacy of workers once they had their contact information. Once again, with a shortened time frame and the contact information of workers, labor bosses could more easily unionize these workers.

Because the legislation harms workers in order to help labor union bosses, we strongly urge Members of Congress to vote against the PRO Act.

Sincerely,

Grover G. Norquist 
President, Americans for Tax Reform

James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman, 60 Plus Association 

Melodie Bowler
Associate Director, Alaska Policy Forum

Phil Kerpen
President, American Commitment

Lisa B. Nelson
CEO, ALEC Action

Tom Giovanetti
President, Americans for a Strong Economy

Rick Manning
President, Americans for Limited Government

Scot Mussi
President, Arizona Free Enterprise Club

John Palatiello
President, Business Coalition for Fair Competition

Garrett Ballengee
Executive Director, Cardinal Institute for WV Policy

Andrew F. Quinlan
President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity

Timothy Lee
Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs, Center for Individual Freedom

Olivia Grady
Senior Fellow, Center for Worker Freedom

Catrin Wigfall
Policy Fellow, Center of the American Experiment (Minnesota)

Bob Luebke 
Director of Policy, Civitas Institute (North Carolina)

David McIntosh
President, Club for Growth

Russell Hollrah
Executive Director, Coalition to Promote Independent Entrepreneurs

Nathan Benefield
Vice President & COO, Commonwealth Foundation (Pennsylvania)

Trey Kovacs
Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Matthew Kandrach
President, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE)

Tom Schatz
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Katie McAuliffe
Executive Director, Digital Liberty

Grant Callen
President, Empower Mississippi

Peter J. Ferrara
Dunn Liberty Fellow in Economics, The King’s College
Senior Fellow, Heartland Institute
Senior Fellow, National Tax Limitation Foundation 

Brian Minnich
Executive Vice President, Freedom Foundation (California, Oregon, Washington)

Adam Brandon
President, FreedomWorks

Victor Riches
President and CEO, Goldwater Institute (Arizona)

J. Scott Moody
CEO, Granite Institute (New Hampshire)

Tim Chapman
Executive Director, Heritage Action for America

Mario H. Lopez
President, Hispanic Leadership Fund

Fred Birnbaum
Vice President, Idaho Freedom Foundation and Idaho Freedom Action

Heather R. Higgins
CEO, Independent Women's Voice 

F. Vincent Vernuccio, J.D.
President, Institute for the American Worker

Chris Ingstad
President, Iowans for Tax Relief

Sal J. Nuzzo
Vice President of Policy, The James Madison Institute (Florida)

Brett Healy
President, The John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy (Wisconsin)

Becki Gray
Senior Vice President, John Locke Foundation (North Carolina)

Dave Trabert
President, Kansas Policy Institute

Connor Boyack
President, Libertas Institute (Utah)

Michael J. Reitz
Executive Vice President, Mackinac Center for Public Policy (Michigan)

Matthew Gagnon
CEO, Maine Heritage Policy Center

Carl Copeland
Executive Director, Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance

Jameson Taylor, Ph.D.
Vice President for Policy, Mississippi Center for Public Policy 

Robert Fellner
Policy Director, Nevada Policy Research Institute

Douglas Kellogg
Executive Director, Ohioans for Tax Reform

Daniel J Erspamer
CEO, The Pelican Institute for Public Policy (Louisiana)

Lorenzo Montanari
Executive Director, Property Rights Alliance

David Y. Denholm
President, Public Service Research Council 

Mike Stenhouse
CEO, Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity

Paul J. Gessing
President, Rio Grande Foundation (New Mexico)

Bette Grande
CEO, Roughrider Policy Center ND

Karen Kerrigan
President & CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Maureen Blum
Founder and Principal, Strategic Coalitions & Initiatives, LLC

Tim Andrews
Executive Director, Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Lynn Taylor
President, Tertium Quids (Virginia)

Christian N. Braunlich
President, Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy (Virginia)

Carl Bearden
CEO, United for Missouri

Suzi Voyles
Georgia President for Eagle Forum
Georgia State Director for Maggie’s List

Rick Esenberg
President and General Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty

Worker Rights Alliance (Washington)

Heather Greenaway
Executive Director, Workforce Fairness Institute

Carol Platt Liebau
President, Yankee Institute for Public Policy (Connecticut)


×