Mike Palicz

Durbin Backs Indexing Gas Tax to Inflation, Clear Violation of Biden’s $400,000 Tax Pledge

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz on Thursday, June 10th, 2021, 3:04 PM PERMALINK

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Thursday that he supports indexing the gas tax to inflation to pay for an infrastructure package.

“I think that ultimately has to happen...I look at it as a user fee,” Durbin told reporters.

The call from Democrat Senate leadership to raise the gas tax comes as gas prices continue to soar over $3.00/gallon and consumer prices jumped 5% in May.

Indexing the federal gas tax to inflation would amount to a gas tax increase on autopilot. Congress has declined to increase the gas tax since 1993 when it was raised to its current level of 18.4 cents/gallon. For context, if the gas tax had been indexed to inflation in 1993, the current gas tax would be roughly 33.5 cents/gallon, more than an 80% increase of the current gas tax.

Durbin’s call to raise the gas tax is a clear contradiction of the Biden administration’s position to date and would violate President Biden’s promise that “nobody making less than $400,000 have to pay a penny more in tax under my proposals.”

Biden’s own Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttiegieg, has previously acknowledged that increasing the federal gas tax would violate Biden’s pledge.

“The President’s made a commitment that this administration will not raise taxes on people making less than $400,000 a year,” Buttigieg told Bloomberg Radio’s “Sound On” show in February. “And so that rules out approaches like the old fashioned gas tax.” Buttgieg’s comments came as he walked back his previous call to raise the gas tax and index it to inflation during confirmation hearings.

Photo Credit: Charles Edward Miller

More from Americans for Tax Reform


CLEAN Future Act Lays Groundwork for Backdoor Fracking Ban

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz on Tuesday, May 25th, 2021, 8:58 AM PERMALINK

On Tuesday, the House Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change of the Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a legislative hearing on the CLEAN Future Act, legislation sponsored by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ). 
 

Buried within the Democrats’ 981-page "climate" bill are provisions that would lay the groundwork for a nationwide fracking ban, threatening American production of oil and natural gas, U.S. energy independence, and affordable energy for consumers. 

Section 623 is a federal power grab stripping states of the right to regulate hydraulic fracturing and could empower EPA to impose a nationwide fracking ban through federal regulation of fluids required for hydraulic fracturing.

Rather than allowing states to regulate fluids from hydraulic fracturing as they currently do, Section 623 would "prohibit the underground injection of fluids or propping agents pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations" unless operators meet testing and data reporting requirements determined by political appointees at the EPA.

Democrats are using the long-debunked and anti-science notion that fracking is an inherent threat to groundwater in order to seize regulatory authority away from states. This provision would break from the Obama EPA's years-long assessment that federal regulation of fracking's impact on water resources was not required.

resolution co-sponsored by state oil regulators in Texas and North Dakota in response to the CLEAN Future Act urges the Biden Administration and Congress to oppose the CLEAN Future Act on behalf of oil and gas producing states. In the rollout of the resolution, Texas Railroad Commissioner Wayne Christian labeled the CLEAN Future Act as "nothing more than the Green New Deal in lipstick,” that would "effectively federalize regulation of oil and gas, increasing costs to consumers and our national debt, while harming our energy independence and national security.

Here is text straight from the resolution:

"The CLEAN Future Act would impose redundant and unneeded regulations on oil and gas drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and production operations currently regulated by the States..." 

"The CLEAN Future Act contravenes the principle of cooperative federalism by creating significant regulations at the national level that will limit the ability of states to regulate the exploration and production of oil and gas within their jurisdictions."

Section 625 would allow EPA to classify "produced waters" as "hazardous waste" to prevent fracking, contrary to EPA's own 2019 assessment. 

Exploration and production wastes have been regulated as non-hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for decades. EPA's most recent assessment in 2019 reaffirmed this determination by concluding “revisions to the federal regulations for the management of exploration, development and production wastes of crude oil, natural gas and geothermal energy under Subtitle D of RCRA are not necessary at this time.”

