Margaret Mire

Arizona Supreme Court Could Find New Phoenix Uber/Lyft Airport Tax Unconstitutional

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Margaret Mire on Friday, January 17th, 2020, 4:38 PM PERMALINK

Phoenix’s onerous airport ride-sharing fee increase could soon be overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.

State Representative Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) asked Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) to see if it violates a provision of the state Constitution – which was put in place by voters in 2018 – that prohibits both new and increased taxes on service. "It [the new airport ride-sharing fee increase] is such a blatant disregard of the will of Arizona voters who passed Prop. 126 in 2018," said Barto.

General Brnovich wants the court to issue a decision on the constitutionality of this Uber and Lyft fee increase. “Our office will promptly file a special action with the Arizona Supreme Court to strike down Phoenix’s unconstitutional rideshare fee and prevent the ordinance from taking effect,” tweeted General Brnovich.

“This is going to be a long-running fight with greedy politicians who want to tax transportation and take advantage of a monopoly – in this case access to an airport – to raise taxes. The attorney general did the right thing in noting this was unconstitutional. Every state should have constitutional protections against these abuses, but until then we are going to have to be vigilant and fight these tax hikes one after the other. They are coming to an airport near you,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

The airport ride-sharing fee increase to $4 – a rate that is among the highest in the country – for both pickups and drop-offs at Sky Harbor International Airport is set to take place on February 1 of this year. Adding insult to injury, the fee will increase by 25 cents per year until it reaches $5 in 2024. Under previous law, the airport ride-sharing fee was $2.66 and charged only on pick-ups.

The fee increase was imposed last month by a 7-2 vote of the Phoenix City Council, despite Uber and Lyft saying it would cause them to end their airport services. Councilman Jim Warring and Councilman Sal DiCiccio were the two no votes.

Grover Norquist on Ringside Politics: John Bel Edwards is a Liar

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Margaret Mire on Friday, November 8th, 2019, 11:09 AM PERMALINK

Grover Norquist, president and founder of Americans for Tax Reform, joined Jeff Crouere on his radio show, Ringside Politics, to discuss the tax implications of Louisiana’s upcoming gubernatorial election.

On November 16th, Businessman Eddie Rispone (R) will be challenging incumbent Governor John Bel Edwards (D), who enacted the largest tax increase in Pelican State history. Rispone has been endorsed by President Donald Trump, Senators Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy, Congressmen Ralph Abraham, Steve Scalise, and Mike Johnson, and Duck Dynasty CEO Willie Robertson. 

Despite his promise not to raises taxes as Governor, John Bel Edwards has raised billions of dollars in tax increases on hardworking Louisianans. “You have a governor, John Bel Edwards, who ran [in 2015] promising not to raise taxes. That was a lie,” explained Norquist. 

Norquist went on, “[H]e raised taxes and said ‘oh it’s only going be temporary.’ That was a lie.” Edwards enacted a 25 percent sales tax increase – which took the state sales tax rate from 4 to 5 cents on the dollar and resulted in Louisiana having the highest combined state and local sales tax rate in the country that year – on the promise that it would be temporary.

To put the magnitude of that tax hike in perspective, the 2016 edition of the National Conference of State Legislatures’ (NCSL) State Tax Actions report found “[c]ollective actions taken by the 50 states resulted in a net tax increase of $2.3 billion.” Louisiana’s penny sales tax hike made up $1.5 billion of that amount.The report also notes that just 6 states “reported a net tax increase of more than 1 percent” that year.

Adding insult to injury, that “temporary” sales tax increase has turned out to be less temporary than originally advertised. Rather than letting the entire penny expire, Edwards called three special sessions – each costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars a day – until the legislature finally caved into renewing 0.45 cents of the expiring penny. Norquist explained, “[Edwards] continued what was supposed to be a temporary tax – part of it – and called that a tax cut. That was a lie.”

