Justin Sykes

ATR Supports Chairman Hensarling’s Efforts to Reform NFIP and Protect Taxpayers

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Thursday, June 15th, 2017, 8:11 AM PERMALINK

This week the House Financial Services Committee will mark up a package of bills that would reform and reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) supports Chairman Jeb Hensarling’s much needed efforts to reform the NFIP by allowing for private market competition and putting in place measures to protect American taxpayers.

The NFIP has faced persistent challenges since it was created decades ago and those challenges are only slated to grow. Over half the U.S. population now lives in coastal counties and according to government statistics, more than 90 percent of all presidentially declared national disasters involve flooding. It is also the case that roughly five percent of U.S. households carry flood insurance.

The NFIP is currently indebted to American taxpayers by almost $25 billion, and allowing the status quo to continue will only further increase this burden and the potential for taxpayer exposure to losses.

The package of bills now set to be marked up by the Financial Services Committee would begin the process of reforming many of the issues facing the NFIP. A number of the bills being considered by the Committee seek to better protect taxpayers by allowing for private insurers to compete in the market, thereby providing an alternative to keeping taxpayers on the hook.

Now more than ever Congressional lawmakers have the opportunity to enact positive reforms to the NFIP, which has for too long placed a burden on taxpayers to subsidize the program’s functions.

Although ATR is concerned with some of the provisions contained in the package, Chairman Hensarling and the House Financial Services Committee’s efforts overall to address issues facing the NFIP are greatly needed in order to protect policyholders, American taxpayers, and the overall viability of the program.  


Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

ATR Statement Supporting Chairman Hensarling's Financial CHOICE Act

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Tuesday, June 6th, 2017, 11:04 AM PERMALINK

ATR President Grover Norquist issued the following statement today in support of House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling’s Financial CHOICE Act:

“Americans for Tax Reform supports Chairman Hensarling’s Financial CHOICE Act which will reform the costly and burdensome Dodd-Frank Act. Chairman Hensarling has consistently been a champion for financial consumers, and the Financial CHOICE Act will deliver reforms to replace the misguided regulatory burdens imposed on America’s financial consumers and small financial institutions under former President Obama's Dodd-Frank Act

“Under President Obama Americans saw the role of government in the market increase exponentially with the Dodd-Frank Act. While Dodd-Frank was supposed to target Wall Street, impacts of the law have instead fallen heaviest on Main Street, reducing small business lending, shuttering credit unions and community banks, and growing the number of unbanked Americans.

“Chairman Hensarling’s Financial CHOICE Act will increase accountability from financial regulators and protect American consumers while also fostering economic growth. The Financial CHOICE Act seeks to rein in ‘regulatory taxes’ imposed by Dodd-Frank that have served only to burden consumers with increased fees and reduced products and services. 

“The Financial CHOICE Act also gives much needed relief to America’s credit unions and community banks, which have been crushed by compliance costs in recent years, with an average of one institution being shuttered daily. The Act also repeals the failed Volcker Rule and the Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule, both of which will benefit financial consumers and the economy as a whole. 

“I urger House lawmakers this week to support Chairman Hensarling's pro-consumer, pro-growth CHOICE Act, that ensures American consumers and taxpayers are protected, while also fostering a regulatory climate that allows business to grow and prosper.” 


Photo credit: Gage Skidmore 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Obama's Paris Agreement: All Cost and No Benefit for the U.S.

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Wednesday, May 31st, 2017, 12:00 AM PERMALINK

Last week President Trump announced his intentions to withdraw the United States from the costly and burdensome Paris Climate Treaty. At a press conference in the White House Rose Garden President Trump stated that in order to fulfill his solemn duty to protect America and it's citizens, "The U.S. will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord." 

The Paris Agreement was a product of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, where former President Obama met with world leaders to commit the U.S. to non-binding emission reduction targets. Under the agreement, Obama committed the U.S. to wholly improbable reduction goals of 26 to 28 percent by year 2025.

Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy.  The agreement however would not just have hurt the country’s growth as a whole, but would have trickled down to low-and-middle income Americans. If the U.S.'s participation in the agreement had been allowed to move forward, energy costs would have skyrocketed, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods.

A recent study by the Heritage Foundation projected that the Paris agreement and resulting policies would have increased electricity costs for a family of four between 13 and 20 percent annually. The study also projected American families would see over $20,000 of lost income by year 2035. Such regressive policy hits the nation’s most vulnerable hardest, who ironically are the same people Obama used to justify the deal. 

The Paris debacle was also slated to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion, and result in an average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs by 2035. Of the 400,000 jobs lost, an estimated 200,000 would have been in the manufacturing sector. Meaning Americans would also have seen the costs of consumer goods such as electronics, paper products, and apparel increase, inevitably taking more out of household income.

With such drastic costs to the U.S., American’s would expect an equally drastic benefit on the other end, yet that is simply not the case. Policies such as those resulting from climate deal would, even with a complete elimination of U.S. carbon emissions, result in less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures. 

It is all to clear the Paris climate deal was all cost and no benefit for the U.S., and unlike the Obama Administration, which was all to comfortable sacrificing low-and-middle income Americans, along with thousands of jobs and GDP, President Trump realized Paris was a "bad deal" for America and it's citizens, and made the right decision to withdraw from this disastrous agreement.   


Photo credit: Joe Crimmings

More from Americans for Tax Reform

There are no related posts.

Forty-Four Free-Market Groups to White House: Withdraw from Paris Climate Treaty

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Thursday, May 25th, 2017, 9:48 AM PERMALINK

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) has joined a coalition of over forty free-market and conservative groups calling on the White House to fully withdraw from former President Obama’s Paris Climate Treaty, and to cease all taxpayer funding of United Nations (UN) global warming programs.

The forty-four-member coalition sent a letter to President Donald Trump this month expressing support for the President’s campaign commitments to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty, reiterating the fact that the treaty is not in the interest of the American people. The letter offers several options for President Trump to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris treaty.

First, the President could submit the Paris Climate Treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent with the recommendation that the treaty not be ratified. Second, the President could withdraw from the underlying UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 

The first two options being the most preferable, the letter also suggests that President Trump can announce his intentions to withdraw from the treaty according to a four-year schedule specified in the treaty and continue the process of repealing regulations that the Obama administration submitted as part of its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). 

This week the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, reiterated his long held position that the U.S. should withdraw from the treaty, stating it is “a bad business deal at its core.” Pruitt went on to say “Paris represents basically the rest of the world applauding as we penalize ourselves and our economy.” 

During his 100-day rally in Harrisburg Pennsylvania this year, President Trump expressed his opinion that the Paris Treaty is not in the interest of the American people, in line with his stated goal of withdraw while on the campaign trail.

The full coalition letter can be found here.  


Photo credit: Nicolas Karim

More from Americans for Tax Reform

POLITICO is Wrong: Open Competition Laws Complement "Buy American"

Posted by Justin Sykes on Friday, May 19th, 2017, 4:56 PM PERMALINK

POLITICO Influence’s article released today falsely claims Americans for Tax Reform’s letter urging Congress to allow for an open and competitive bidding process in infrastructure projects contravenes President Donald Trump’s pledge to “Buy American.” 

The story from POLITICO Influence wholly mischaracterizes the idea of “Open Competition” which would actually complement President Trump’s Buy American pledge by increasing the number of American firms that can compete for publicly funded infrastructure projects and in doing so would increase taxpayer savings that could be used toward achieving the President’s trillion dollar infrastructure-plan.

It is too often the case that outdated or protectionist policies restrict what types of materials may be used in publicly funded infrastructure projects. This has the effect of preventing new and innovative materials that are often more cost efficient, and the American firms that produce them, from bidding on public infrastructure contracts. As a result the cost of U.S. infrastructure projects can be artificially inflated, costing taxpayers and the country as a whole.

By allowing Open Competition in infrastructure projects more American firms will be able to compete and in turn offer increased savings to American taxpayers in line with President Trump’s Buy American plan. 


