ATR

Utah Voters Defeat Gas Tax Hike

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Tuesday, November 6th, 2018, 6:06 PM PERMALINK

It was a bad night for gas tax hikes on the ballot this Tuesday in the 2018 midterm elections. 

While Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejected Proposition D, a ballot measure that would resulted in a 58% state gas tax hike, Utah voters sent a clear message to state lawmakers they don't want them to even think about raising the state gas tax. 

Non-binding Question 1 asked Utah voters if they wanted to advise the legislature to raise the state gas tax. Utah voters rejected the question with more than 65% voting NO

Photo Credit: Mike Mozart


Are New Hampshire Lawmakers Going to Burden Ratepayers With Higher Energy Costs?

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Wednesday, September 12th, 2018, 4:58 PM PERMALINK

Tomorrow morning, New Hampshire lawmakers will be heading to Concord for veto day, where they will determine the fate of the 6 bills that were rejected by Governor Sununu.

Of those 6, New Hampshire residents concerned about their utility bills are probably most anxious to see the outcome of Senate Bill 365 and Senate Bill 446. Should these misguided pieces of legislation receive a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers – enough to override the Governor’s veto – ratepayers in New Hampshire should prepare to have their electricity bills increase by roughly $100 million over the next three years.

The state of New Hampshire has 6 biomass – wood burning – power plants that have been heavily subsidized for years. These subsidies have been a terrible deal for New Hampshire taxpayers, who have been footing the bill in the form of higher electricity costs. SB 365 would exacerbate this problem.

SB 365 would force distribution utilities to pay biomass power plants above market rates, further shielding them from the competition of lower-priced alternatives. These costs, too, would be passed onto New Hampshire ratepayers, costing them around $25 million a year.

Similarly, SB 446, which pertains to net metering, would also raise costs on ratepayers in New Hampshire. Net metering is intended to push consumers towards the use of renewables like rooftop solar by allowing them to sell their excess power back to the grid, thus reducing their own energy bills. Ultimately, this cost shifting scheme results in rooftop solar consumers being subsidized by consumers who do not have or cannot afford solar.

SB 446 would worsen the consequences of such cost shifting by raising the cap on New Hampshire’s net metering program from 1mw to 5mw and forcing utilities to compensate solar energy generators above wholesale rates. Much like SB 365, SB 446 would benefit a select few at the expense of the rest and is projected to cost ratepayers up to $10 million a year.

New Hampshire ratepayers already face some of the highest energy prices in the country. Piling legislation such as SB 365 and SB 446 onto this financial burden would only make matters worse, particularly for those who can least afford it.

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Yikes: Curbelo's Carbon Tax Bill Provides "Travel Expenses" for UN-style "National Climate Commission"

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Sunday, July 22nd, 2018, 7:36 PM PERMALINK

 

Congressman Carlos Curbelo will introduce a carbon tax bill Monday that not only imposes $800 billion in higher taxes on the American people, it creates a UN-style "National Climate Commission."

The Commission will receive "travel expenses" as described in the bill:

TRAVEL EXPENSES.--Each member shall receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with applicable provisions under subchapter 1 of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.

Travel to where? You can bet European capitals will top the list. A five-star accommodation in Paris or Brussels would provide the only suitable environment for thinking deep carbon tax thoughts with international counterparts over a truly succulent duck confit.

Who will go on the trips? Not only the commissioners themselves, but likely significant quantities of staff detailees from other parts of the federal government. The bill states that such detailees will continue to be paid a full salary while at the Commission.

 

 


 

 

 

 

Photo Credit: Comlux Aviation Group

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Curbelo Carbon Tax Bill Pays "Experts and Consultants" Up to $164,200 Per Year

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Sunday, July 22nd, 2018, 10:16 AM PERMALINK

The DC Swamp Full Employment Act

Rep. Carlos Curbelo's $800 billion carbon tax hike bill establishes a "National Climate Commission." The authors of the bill wrote themselves in as beneficiaries: the Commission is authorized to "procure the services of experts and consultants."

The Commission is authorized to pay the lovely "experts and consultants" up to $164,200 per year. 

Let's go to the bill text:

CONSULTANT SERVICES. -- The Commission is authorized to procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level 4 of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.

So how much cash can each of these "experts and consultants" get from the Commission each year?

According to the Office of Personnel Management, level 4 of the Executive Schedule pays up to $164,200 per year.