The 2018 edition of NCSL’s State Tax Actions report concluded that “[c]ollective actions taken by the 50 states and the District of Columbia resulted in a net tax increase of about $1.3 billion.” Further, the report also found that the sales and use tax had the largest net tax change, increasing $847.1 million. Due to John Bel Edward’s 0.45-cent sales tax renewal, which he claims was a “tax cut,” Louisiana contributed $466 million – more than half – to that amount.

“It was a lie that he wouldn’t raise taxes. It was a lie that it was going to be temporary. It was a lie that he cut taxes when he raised them again, just not as much the second time,” Norquist summarized. 

In addition to the sales tax hikes, without legislative approval, Edwards alsoimposed an income tax hike on Louisianans. Louisiana is a one of a few states that allows taxpayers to subtract their federal taxes when calculating their income for state tax purposes. Since the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – which reduced income tax rates across the board, doubled the standard deduction, and doubled the child tax credit, among other things – has resulted in most Americans having a lower federal tax burden, Louisianans experienced an inadvertent income tax hike at the state level. 

Edwards could have easily prevented that tax hike, however, by following the lead of Governors in other states, such as Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds and Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, who used the excess revenue their states would have otherwise collected due to the way they conform to the federal tax code by enacting rate reducing tax reform. Instead, Edwards kept the cash.

“This is a time when Louisiana is surrounded by states that are reducing taxes. Louisiana is the high tax state,” noted Norquist. Louisiana has the highest corporate tax in the region, the second highest individual income tax in the region, and the second highest combined state and local sales tax in the nation.


Top Marginal Corporate Tax Rate

Top Marginal Individual Income Tax Rate

Combined State and Local Sales Tax Rate























2% on interest and dividend income*






*Tennessee does not impose taxes on wage income.

While Arkansas’s top individual income tax rate is higher than Louisiana’s, they are interested in reducing it. Tennessee’s combined state and local sales tax rate is higher than Louisiana’s, but it does not tax wage income and has a lower corporate tax. 

“Cutting taxes and telling the trial lawyers that they can’t have these imaginary lawsuits that steal money from business and kill jobs. Those are the two things Louisiana needs to do to attract jobs and opportunity and growth, and those are the two things, because of his corrupt associations, that Edwards cannot do,” explained Norquist.

The upcoming election will determine if Louisiana continues the liberal tax and spend agenda of Governor Edwards, which has resulted in Louisiana having the second highest poverty rate in the nation and being the only state in the country to lose jobs last year. “[If Edwards is reelected] there is going to be a big “don’t invest here” sign on Louisiana for the next couple of years,” said Norquist.

Or, will Louisiana voters decide they want to change courses and adopt more pro-growth policies, including rate reducing tax reform, that will make their state a more attractive place to live, invest, and do business.

Listen to the full interview here:

Photo Credit: Wikimedia

So-called Internet Privacy Law Would Harm Mainers

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Margaret Mire on Tuesday, April 10th, 2018, 1:52 PM PERMALINK

Maine lawmakers are considering a bill some claim would improve internet privacy for their constituents.

Lawmakers should reject this misguided piece of legislation – LD 1610 – as it would not accomplish its ostensible goal. Instead, it would inflict a great deal of harm on Maine taxpayers and consumers.

Under the status quo, there is plenty of incentive for internet service providers (ISPs) to actively protect consumers’ private information. There is a natural market incentive, as violating one’s privacy would deter customers, and a legal incentive, as existing laws requiring all actors in the communications space to guard personal information are enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state Attorneys General.

The current method to privacy enforcement allows bad actors to be punished without discouraging innovation and competition in the industry. Piling on state laws such as LD 1610 would not promote any of those outcomes.

LD 1610’s misguided approach to privacy would zero in on who holds consumer data rather than the data type. It would apply onerous and costly regulations to ISPs only, which is pretty bizarre if protecting one’s privacy is the goal. For example, compared to individual websites, ISPs see far less of what you do online because over 70% of websites use https encryption. An ISP can only see which website you visit, not what you do on the websites.

In addition to being unnecessary and ineffective, LD 1610 would be a huge mistake. The costs and consequences of complying with a patchwork of many state privacy laws throughout the country would make it much more difficult for ISPs to maintain and expand their services, and invest in the next generation of broadband. As such, LD 1610 would leave Mainers with fewer choices, outmoded technology, and an overall lower quality of internet.

