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.

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.

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.

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.