Yet section 625 ignores these findings and labels the current classification as a "loophole" and an "arbitrary and needless evasion of regulations." The clear intent of Democrats in this section is to provide a pathway forward for political appointees at the EPA to alter the longstanding classification of produced waters from "non-hazardous waste" to "hazardous waste." Doing so would bring American fracking to a standstill as only 800 wells in the U.S. are equipped to handle hazardous waste compared to 180,000 non-hazardous waste wells, according to EPA data.

Wrongly reclassifying produced waters as hazardous waste would overwhelm the industry's capacity to handle hazardous waste and effectively shut down production.

Both of these provisions are attempts to concentrate the regulatory authority of American energy production at the federal level for the purpose of furthering the political Left's anti-fracking crusade. 

Americans for Tax Reform urges Members of Congress to oppose the CLEAN Future Act. 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

There are no related posts.


On Gas Crisis, Biden Energy Secretary Admonishes: "If you drive an electric car, this would not be affecting you."

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz on Thursday, May 13th, 2021, 2:27 PM PERMALINK

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm admonished vehicle owners at a press briefing on Tuesday, telling drivers they wouldn't be impacted by the Colonial Pipeline cyberattack and resulting gasoline shortage if they instead owned electric vehicles. 

During Tuesday's White House briefing, Granholm was asked by a reporter how the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack would impact the Biden administration's efforts "to move in more of a renewable direction since this is going to have an impact on people at the pump?”

“I mean, we obviously are all in on making sure that we meet the president’s goals of getting to 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050,” Secretary Granholm answered.

If you drive an electric car, this would not be affecting you, clearly.”

Granholm's comments came as thousands of gas stations across the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic had run out of gasoline amid a near week-long shutdown of the nation’s largest fuel pipeline.

Regarding Secretary Granholm's suggestion that motorists should instead purchase EVs to avoid such a gas crisis, the average cost of an electric vehicle (EV) in 2020 was $52,000, according to a May report.

Granholm's statement renewed criticism from the media and calls from Senate Republicans to launch an investigation into a potential conflict of interest for the Energy Secretary, as Granholm owns up to $5 million in stock options from Proterra, a manufacturer of EV charging stations and car batteries. 

EVs are a core element of President Biden's proposed infrastructure package, which contains $174 billion in taxpayer money to be used subsidizing EVs and EV charging stations. 

Click here or below to watch the video.

 


New Poll Shows Voters Reject Higher Taxes to "Address Climate Change"

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Isabelle Morales, Mike Palicz on Monday, April 26th, 2021, 4:48 PM PERMALINK

New polling conducted by HarrisX and commissioned by Americans for Tax Reform reveals voters are unwilling to pay more in taxes to "address climate change."

Voters indicated by a 16-point margin that they’re unwilling to pay more in taxes if revenue would be used to address climate change, with 58 percent responding they were not willing to raise taxes compared to 42 percent who were. 

Intensity of voter opposition was also apparent in the polling, signaling further trouble for Biden’s infrastructure plan. Intensity of preference was heavily skewed towards those unwilling to raise taxes, with 35 percent of respondents "very not willing" to raise taxes to address climate change compared to only 11 percent who were "very willing" to raise taxes.  This gap only grew among key demographics with only 9 percent of independents and 7 percent of suburban voters "very willing" to raise taxes.

The findings reveal a blind spot for the Biden administration as it proposes raising trillions of dollars in new tax revenue to fund an infrastructure package heavily composed of “green” spending programs taken from the framework of the Green New Deal.

Conservative criticism of Biden's tax hikes are likely to carry weight as Republican lawmakers draw the public's attention to wasteful spending of Biden's Green New Deal programs and the proposed tax increases required to pay for them.

Poll respondents were asked the following:    

Would you be willing or not willing to pay more in taxes to address climate change?  