Making matters worse, if implemented, LD 1610 would also likely result Maine taxpayers footing costly legal challenges. That is because state legislation or executive orders that attempt to regulate privacy through procurement or contracts violate federal law preempting state interference with interstate commerce.

Americans for Tax Reform and The Maine Heritage Policy Center sent a letter to lawmakers in Maine, warning them of the consequences of LD 1610 and urging them to reject it. To view the full letter, click here.


Photo Credit: Miguelgamer YT

ATR Urges Kentucky Lawmakers to Remove Funding for KentuckyWired

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Margaret Mire on Wednesday, March 28th, 2018, 11:56 AM PERMALINK

The Kentucky House-Senate conference committee is in the process of working out the two-year state budget. Americans for Tax Reform urges the committee to follow the Senate's lead and remove all funding for KentuckyWired from the final bill.

KentuckyWired -- a statewide government-owned broadband network -- is a taxpayer's nightmare. Two years past its intended date of completion, less than 1/3 of the fiber optic cable has been laid in ground, yet the state has blown through more than half of its $350 million budget.

Making matters worse, on top of the basic labor costs that rack up when such an undertaking runs behind schedule, taxpayers are also footing the bill for millions of dollars in contract penalties for "supervening events." Indeed, these penalties will continue to escalate out of control.

Study after study has concluded that government entities are not well suited to play in the broadband industry, as they lack the necessary expertise to build out, maintain, and upgrade a network. Time and time again, GONs have left taxpayers on the hook for millions with only a poorly functioning and unnecessary service to show for it. 

As such, it is highly unlikely KentuckyWired will turn around. The best solution for taxpayers would be for lawmakers to bring KentuckyWired to a permanent stop. 

ATR sent a letter to Kentucky lawmakers voicing our concerns with KentuckyWired and urging them to not to include its funding in the state budget. You can read the letter in its entirety here.  



Photo Credit: Purple Slog

Ohio Issue 2 Is A Bad Deal for Taxpayers

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Margaret Mire on Tuesday, October 17th, 2017, 9:37 AM PERMALINK

As November 7th – Election Day – gets closer, more and more “Yes on Issue 2” mailers and commercials are circulating Ohio.

Of the many false claims Issue 2 supporters continue to make, one of the most egregious is that Issue 2 – which would tie the rate the state and state agencies pay for prescription medications to the rate paid by the Veterans Administration – would save Ohio taxpayers $400 million a year.

While forcefully lowering the price the state can pay for prescription medication may sound like it would save tax dollars, Ohioans should note that such claims ignore key facts, and that Issue 2 is more likely to have the opposite effect.

Indeed, those who claim Issue 2 would save the state money ridiculously assume Ohio does not currently receive any considerable prescription drug discounts when, in fact, it does. Competition in the industry incentivizes biopharmaceutical manufacturers to voluntarily offer the state lower prices for medication. However, should Issue 2 be implemented, experts predict that many of the low-rate agreements Ohio has in place would be destroyed, potentially running up Ohio’s prescription costs by tens of millions each year.

In addition, Ohio taxpayers should keep in mind that the administrative costs of Issue 2 are also likely to be much, much higher than Issue 2 proponents are anticipating. At this time, there are no plans as to how Issue 2 would be put in place, meaning the taxpayers of Ohio will have to foot the bill for consultants, lawyers, and rulemakers that will be hired for a very long time to help navigate the implementation process (on top of basic overhead costs).

Adding to this tax dollar snowball is Issue’s 2 Section G. Section G guarantees the hardworking taxpayers of Ohio will cover any and all costs to defend Issue 2, should (when) it face legal challenges and applies whether or not Issue 2 stands up in court. This dangerous clause, which sets a precedent for taxpayer funded trial lawyers, should be terrifying to all Ohioans, including those who misguidedly favor the rest of this destructive measure.