More from Americans for Tax Reform

ATR Joins Coalition Urging Repeal of BLM Methane Rule (H.J. Res. 36)

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Wednesday, May 3rd, 2017, 2:55 PM PERMALINK

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) this week joined a coalition of free market organizations urging Senate lawmakers to pass H.J. Res. 36, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) rule relating to "Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation" more commonly referred to as the BLM's "Methane Rule." 

The BLM Methane Rule is a product of federal regulatory overreach, released in the eleventh hour by the Obama Administration that served only to preserve the former President’s legacy at the expense of responsible U.S. energy production. BLM not only lacks the statutory authority to enact the Methane Rule, but the rule is also duplicative and wholly unnecessary. 

The coalition letter released this week and signed by ATR expresses the sentiment to Senate lawmakers that:

"The American people expect you to promote pro-growth policies that support affordable energy, jobs, and economic freedom. The BLM methane rule is not one of those policies...[and] must be undone, and the CRA is the ideal method for doing so. We ask the Majority Leader to bring this resolution to the floor and urge all Senators to vote yes."

Full text of the letter can be found here.


Photo credit: Nicolas Raymond

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Durbin Amendment’s Disparate Impact on Low-Income Consumers

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Friday, April 28th, 2017, 8:51 AM PERMALINK

When the Durbin Amendment was passed as part of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, proponents billed the Durbin Amendment as a measure that would benefit America’s financial consumers. By instituting the anti-free market policy of price caps on debit card swipe fees, Durbin proponents promised savings by merchants would be passed onto consumers in the form of reduced prices in stores. Yet not only has this promise not come to fruition, the Durbin Amendment has now been shown to have had a disparate impact on America’s low-income financial consumers.

According to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, since enactment of the Durbin Amendment 75 percent of merchants surveyed in the study reported no reduction in prices and 23 percent of merchants actually increased prices since enactment.

Not only did Durbin fail to deliver relief to consumers in the form of lower prices, but as a result of Durbin price caps and other Dodd-Frank regulations, the amount of banks offering free checking accounts dropped dramatically. Banks also increased average minimum deposits, monthly checking account maintenance fees, and many eliminated debit card reward programs.

The cumulative impact of reduced access to traditional banking services resulting from Durbin and Dodd-Frank was that many low-income financial consumers were pushed out of the traditional banking system. A recent study by George Mason University found the impact of the Durbin Amendment has led over 1 million Americans being “unbanked.”

This is a direct result of Durbin’s impact on banks offering free checking accounts. In 2009 75 percent of banks offered free checking accounts. After Durbin was enacted in 2010, that number dropped to 45 percent the following year, and has now fallen to less than 40 percent today. 

Banks are estimated to have recouped approximately 30 percent of their annual revenue loss cause by the Durbin Amendment through higher bank fees, and this impact has played out in truly regressive fashion. According to an April 2017 study by the International Center for Law and Economics, in 1999 the average minimum deposit required in order to avoid fees on non-interest-bearing accounts was $562.27. That minimum fell to $109.28 in 2008, but after Durbin passed the minimum skyrocketed to $732.02 in 2012 and stands at $670.74 as of 2016.

Furthermore, before Durbin average monthly checking account maintenance fees were $5.90 in 2009, yet fees have now climbed to all time highs of $13.25. Debit card rewards programs have also been reduced, seeing a massive 30 percent drop in the availability of debit card rewards programs in the first year Durbin became effective.

While high-income households are able to absorb the impact of reduced free checking, increased minimum balance requirements, and other increases in fees resulting from Durbin, the effect on low-income households has been quite different. Since enactment of Durbin debit card adoption for lower-income households (less than $25,000 per year) has fallen by roughly 10 percentage points relative to households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. 

For America’s low-income financial consumers, higher minimum requirements, the absolute destruction of free checking accounts, and increased maintenance fees means extremely reduced access too much needed traditional banking services for those who need it most. Instead of helping America’s consumers the Durbin Amendment has instead failed to pass on cost savings and increased the number of unbanked Americans. Such impacts fall hardest on the nation’s most vulnerable.