The legions of left wing DC swamp-based "Experts and consultants" pushing for a carbon tax on the American people will be pleased to hear of their new revenue source.

Related:

Hillary Clinton Memo Shows Carbon Tax Devastating to Low Income Households 

Carbon Taxers Beware: Canadians Revolt Against Trudeau’s Carbon Tax

Center for American Progress Founder: "We have done extensive polling on a carbon tax. It all sucks.” 

Carbon Tax Pushers Beware: Australia’s Carbon Tax Politicians Were Quickly Voted Out of Office

Endorsing a carbon tax is bad for your electoral health, even in Vermont

41 conservative groups urge support for @SteveScalise @RepMcKinley anti-carbon-tax resolution  

Even Left-Leaning Washington State Voters Rejected a Carbon Tax 

More details coming. Stay tuned to www.atr.org

Photo Credit: Perzonseo Webbyra

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Curbelo's Carbon Tax Would Hike Household Energy Bills by $688

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Saturday, July 21st, 2018, 9:48 PM PERMALINK

 

Rep. Carlos Curbelo will introduce an $800 billion net tax increase on Monday, a massive carbon tax on the American people. Curbelo will release the bill Monday at 9:00 a.m. during an event at the National Press Club hosted by Columbia University.

Household energy bills will go up as a direct result of the Curbelo carbon tax. That's according to the actual report accompanying the bill release. Yes, Curbelo will be on stage attempting to defend a carbon tax hike that raises energy bills, all because of him.

Let's go to the report:

Under the Curbelo proposal, the carbon tax increases wholesale electricity prices, and these increases flow through to retail rates.

The report also states that the price of gas will increase up to 11 cents per gallon.

So how much is this going to cost people?

The report states:

Per capita energy expenditures will increase by about $275 in 2020

Note the report gets cute by using per capita instead of per household.

There are 2.5 people per household, according to the Census Bureau.

$275 x 2.5 = $688

So: Thanks to the Curbelo carbon tax bill, your household energy costs would increase $688 in one year alone, in 2020.

Good luck explaining that one, congressman.

 

Photo Credit: 401(K) 2012


Scoop: Details of the Job-Crushing Curbelo Carbon Tax Bill

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Friday, July 20th, 2018, 10:29 AM PERMALINK

On Monday July 23 Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) will introduce a bill to impose a massive carbon tax on his constituents and the American people.

Details:

Imposes a massive tax directly on American manufacturers. Bill excerpt: “The point of taxation shall be for products manufactured in the United States, the manufacturing facility.”

Gives unfettered power to the EPA chief to impose carbon taxes. The bill makes a long list of industries subject to the carbon tax, and then lets the EPA boss add to that list at will. Bill excerpt: The EPA Administrator may “add any product to this list by rule.”

Encourages states to impose carbon taxes on top of the federal carbon tax. Americans will end up paying federal AND state carbon taxes.

Abusive penalties for non-payment of carbon taxes. The penalty amount is “equal to 3 times the applicable amount”. Bill excerpt: Americans shall be liable for payment to the Secretary, without demand, of a penalty equal to 3 times the applicable amount specified by those sections for the same tax year as the year in which the person failed to comply with such requirements.”

Authorizes a UN-style “National Climate Commission."

Authorizes said “National Climate Commission” to shovel taxpayer money to “consultants”. The left wing activists who authored the bill wrote themselves in as beneficiaries. Bill excerpt: “The Commission is authorized to procure the services of experts and consultants”.

“This is a direct attack on American manufacturing and competitiveness,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “It also sets up an earmark for left wing activists who would be paid as ‘consultants’ with taxpayer money.”


Hillary Clinton Memo Shows Carbon Tax Devastating to Low Income Households 

Carbon Taxers Beware: Canadians Revolt Against Trudeau’s Carbon Tax

Center for American Progress Founder: "We have done extensive polling on a carbon tax. It all sucks.” 

Carbon Tax Pushers Beware: Australia’s Carbon Tax Politicians Were Quickly Voted Out of Office

Endorsing a carbon tax is bad for your electoral health, even in Vermont

41 conservative groups urge support for @SteveScalise @RepMcKinley anti-carbon-tax resolution  

Even Left-Leaning Washington State Voters Rejected a Carbon Tax 

More details coming. Stay tuned to www.atr.org

 

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

More from Americans for Tax Reform


ATR Statement on Passage of Scalise/McKinley Anti-Carbon-Tax Resolution


Posted by ATR on Thursday, July 19th, 2018, 11:00 AM PERMALINK

 

Americans for Tax Reform issued the following statement upon passage of the Scalise/McKinley Anti-Carbon-Tax Resolution:

Congressional Democrats have announced that they will impose a national energy tax on the American people. This will be a central issue in the November election. The contrast could not be clearer: Democrats will raise your taxes, Republicans will not.