All facts considered, rather than saving money, Issue 2 is more likely to result in lawmakers taking funding from other programs in the state budget and possibly asking taxpayers to fork over even more of their paychecks. Issue 2 is a terrible deal for taxpayers and Ohioans would benefit greatly from rejecting it.  

Photo Credit: Graem Dawes

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Louisville-Owned Broadband Network: A Bad Deal for Taxpayers

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Margaret Mire on Tuesday, June 20th, 2017, 2:34 PM PERMALINK

The Louisville Metro Council is mulling the idea of a government-owned broadband network (GON). This would be an inappropriate and irresponsible use of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

The roughly $5.4 million GON plan before the Council would span 90 miles in Jefferson County, with the majority of its footprint overbuilding KentuckyWired – a more than $330 million statewide GON currently being constructed.

While proponents of government Internet have painted a very rosy picture of the Louisville GON plan, residents of the city should not take the bait. Dozens of examples nationwide have proven GONs are a terrible deal for taxpayers. GONs in Bristol, Virginia; Memphis, Tennessee; Marietta, Georgia and many other cities failed, and then were all sold for pennies on the dollar, leaving taxpayers on the hook for millions.

Why did all of these undertakings end in similar tragedy?

Government entities are not capable of building out and maintaining broadband networks, as they lack the expertise and resources necessary to remain up-to-date in such a rapidly changing industry. This truth is already being echoed in Louisville, as the plan pending before the Metro Council notes that half of total project dollars will be spent in the last 6.6 miles alone, a claim that private industry experts cannot piece together.

These experts have thoroughly reviewed this small stretch of land, and concluded that at least three quarters of construction in the area would be above ground. To put this point in context, the experts explained that even if the 6.6 miles required the extreme of digging up the streets, laying the fiber, and then rebuilding the streets – a method that would only be required to run fiber to the home, which is not nearly as far as the Louisville plan is intended to go – private providers estimate it should still cost about $1 million less than the city’s projected expense.

The Louisville Council, like many others that have attempted to play in the broadband industry, is way out of its element.

In addition to the Louisville GON plan being a very risky way to spend taxpayer dollars, it is also wildly inappropriate. Currently, more than 35 providers offer service in Louisville. And thanks to their commitment and investments to the area over the years, 99.9 percent of Jefferson County’s population has access to speeds of 50 Mbps. While some purport adding a GON to the mix would simply result in more competition and choices for consumers, that is a very shallow perspective.

GONs unfairly compete with private providers because government entities can subsidize costs with tax dollars, and thus charge consumers below the cost of service. Private sector providers, on the other hand, cannot do this because it would drive them out of business. As such, private providers are discouraged from expanding, investing, and remaining in areas where GONs are present, as their odds of success are hindered by unfair competition from an entity that doesn’t need to turn a profit.

Since it is vigorous competition between providers that spurs innovation, improves quality of service and drives prices down, GONs leave consumers at risk for fewer choices, outmoded technology and deteriorating service.

There is no justification for pouring millions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars into “competition” with the private sector. Doing so would inflict a great deal of harm on taxpayers and consumers in Louisville, and chill innovation.

If the Metro Council truly wants to improve broadband service in Louisville, they should put the GON plan to halt, get out of the way, and allow the private sector to thrive.

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Government-Owned Networks Drain Taxpayers

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Margaret Mire on Friday, January 27th, 2017, 10:44 AM PERMALINK

As soon as Wednesday, February 1, the Grand Junction City Council will be voting on a city-provided Internet plan. Americans for Tax Reform opposes this measure, and sent a letter to the council members urging them to vote against it. To view the letter, please click here.

January 27, 2017

To: Members of the Grand Junction City Council

From: Americans for Tax Reform

Re: City-Owned and Provided Internet Plan

Dear Members of the Grand Junction City Council,

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform and supporters in Grand Junction, I urge you to oppose the city-provided Internet plan. This undertaking – estimated to cost $70 million tax dollars – would be an inappropriate and irresponsible use of scarce public resources.