The 115th Congress should make 2017 the year that lawmakers stand up and protect American financial consumers, especially those of limited means, and repeal the failed and anti-free market price caps of the Durbin Amendment. 


Photo credit: Paul G. 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Norquist Statement in Support of Alexander Acosta to Lead DOL

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Thursday, April 27th, 2017, 1:56 PM PERMALINK

ATR President Grover Norquist today issued the following statement in support of President Trump's nominee Alexander Acosta to lead the Department of Labor (DOL):

“Senate lawmakers this week should vote to confirm Alexander Acosta to be the next Secretary of Labor so we can begin reversing some of the harm done to the American economy by the Department of Labor under President Obama. Mr. Acosta is a dedicated public servant with years of experience handling complex legal issues and a record of proven management and federal agency experience, and is a highly qualified candidate to lead the DOL.

"Under President Obama the DOL took a hostile approach to American businesses and industry, issuing a number of costly and burdensome rules and regulations such as the Department’s Fiduciary Rule. Since taking office President Trump has vowed to undo Obama’s regulatory legacy by acting to roll back barriers to economic growth, such as his Executive Order addressing the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule.

“Mr. Acosta has committed to supporting President Trump’s goal of reining in agency overreach, and would be a force for good at the Department of Labor by serving the Department’s mission in a way that foster’s economic growth, instead of setting up regulatory roadblocks. 

“The Senate has previously confirmed Mr. Acosta on three occasions with bipartisan support – once for the National Labor Relations Board, once as an Assistant Attorney General, and also as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida – and the Senate should again do so. 

“I urge Senate lawmakers to vote in support of Alexander Acosta’s nomination to be Secretary of Labor, and look forward to working with Mr. Acosta to begin undoing the Obama regulatory regime and creating a regulatory climate that helps grow our economy." 


Photo credit: Ed Brown

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Norquist: “Trump’s First 100 Days a Boon for U.S. Energy”

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Thursday, April 27th, 2017, 11:57 AM PERMALINK

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist this week issued the following statement praising actions taken by President Trump in his first 100 days to boost U.S. energy independence and growth.

“President Trump’s first 100 days in office have been a boon for US energy. The President has signed a historic number of Executive Orders to foster energy production and used the Congressional Review Act to reverse harmful Obama-era regulations that threatened to kill thousands of American jobs and reduce U.S. economic output.”  

While on the campaign trail then candidate Trump promised to repeal “needless job-killing regulation” and to put in place a requirement that “for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.” Trump also promised that under his presidency he would accomplish “American energy independence” by undoing Obama-era energy policies and approving pro-growth projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline.

During his first 100 days in office President Trump has successfully delivered on his promises on energy development through his use of Executive Orders and by using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to roll back Obama-era regulations.  Below is a list of actions President Trump has taken in his first 100 days that will boost U.S. energy independence and growth.