Carbon taxes are so harmful to households that even Hillary Clinton rejected a carbon tax. A study prepared by Clinton’s advisers found that a carbon tax would have a disproportionate impact on low income households, would cause gas prices to increase 40 cents a gallon, would cause electricity prices to increase 12%-21%, would cause household energy bills to go up $480 a year, and would increase the cost of household goods and services. It was so bad, even Hillary Clinton decided against a carbon tax.

Congressional Democrats are now to the Left of Hillary Clinton on the carbon tax. Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election.

Carbon taxes are toxic with voters, even in left-leaning areas. Politicians who impose carbon taxes are routinely kicked out of office. Australian politicians imposed a carbon tax in 2012 and were quickly thrown out of office by voters in 2013. The Australian carbon tax was repealed in 2014.

True-blue Washington state voters rejected a carbon tax ballot measure in 2016, by a 60-40 margin.

Endorsing a carbon tax is bad for your electoral health, even in Vermont where the Republican anti-carbon-tax candidate defeated the Democrat pro-carbon-tax candidate to win the governorship.

Even Canadians are revolting against the carbon tax. The carbon tax is so unpopular in Canada that it is emerging as the most potent issue for the 2019 elections.

It’s no wonder that the Founder of the Center for American Progress said, "We have done extensive polling on a carbon tax. It all sucks.” 

This was affirmed by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager, who said this of a carbon tax: “To be clear: It’s lethal in the general, so I don’t want to support one."  

ATR commends Congressmen Steve Scalise and David McKinley for taking the lead in fighting back against the efforts of the Democrats to raise taxes on American families and businesses.

 

 

 

 

 


Hillary Clinton Memo Shows Carbon Tax Devastating to Low Income Households

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Thursday, July 19th, 2018, 4:00 AM PERMALINK

 

--The memo's findings were so bad, even Hillary Clinton rejected a carbon tax--

As congress considers the Scalise/McKinley anti-carbon-tax resolution today, members of both parties should cite a 2015 carbon tax memo prepared for then-candidate Hillary Clinton which shows that a carbon tax would be devastating to low income households.

The Hillary Clinton memo stated that a carbon tax would be passed on to consumers, would have a disproportionate impact on low income households, would cause gas prices to increase 40 cents a gallon, would cause electricity prices to increase 12%-21%, would cause household energy bills to go up $480 a year, and would increase the cost of household goods and services. (See the actual memo excerpts below).

It was so bad, even Hillary Clinton decided against a carbon tax.

Consider:

The Hillary memo states the cost of the carbon tax will be passed on to consumers: “While oil, natural gas, and coal companies would be responsible for paying the fee, they would likely pass a significant share of the associated cost on to their customers.”

The Hillary memo states that a carbon tax would have a disproportionate impact on 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 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

Date of Memo: Jan. 20, 2015

Published by E&E News on Oct. 21, 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo Credit: Alexander Jonesi

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Hillary's campaign manager on a carbon tax: "To be clear: It’s lethal in the general, so I don’t want to support one.”

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Wednesday, July 18th, 2018, 6:10 PM PERMALINK

On June 23, 2015 Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook wrote this about a carbon tax:
 
"To be clear: It’s lethal in the general, so I don’t want to support one.”
 
On Jan. 7, 2015 Hillary Clinton campaign chairman and founder of the Center for American Progress John Podesta wrote:
 
"We have done extensive polling on a carbon tax. It all sucks."

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Center for American Progress founder: "We have done extensive polling on a carbon tax. It all sucks."

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Wednesday, July 18th, 2018, 6:05 PM PERMALINK

 
On Jan. 7, 2015 Hillary Clinton campaign chairman and founder of the Center for American Progress John Podesta wrote:
 
"We have done extensive polling on a carbon tax. It all sucks."
 
On June 23, 2015 Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook wrote this about a carbon tax:
 
"To be clear: It’s lethal in the general, so I don’t want to support one.”
 
 

Photo Credit: Mark Warner

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Pages

×