More than 20 private Internet service providers currently serve the Grand Junction area, and have poured millions of dollars into their broadband infrastructure over the years. Thanks to their investments, 99% of residents living within the city limits can choose from 2 or more wired providers, and nearly all of them have access to Internet speeds significantly faster than the Federal Communication Commission’s recently reported national average. As such, a city-provided Internet service would be pointless.

In addition to being a waste of hard-earned tax dollars, city-provided Internet would also put taxpayers at risk for massive rate hikes. Indeed, dozens of examples nationwide have shown a clear pattern: government-owned broadband networks (GONs) quickly turn into money pits.

The construction and maintenance of broadband networks are not functions that government entities are well suited to take on, as they require regular and expensive upgrades in order to function properly. Too late in the game, government officials realize the cost for such a project was grossly underestimated, and that they lack the necessary resources and expertise to remain up-to-date in such a rapidly changing industry.

Along with underestimated costs, demand for GONs is often grossly overestimated. Despite access to a GON, consumers often do not see a need to change providers and choose to remain with their trusted private sector providers. Underestimated costs and overestimated demand is a recipe for deficits that taxpayers will be forced to fill. This scenario has played out in a number of cities and towns across the U.S.

Take Bristol, Virginia, for example, where a $130 million GON was built despite private providers already serving the area. At an $80 million loss to the taxpayers, the city is now selling this GON for just $50 million. A similar episode aired in Tennessee in 2007, when a $32 million GON in Memphis was sold for just $11.5 million – a $20.5 million loss to taxpayers and public utility customers. GONs in dozens of other cities, including Tacoma, Washington; Groton, Connecticut; and Burlington, Vermont, have all ended in a similar tragedy.

If you need more than a track record of debt and failure to oppose a city-provided Internet service, concerns with GONs stem beyond unsustainable short and long term costs to taxpayers. There are a slew of risks associated with governments tampering with the market.

GONs unfairly compete with private providers because government entities can subsidize costs with tax dollars, and thus charge consumers below the cost of service. Private sector providers cannot do this, because it would drive them out of business. This discourages private providers from expanding and investing in areas where GONs are present, as their odds of success are hindered by unfair competition from an entity that doesn’t need to turn a profit. Since it is vigorous competition between providers that spurs innovation, improves quality of service and drives prices down, GONs leave consumers at risk for fewer choices, outmoded technology and deteriorating service.

Americans for Tax Reform opposes GONs, and urges city council members to vote against the city-owned Internet plan. If you have any questions, or if ATR can be of assistance, please contact me or Margaret Mire, ATR’s state affairs coordinator, at or 202-785-0266.


Grover Norquist


Americans for Tax Reform

More from Americans for Tax Reform

CA Vote Clears Path for Netflix Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Margaret Mire on Tuesday, November 8th, 2016, 11:20 PM PERMALINK

Alameda, CA Voters Approve the “Utility Modernization Act”

Californians in Alameda could soon be forced to pay “Netflix taxes,” levied on online TV show and movie streamers.

That is because city voters approved local Measure K1, the Utility Modernization Act. The “Definitions” section of the measure clearly explains “video service provider” now includes those which provide “video services using internet protocol.”

Unfortunately for the taxpayers, proponents of Measure K1 downplayed this important aspect. Indeed, city officials claimed  “Netflix taxes” are not their intention, but why should anyone trust them?

Money-hungry lawmakers simply cannot resist the opportunity to target technological advances, which continue to make lives more convenient, as new sources of revenue.

This is already the case in Pasadena – one of roughly 40 municipalities in the Golden State with utility tax language similar to that of Measure K1 – where politicians are currently considering the “Netflix Tax.” And when Pasadena or any other California city begins taxing online streaming, what is to stop the city of Alameda from following suit?

More alarming is that “Netflix taxes” are only the beginning. These days, the lives of Americans are made more convenient thanks to technological advances, such as downloadable books, downloadable music, online video and virtual greeting cards.

Soon, lawmakers will be targeting these innovations as a way to rake in more hard-earned tax dollars. 