  1. Executive Order Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. Signed shortly after taking office, Trump’s Executive Order on regulation took aim at peeling back costly federal regulations perpetuated under President Obama. Branded as a “one-in, two-out” regulatory approach, President Trump said that the only way new regulations would be issued is if “we…knock out two regulations for every new regulation.”
  2. Executive Order Enforcing Trump’s Regulatory Reform Agenda. Signed by President Trump in February, the Executive Order to enforce regulatory reform was issued to “alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” by ordering federal agency heads to designate a Regulatory Reform Office to oversee implementation of regulatory reform initiatives.
  3. Executive Order Requiring a Review of the “Waters of the U.S. Rule” (WOTUS). President Trump’s Executive Order on WOTUS requires the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to review the rule and publish a proposed rule rescinding or revising WOTUS. WOTUS would have expanded to EPA’s jurisdiction to “anywhere water can conceivably flow” thus requiring new burdens on energy operations as well as farmers and private landowners.
  4. Executive Order Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth. Signed by President Trump in March, the Executive Order promoting energy independence and growth required that “executive departments and agencies immediately review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resource and…suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy.”
  5. Executive Order Reviewing Designations under the Antiquities Act. Signed by President Trump in April, the Executive Order addressing the Antiquities Act focused on the importance of developing America’s natural resources and ordered a review of national monument designations. Under President Obama the Antiquities Act was used to restrict activities on public lands such as mining, pipelines, and commercial development.
  6. Executive Order Expanding Access to Fossil Fuels. On the 100th day of his presidency, Trump is expected to sign an Executive Order that would open up waters in the Atlantic and Artic Oceans to offshore drilling, areas that were previously made off limits by the Obama Administration.
  7. Approval of Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines. In late March President Trump announced his administration had approved the Keystone XL pipeline and the Dakota Access pipeline, which reversed the Obama Administration’s decision to block the projects, both of which are projected to spur new economic growth and job creation.
  8. CRA Repeal of SEC Resource Extraction Rule (Sec. 1504 of Dodd-Frank). Issued as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, Sec. 1504 required the disclosure of proprietary information relating to resource extraction to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This rule put American energy firms at a severe competitive disadvantage internationally. President Trump in February signed off on the CRA repealing the Resource Extraction Rule.
  9. CRA Repeal of the Stream Protection Rule. Issued by the Department of Interior under Obama, the Stream Protection Rule was an egregious and unlawful example of federal regulatory overreach that infringed on the authority of state regulatory bodies and increased targeted burdens on energy production and distribution. President Trump successfully signed off on a CRA repealing this costly rule, in line with his promise to bring relief to America’s coal industry.
  10. CRA Repeal of BLM Management Planning 2.0. Under President Obama the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a rule known as the BLM Management Planning Rule 2.0 that gave the federal government more authority over land use decisions by state and local governments. The CRA signed by President Trump repealing the rule will give state and local governments more control over decisions regarding land use.  


Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Senate Should Confirm Alexander Acosta as Secretary of Labor

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Tuesday, April 25th, 2017, 3:40 PM PERMALINK

This week the Senate will vote on the confirmation of President Trump’s nominee R. Alexander Acosta as Secretary of Labor. Mr. Acosta is a dedicated public servant who has spent his career handling complex legal issues and has a record of proven management and federal agency experience. Lawmakers in the upper chamber this week should vote to confirm Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary of the Department of Labor (DOL).

During President Obama’s tenure the DOL issued a number of burdensome rules that threatened the U.S. economy and the livelihoods of millions of Americans. Since taking office President Trump has worked to reverse the DOL’s heavy-handed approach under Obama by issuing a number of Executive Orders to give relief to the business community, as well as by nominating Mr. Acosta to lead DOL.

Mr. Acosta has committed to supporting Executive Orders put forth by President Trump, primarily Trump’s order directing the DOL to review the Fiduciary Rule.

During a recent confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Acosta stated in regard to the fiduciary rule, “There is an executive action that directs how the Department of Labor will approach this rule. If I am confirmed as secretary of labor, I believe and support my following executive orders of the president.”

Acosta’s commitment to carry out Trump’s Executive actions on the Fiduciary Rule would be a welcome relief for American’s saving for retirement. As a result of the Rule, 7 million IRA holders could be disqualified from receiving investment advice, and the number of IRA’s opened annually would be reduced by up to 400,000.

Thankfully Mr. Acosta could soon be in a position to stop the rush to implementation of the Fiduciary Rule, among other onerous DOL rules put forth under Obama.

The U.S. Senate has previously confirmed Mr. Acosta on three occasions with bipartisan support – once for the National Labor Relations Board, once as an Assistant Attorney General, and also as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.

Lawmakers in the Senate this week should vote to confirm Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary of Labor. Acosta’s credentials show he not only has the necessary experience but the ability to lead the DOL in a way that serves the Department’s mission but does so in a way that foster’s economic growth, instead of deterring growth through regulatory hurdles and bureaucratic red tape. 


Photo Credit: Adam Polak

More from Americans for Tax Reform