  • Very willing  

  • Somewhat willing  

  • Somewhat not willing  

  • Very not willing  

Only 42 percent of respondents indicated that they were willing, while 58 percent of respondents indicated that they were not willing. Specifically, 11 percent of respondents were very willing, 31 percent of respondents were somewhat willing, 23 percent of respondents were somewhat not willing, and 35 percent of respondents were very not willing.   


The poll was conducted by HarrisX overnight online survey between March 31 to April 6 among 4,577 registered voters. The margin of error of this poll is plus or minus 1.45 percent and the results reflect a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults weighted for age by gender, region, race/ethnicity, and income where necessary to align them with their actual proportions in the population.  

Below is a demographic breakdown of the results: 

  • Only 20 percent of Democrats, 19 percent of Joe Biden voters, and 23 percent of urban residents indicated that they would be “very willing” to pay more in taxes to address climate change.  
     
  • 79 percent of Republicans, 36 percent of Democrats, and 59 percent of independents are not willing to pay more in taxes to address climate change.  
     
  • 63 percent of suburban voters and 73 percent of rural voters are not willing to pay more in taxes to address climate change.  


These findings should be instructive to lawmakers as President Biden and other Democrats consider tax increases with the intentions of paying for wasteful climate initiatives.  

The polling results can be found here.

Photo Credit: WikiMedia Commons

More from Americans for Tax Reform

There are no related posts.


AOC Wants Taxpayers to Pay for 1.5 million Green New Deal Hall Monitors

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz on Tuesday, April 20th, 2021, 4:31 PM PERMALINK

Progressive lawmakers, led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.),  rolled out an expanded form of the Green New Deal on Tuesday that includes funding to hire 1.5 million uniformed climate activists to serve in the “Civilian Climate Corps.” The hall monitors of the Green New Deal. 

Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a Civilian Climate Corps is an attempted revival of the Civilian Conservation Corps that existed briefly during the 1930s where members often lived in military barracks and wore military-style uniforms

The creation of a Civilian Climate Corps (CCC) was also included in Joe Biden’s proposed $2.25 trillion “infrastructure” spending plan which included $10 billion in taxpayer dollars to create the CCC  with the vague mission of “advancing environmental justice.” Today’s inclusion of the CCC in the rollout of the Green New Deal provides further insight into Democrats’ vision of the program. 

Details of the CCC program are listed below according to an overview document accompanying the plan's rollout.

Spending far exceeds Biden’s $10 billion estimate.

While offering zero details on the cost of the CCC, Ocasio-Cortez claims that the taxpayer-funded program will employ “1.5 million Americans over 5 years.” That’s 1.5 million professional environmental activists in uniform lecturing Americans about their contribution to climate change and how they need to change their lives, all while living on the taxpayer’s dime.

According to generous estimates from environmental economists openly supporting the creation of the CCC, Biden’s $10 billion plan would only be sufficient to hire 200,000 “climate workers” spread over 8 years. Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that her version of the CCC would create 7.5 times this number over a shorter time frame would necessitate far greater spending than Biden’s proposed $10 billion for the CCC. 

Taxpayers pay up to $50,000 to cover tuition and student loans of CCC members

Under the Green New Deal, high school graduates working blue-collar jobs could be forced to pay off the student-loan debt of law school dropouts who couldn’t land a real job and instead joined the Climate Corps. 

Here it is straight from the text of the proposal:

“Educational Funding: Enabling educational grants of $25,000 per year of service, up to $50,000, eligible for further education at any level or to pay down student debt.”

Taxpayer-funded housing, childcare, and transportation to “work” for Climate Corps members earning a minimum of $15 per hour. 

“Compensation of at least $15 per hour, full health care coverage, and critical support services such as transportation, housing, and childcare.”

Contains “explicit antiracist language” with hiring quotas for “environmental justice communities.” 

According to the text, “explicit antiracist language” will ensure that “at least 50% of CCC and Partner Corps projects, and 50% of corps members” will be hired  from “environmental justice communities.” 

