Rather than pushing policies that will help the economy recover, the top priority for Congressional Democrats is legislation that will dramatically alter the American political system and consolidate power in the hands of the Left.

This legislation, designated H.R.1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate, has been given the misleading name “For the People Act.” This proposal would fundamentally transform how elections are conducted in the United States, would politicize the Federal Elections Commission, and would directly violate constitutional mandates like free speech and states’ freedom to determine their own election laws.  

This 800 page bill is packed with alarming proposals that should be rejected by Congress. Here are five reasons to oppose H.R. 1.

1)  H.R. 1 Shows Democrats Care About Consolidating Power More Than Rebuilding the Economy. Each Congress, “H.R. 1” or” S. 1” is reserved for whatever bill is the biggest priority for the party that controls the House or Senate. At a time where millions of Americans are out of work, it is telling that Democrats’ priority is to overhaul election law. This policy would do nothing to help the economy recover or to help the country fight to Coronavirus pandemic.

2)  H.R. 1 Would Politicize the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Under current law, the FEC is comprised of a six-member bipartisan committee: three Republicans and three Democrats. In order to move forward with any prosecution of alleged campaign violations or investigations, the FEC needs four votes. This law would limit the member number to five, therefore including two Republicans, two Democrats, and one “independent” from a minor political party. Under this rule, a president could appoint a Bernie Sanders-style “independent” to serve as the fifth member of the FEC. To make matters worse, under this law, a president could also pick the Chairman of the FEC, all but ensuring total presidential control of the Commission. 

3)  H.R. 1 Creates Taxpayer-Funded Candidates. The legislation implements a 600% match for certain political contributions to congressional and presidential candidates, forcing taxpayers to subsidize political campaigns – even campaigns that they may disagree with. Provisions like this have been abused in the past several times. In addition to being a poor use of taxpayer money, this attempt to end political corruption actually creates greater opportunity for corruption.  

4)  H.R. 1 Would Invalidate Numerous State Election Laws. Article I Section IV of the U.S. Constitution empowers states to determine the “Times, Places and Manner of holding elections…” H.R. 1 would make significant strides in stripping states of this power. It would force states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting. Additionally, the bill would invalidate voter identification laws all across the country by allowing voters to simply sign a statement affirming their identity as they enter their polling place.  

5)  H.R. 1 Would Suppress Free Speech. This law would implement a “public file” requirement for any person or organization spending over $500 in a calendar year, forcing them to identify the name, address, and contact information of ad sponsors that are not candidates or with the campaign. It also invents a new regulation called “PASO,” an overbroad standard that asks whether political speech “promotes,” “attacks,” “supports,” or “opposes” a candidate or official.  

In addition, H.R. 1 undoes the FEC’s “internet exemption” which excludes the internet from regulation of political speech, exposing online communication to the same scrutiny as traditional advertisements. This even includes any communication an organization makes on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, including paid staffers managing the platforms. The bill expands the “stand by your ad” disclaimer in video advertisements, forcing organizations to identify their top five donors at the end of advertisements. With the incredible rise in partisanship, cancel culture, and doxing, it is more important than ever to protect donor privacy. This isn’t a matter of transparency; rather, it is a new tool to chill speech. 

H.R. 1 is a dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation would suppress free speech, invalidate state laws, create taxpayer-funded candidates, and do nothing to help the economy or fight the Coronavirus pandemic. This Democrat power grab should be rejected.

The European Union has promised to impose Digital Services Taxes (DSTs) targeted at American tech companies. The EU is attempting to restrain American success through these DSTs. If the EU successfully passes this unprecedented international tax, America’s innovative future is at serious risk.  

Here are the top 5 reasons why DSTs are a bad idea. 

1. 1. DSTs might lead to double taxation.  

Traditionally, businesses pay income tax on actual profit. With DSTs, companies will have to pay a revenue tax on any earning gained through search energies, social media services, and online marketplaces. Companies will now pay both income and revenue tax, a double taxation.  

2. 2. DSTs will ultimately hurt consumers and workers – in the U.S. and abroad

Large tech companies will have to increase overall costs in response to losing significant profit to DSTs. Workers will directly feel the impact of these increased costs through decreased pay and jobs. Third-party sellers, in partnership with large tech companies, will have to increase their prices to remain competitive. This will lead to consumers being charged more for services.   