Tax-Hungry California Cities Threaten to Impose Netflix Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Margaret Mire on Friday, October 14th, 2016, 2:18 PM PERMALINK

Local governments in CA should avoid the “Netflix tax”

Californians’ monthly Netflix bill may soon go up thanks to money-hungry government officials. 

Nearly 50 cities in The Golden State are interested in targeting online movie and TV streamers as a source of revenue through what is commonly known as the “Netflix tax.”

The “Netflix tax,” levied on online streaming subscriptions, is currently in place in just Chicago and Pennsylvania. Chicago’s 9% “amusement tax” was extended to include "cloud services" in July 2015, and Pennsylvania extended its 6 percent sales tax to digital downloads in August 2016.

Nationwide, lawmakers should take note: following the “Netflix tax” trend would be a horrible mistake. “Netflix taxes” are wrong on many levels, including in that they raise constitutional questions.

Indeed, in July of this year, Cook County Circuit Court judge, Anthony Walker, allowed a lawsuit against Chicago’s “cloud tax” to move forward. The lawsuit – filed by the Liberty Justice Center – asserts taxing Internet streaming services violates the commerce clause of the US Constitution, and the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Unfortunately, concerns with the Netflix tax do not end there. “Netflix taxes” set a dangerous precedent for government to further intrude into our lives.

These days, books, music, and other forms of entertainment can be accessed more conveniently via the Internet. It will not be long before government starts targeting those services as well. This is already the case in Pennsylvania, as it extends its sales tax to downloadable books and music, online games, apps and e-greeting cards.

All of these items have made the lives of Americans more convenient. So, lawmakers should consider the repercussions of implementing such burdensome taxes on innovative businesses.

“Netflix taxes” and the like require businesses to stay on top of numerous taxing jurisdiction across the country. In California alone, for example, the cities considering taxing Netflix, Hulu, and other services would require businesses to collect and remit tax rates ranging from 1-11 percent.

By imposing such complexities on business operations, “Netflix taxes” make it more difficult for companies to succeed. With fewer creative businesses, Americans could have less access to technology that makes life easier.

And more immediately, hardworking Americans have already been dealt Obamacare’s 20 new or higher taxes over the last seven years. Many of them would like to come home from a hard day’s work and catch up on their favorite shows online without lawmakers are shaking money out of almost every activity of their lives.


More from Americans for Tax Reform

ATR, CWF Promote Right-to-Work in Bowling Green, Kentucky

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Margaret Mire on Friday, May 15th, 2015, 2:33 PM PERMALINK

Until recently, the economic benefits and personal freedoms of right-to-work were not available to Kentuckians because state lawmakers have blocked such laws. But late last year, this began to change thanks to brave local officials.

Starting with Warren County in December 2014, local authorities used Kentucky’s home rule statute – which gives significant economic development authority to Kentucky counties – to successfully pass a right-to-work ordinance. To date, 11 more counties have followed suit and even more are considering.

And no wonder. The Bowling Green Area Chamber of Commerce reported that since Warren County became right-to-work, it has had interest from more than 40 companies, representing over $800 million in potential investment and 4,000 new jobs.

The Center for Worker Freedom (CWF) knows that as news of this economic success spreads, many Kentuckians would like to learn more about local-right-to-work and the truth about labor unions. So to help, and CWF will be hosting a town hall at the Corvette Museum in Bowling Green, Kentucky to promote local-right-to-work.

The town hall will be held on Monday, May 18th and feature a panel of experts and lawmakers:

State Representative Jim DeCesare, 17th District, Warren, Butler counties

Jim Waters, President, Bluegrass Institute

Matt Patterson, Executive Director, Center for Worker Freedom

Ron Bunch, Bowling Green Area Chamber of Commerce

Jason Nemes, Fultz Maddox Hovious & Dickens PLC

Jon Crosby, Field Representative of Senator Rand Paul

The panel will educate workers, managers and business owners on the economic benefits of right-to-work, gives workers the freedom to decide whether or not they want to belong and pay dues to a union.

So come join us Monday for panel presentations from 6:00-7:00 PM CST and a Q&A from 7:00-7:30 PM CST. 

More from Americans for Tax Reform