Handouts to labor unions

The plan provides a special “advisory board” composed of labor union representatives and mandates “required coordination with local labor unions.” The plan would also “prioritize registered pre-apprenticeship curricula and union membership as part of service.”

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

More from Americans for Tax Reform

There are no related posts.


Biden Considers $87 Billion Gas Tax Hike, Clear Violation of $400,000 Tax Pledge

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz on Monday, April 12th, 2021, 7:31 PM PERMALINK

President Joe Biden told Members of Congress on Monday that he is open to raising the federal gas tax as a way to fund his $2.25 trillion spending package, a clear violation of Biden’s pledge against any tax increase on anyone making less than $400,000.

According to Bloomberg News, Biden told members of Congress that he is open to a 5 cent per gallon increase on the federal gasoline tax, more than a 27 percent increase on the current gas tax.

The Eno Center for Transportation estimates that a 5 cent per gallon gas tax hike would raise taxes by more than $87 billion over a 10-year window, with federal revenues increasing by $9.1 billion in year one. 

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris pledged at least 56 times that no American making less than $400,000 would see a penny of their taxes increased. 

"I pay for every single thing I’m proposing without raising your taxes one penny. If you make less than 400 grand, you’re not going to get a penny taxed," Biden told a Wisconsin crowd last September. 

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg went on record in February, unequivocally stating that raising the gas tax would violate Biden’s $400,000 tax pledge.

“The President’s made a commitment that this administration will not raise taxes on people making less than $400,000 a year,” Buttigieg said during a Friday appearance on Bloomberg Radio’s “Sound On” show. “And so that rules out approaches like the old fashioned gas tax.”

Biden’s proposal to raise the gas tax would not only be a clear violation of his promise but would disproportionately place the burden of the tax increase on lower-income Americans who pay a larger portion of their income on gasoline. The same would be true for households in rural and suburban areas who on average drive further distances to commute to work and purchase more gasoline than households in urban areas.

Photo Credit: Pixabay

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Biden Wants $10 Billion for Green New Deal Hall Monitors

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz on Tuesday, April 6th, 2021, 4:09 PM PERMALINK

Joe Biden’s proposed $2.25 trillion wishlist of progressive spending priorities branded as an “infrastructure” package would spend $10 billion in taxpayer dollars on a uniformed “Civilian Climate Corps” tasked with the vague mission of “advancing environmental justice.”

The proposal is an attempted revival of the Civilian Conservation Corps that existed briefly during the 1930s where members often lived in military barracks and wore military-style uniforms

Left-wing advocates of the Green New Deal celebrated the announcement of Biden’s “Civilian Climate Corps” for meeting the year one priorities of the Green New Deal and for providing “government jobs” to climate activists. 

The $10 billion will be enough funding to hire upwards of 200,000 "climate workers," according to environmental economists. That’s 200,000 professional environmental activists in uniform lecturing Americans about their contribution to climate change and how they need to change their lives, all while living on the taxpayer’s dime. The hall monitors of the Green New Deal. 

While Biden’s proposal provides few details on the Climate Corps’ actual responsibilities, Biden’s plan is modeled on the 21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps Act introduced by House Democrats last Congress. Additionally, Biden made sure to stress that employees under the Civilian Climate Corps will be unionized workers with “good-paying union jobs.” 

This is a make-work program for progressive activists complete with free housing.

The legislation introduced by House Democrats provides further insight into Biden’s proposal, the details of which are below:

Taxpayer-funded housing, clothing, and feeding of Climate Corps members

According to the legislation, taxpayers would be responsible for paying the cost of Climate Corps members’ housing, clothing, feeding, allowance, and medical expenses. Nothing screams good-paying jobs like an “allowance” from the government. Here it is straight from the bill’s text:

“The President may provide housing for persons employed in the Civilian Conservation Corps and furnish them with such subsistence, clothing, medical attendance and hospitalization, and cash allowance, as may be necessary, during the period they are so employed.”

Taxpayer-funded transportation to “work” for Climate Corps members.