3. 3. DSTs could lead to a trade war.  

By passing this unprecedented tax, it will soon become the norm. The EU will have the green light to impose escalating tariffs on America continuously. This will compromise jobs and businesses on a global scale.  

4. 4. The EU will target more American companies.  

At the moment, DSTs are targeting large tech companies. By imposing DSTs, smaller American businesses will be open to EU overreach. If the EU can directly steal from giant corporations, they will indeed find a way to tax smaller tech companies. This will put at risk American innovation and competitiveness.  

5. 5. Profit from DSTs will line the wallets of the EU.  

The EU is using DSTs as an easy source of money. The profit they will gain from taxing large American tech corporations will be invested in EU competitiveness. This money grab will surely benefit the EU at the expense of American business.  

The Trump administration has fought to protect American innovation by opposing an international tariff system. The Biden administration needs to continue this sentiment. DSTs are both an economic and diplomatic liability. Rejecting DSTs ensures the prosperity of America’s financial and innovative success.

Only two days in office and the Biden administration is already considering breaking President Biden’s campaign promise that “anyone making less than $400,000 a year won’t pay a penny more” in taxes.

During his Senate confirmation hearing for Transportation Secretary, Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg told members of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee that a gas tax increase is “on the table” as a means to pay for infrastructure spending.

When asked directly by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) if he supported increasing the gas tax and by what amount, Buttigieg replied, "I think all options need to be on the table, as you know, the gas tax hasn't been increased since 1993 and it's never been pegged to inflation."

“There are several different models, in the short to medium term that could include revisiting the gas tax, adjusting it, and or connecting it to inflation," Buttigieg continued when pressed by Sen. Scott to provide more detail.

WATCH:

Support for a federal gas tax increase would be a clear violation of President Biden’s pledge to not raise any taxes on any American making less than $400,000 per year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, raising the tax rate on gasoline would “impose a proportionally larger burden, as a share of income, on middle- and lower-income households,” while also imposing “a disproportionate burden on rural households.” Biden must immediately disavow a gas tax hike if he wants to stay in compliance with his pledge to the American people. 

Buttigieg’s consideration of a gas tax increase also directly contradicts other statements issued by President Biden on the campaign trail. 

“I’ve tried this before, we’re not going to be able to raise the gas tax,” President Biden said at an infrastructure forum in Las Vegas in February. “I don’t think we’re going to be able to raise the gas tax from what it is now to what it would be had it been raised for inflation,” Biden continued.

During today’s hearing, Buttigieg also raised the possibility of creating a new “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) tax that would charge drivers based on a per-mile tax but cautioned that the technology might not be ready to support implementing this policy while also raising privacy concerns.

President Joe Biden has proposed raising the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent as part of his plan to raise taxes by as much as $4 trillion over the next decade.

Any effort to raise taxes on businesses should be rejected. It will prolong the economic downturn and harm workers and businesses. It will make America a less competitive place to do business and could see a return of corporate inversions and an increase in foreign acquisitions. It will also harm Americans that have their savings in a 401(k) or IRA or have begun investing in the stock market.

Here are five reasons to reject efforts to raise the corporate tax hikes:

1. Raising the corporate rate will prolong the economic downturn

Now is the worst time to raise taxes on businesses because the economy is weak and millions of Americans are out of work. Raising the corporate rate will make it harder for businesses to hire new Americans, prolonging the economic downturn.

Because of government mandated lockdowns and restrictions, 140,000 jobs were lost in December according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While 11 million jobs have been recovered since the peak of the pandemic, this represents just half of the total jobs lost.

Make no mistake - there is significant work to be done in order for the economy to fully recover. In the meantime, businesses and workers remain vulnerable. Rather than pushing tax increases, we should be pushing policies that encourage investment and job creation.

Even former President Barack Obama has warned against tax increases during an economic downturn. As Obama noted:

"The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up, take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole."

2. Raising the corporate rate will harm workers and families

Biden’s plan to raise the corporate rate will harm workers and families, with the costs of the tax passed down to them.

Numerous studies have found that between 50 percent and 70 percent of the corporate tax is borne by workers with the remaining being borne by shareholders. This means that increasing the corporate tax rate harms workers and reducing the tax benefits workers.

Not only is the correlation between worker wages and business taxes seen in economic studies, it has been seen in the strong economic conditions following the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which reduced the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent.