Not only will the government provide food, clothing, housing, and an allowance, it will also pick up members of the Climate Corps and drive them to work for them. 

"The President may provide for the transportation of persons employed in the Civilian Conservation Corps to and from the places of employment."

Allows President Biden to seize private property through land condemnation.

President Biden would be empowered to seize public land deemed necessary to construct projects authorized under the bill.

“The President, or the head of any department or agency authorized by the President to construct any project or to carry on any public works under this Act, may acquire real property for such project or public work by purchase, donation, condemnation, or otherwise.”

Jobs are prioritized for individuals who have already used up unemployment benefits 

According to the text of the legislation, the President shall prioritize “unemployed citizens who have exhausted their entitlement to unemployment compensation,” over other citizens still “eligible for unemployment compensation payable under any State law or Federal unemployment compensation law.”

80 percent of funding used on employment, not conservation. 

While the Biden administration claims the proposal is about conservation and addressing climate change, the legislation mandates that 80 percent of funding is to be used just on the salaries of staff.

“Not less than 80 percent of the funds utilized pursuant to paragraph (1) must be used to provide for the employment of individuals under this Act.”

Based on a failed 1930’s program that housed “employees” in military camps.

The effort is reportedly an attempt by the Biden administration to revive a long-defunct jobs program created in 1933 as part of the New Deal and similarly titled the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). In 1937, shortly after the CCC’s creation, Congress elected to phase out funding for the program, officially ending the CCC in 1942.

According to a September report from the Congressional Research Service, The CCC was a government employment program for unemployed males aged 18-25 in which “enrollees were recruited, hired, and trained by the federal government, worked under federal supervision, lived in government-run military camps, and received stipends paid for with federal funding.”

CCC was extremely accident-prone.

It turns out taking untrained youths and asking them to perform manual labor in the wilderness is a dangerous idea. “Given the nature of the work (“most of which consisted of manual labor”) and the inexperience of most enrollees, accidents were inevitable,” according to a National Archives report cataloging the accident reports of the CCC program.

According to the report, over 7,600 workplace accidents were filed during the CCC’s short existence and included several workplace deaths and life-threatening injuries. The report details cases of drownings and construction accidents. 

More from Americans for Tax Reform


ATR Releases Coalition Letter Opposing Any Carbon Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz on Tuesday, March 16th, 2021, 4:02 PM PERMALINK

Today, a large coalition of conservative and free-market organizations led by Americans for Tax Reform released a letter to Congress stating their unified opposition to any form of a carbon tax: 

Dear Members of Congress,

We oppose any carbon tax. A carbon tax raises the cost of heating your home in the winter and cooling your home in the summer. It raises the cost of filling your car. A carbon tax increases the cost of everything Americans buy and lowers Americans’ effective take home pay. A carbon tax increases the power, cost and intrusiveness of the government in our lives.

Sincerely,

Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform

James L. Martin, Founder/Chairman Saulius “Saul” Anuzis, President
60 Plus Association

Marty Connors
Chair, Alabama Center Right Coalition

Mead Treadwell
Former Lt. Governor, State of Alaska & Chair, Alaska Center-Right Meeting

John Droz, Jr.
Founder, Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED)

Dick Patten
President, American Business Defense Council

Phil Kerpen
President, American Commitment

Matt Schlapp
Chairman, American Conservative Union

Tom Pyle
President, American Energy Alliance

Brent Wm. Gardner
Chief Government Affairs Officer, Americans for Prosperity

Lisa B. Nelson
CEO, ALEC

Scot Mussi
President, Arizona Free Enterprise Club

Cindy Johansen
Chair, Aroostook County Republicans

Garrett Ballengee
Executive Director, Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy

David T. Stevenson
Policy Director, Caesar Rodney Institute

Ralph Benko
Chairman, The Capitalist League

Andrew F. Quinlan
President, Center for Freedom & Prosperity

Isaac Orr
Policy Fellow, Center of the American Experiment

Marlo Lewis
Senior Fellow, Energy and Environmental Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Chuck Muth
President, Citizen Outreach Foundation