After the TCJA was signed into law, American workers saw unprecedented prosperity.

The unemployment rate hit 3.5 percent in 2019, a 50-year low.

Median household income increased by $4,440 or 6.8 percent – the largest one-year wage growth in history. Average hourly earnings grew by 3 percent or more for 20 consecutive months between 2018 and the start of 2020, according to BLS.

The bottom 25 percent of wage earners saw 4 percent or greater annual monthly wage growth for 26 consecutive months under President Trump, according to the Atlanta Fed. This wage growth was greater than the top 25 percent of wage earners in every month. 

Under this economy, there were more job openings than job seekers for 24 consecutive months. In March 2018, the ratio of unemployed persons to job openings dropped to 0.9. This ratio remained below 1.0 until the pandemic when it began to rise in March 2020.

Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic put an end to this strong economy. However, the benefits in the years and months after the TCJA was passed are clear.

3. Raising the corporate rate will make the U.S. less competitive.

Biden’s plan to raise the corporate rate to 28 percent, which would be about 32 percent after state taxes, would give the U.S. one of the highest rates in the developed world.

The U.S. rate would be higher than key competitors such as the United Kingdom (19 percent), China (25 percent), Canada (26.5 percent), Ireland (12.5 percent), Germany (29.9 percent) and Japan (29.74 percent), according to data compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Many countries also have lower rates for certain industries to encourage innovation and investment. For instance, China has a 15% rate for industries including high tech enterprises, while the United Kingdom has a 10 percent “patent box” rate for businesses that depend on patented inventions and innovations.

The U.S. is already lagging behind when it comes to promoting innovation. According to a Manufacturing Leadership Council study, the U.S. ranks 26th in research and development tax incentives when ranking the 36 developed countries in the OECD.

4. Raising the Corporate rate could lead to a return of foreign inversions and acquisitions

If Biden raises the corporate rate, it could cause a return of corporate inversions and see a surge in foreign acquisitions of U.S. businesses.

Concern over inversions grew during Obama’s second term because a number of large American businesses with combined assets of $319 billion announced plans to invert in 2014, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Inversions occur when a U.S. business merges with, or acquires, a foreign business with the intent of incorporating the new, combined entity overseas. This happened because the U.S. tax code was uncompetitive and businesses were moving to countries with more competitive tax codes.

The inversion problem was solved when the TCJA was signed into law. In fact, after the TCJA, companies began to come back to America. The inversion problem was just one indicator of American uncompetitiveness. Prior to the TCJA, American businesses were vulnerable to foreign acquisitions.

According to a study released by EY, American companies also suffered a net loss of almost $510 billion in assets between 2004 and 2017. This was because the high U.S. rate and worldwide tax system meant non-U.S. companies could outbid U.S. companies.

If the corporate rate was lower between 2004 and 2017, the study estimates that U.S. companies would have acquired a net of $1.2 trillion worth of assets, meaning that more than $1.7 trillion in assets were lost because of the uncompetitive U.S. rate.

5. Raising the corporate rate will harm Americans with a 401(k) or invested in the stock market

Biden’s plan to raise the corporate rate will also harm the life savings of millions of Americans that are invested in the stock market or that are saving for retirement through a 401(k) or IRA. Raising the corporate tax rate will reduce the value of stocks, reducing the value of these life savings.

This has the potential to impact Americans across the country. According to recent data, 80 to 100 million Americans have a 401(k),  while 46.4 million households have an individual retirement account.

A majority of the assets in these accounts are invested in stocks. 401(k)s hold $6.2 trillion in assets and almost 70 percent of these assets (or $4.3T) are in stocks. 

Similarly, 53 percent of the more than $11 trillion in IRA savings are held directly in stocks while another 18 percent of savings are invested in funds that comprise stocks.

This is not the only source of life savings that could be reduced by Biden’s tax increase. 19 million Americans rely on public pension funds for their retirement and roughly half of the $4 trillion in savings is invested in stocks. 

This could also impact younger Americans that have begun investing in the stock market to increase their savings. Half of Gen-Zers and Millennials have begun trading in stocks as a way to increase their life savings, according to recent reports. Across the entire country, as many as 53 percent of American households’ own stock, according to the Federal Reserve. In addition, over 70 percent of households in the “upper-middle income group” owned stocks and the median value of these portfolios was over $40,000.