Rod Richardson
Co-Founder & Co-Chair, Clean Capitalist Leadership Council

David McIntosh
President, Club for Growth

Drew Bond & John Hart
Founders, Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions (C3 Solutions)

Matthew Kandrach
President, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE)

Thomas A. Schatz
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Robert Roper
President, Ethan Allen Institute

Annette Meeks
CEO, Freedom Foundation of Minnesota

Adam Brandon
President, FreedomWorks

Victor Riches
President & CEO, Goldwater Institute

Aaron Stover
Director of Federal Government/Corporate Relations, The Heartland Institute

Jessica Anderson
Executive Director, Heritage Action for America

Mario H. Lopez
President, Hispanic Leadership Fund

Daniel Erspamer
President, Pelican Institute for Public Policy

Shayne Madsen
Director, Political Law Center, Independence Institute

Daniel C. Turner
Executive Director, Power the Future

Carrie Lukas
President, Independent Women’s Forum

Heather R. Higgins
CEO, Independent Women’s Voice

Chris Ingstad
President, Iowans for Tax Relief

Dr. J. Robert McClure
President & CEO, The James Madison Institute

Seton Motley
President, Less Government

David Guenthner
Senior Strategist for State Affairs, Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Laurie Belsito
Legislative Director, Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance

Representative Beth A. O’Connor Maine State Representative

Rodolfo E. Milani
Founder, Miami Freedom Forum

Dr. Jameson Taylor
Mississippi Center for Public Policy

Tim Jones
Chair, Missouri Center-Right Coalition
Former Speaker, Missouri House of Representatives

Keith Erf
State Representative District 2, Hillsborough, NH House of Representatives

William O’Brien
Former Speaker, New Hampshire House of Representatives Co-Chair, New Hampshire Center-Right Meeting

David Miller
Southwest Ohio Center Right

Brandon Dutcher
Senior Vice President, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

Douglas Kellogg
Executive Director, Ohioans for Tax Reform

Tom Hebert
Executive Director, Open Competition Center

Lorenzo Montanari
Executive Director, Property Rights Alliance

Paul J. Gessing
President, Rio Grande Foundation

Mike Stenhouse
CEO, Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity

Bette Grande
CEO, Roughrider Policy Center

Maureen Blum
President, Strategic Coalitions & Initiatives, LLC and Executive Director, USA Workforce Coalition

Patrick Hedger
Vice President of Policy, Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Hon. Jason Isaac
Director, Life: Powered, Texas Public Policy Foundation

Christian N. Braunlich
President, Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

Rusty Cannon
Vice President, Utah Taxpayers Association

Darrell Henry
Executive Director, Western Caucus Foundation

Morton Blackwell
Chairman, The Weyrich Lunch

 

Photo Credit: Convenience Store News

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Every House Democrat Endorsed by U.S. Chamber Voted for the PRO Act

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz on Wednesday, March 10th, 2021, 10:52 AM PERMALINK

Not a single one of the 15 House Democrats endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce during the 2020 election voted against the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (H.R. 842), despite the Chamber publicly opposing the legislation. 

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the PRO Act on Tuesday with a 225-206 vote, with only one Democrat joining Republicans in opposition.  Of the 23 House Democrats endorsed by the U.S. Chamber during the 2020 election cycle, 15 won re-election. All 15 of these Democrats voted to pass the PRO Act during yesterday’s vote. 

Prior to yesterday’s vote, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - the world’s largest pro-business trade association - issued a press release opposing the PRO Act, calling it a “wish list of union-sponsored priorities” that “would threaten worker privacy, force employees to pay union dues or lose their jobs, and trample free speech rights.” 

In the same statement, the Chamber vowed it would fight to ensure the PRO Act “never becomes law.”

However, last Congress the Chamber made clear that support for the PRO Act would not prevent the trade association from endorsing lawmakers for re-election. 

In fact, 14 of the 23 Democrats endorsed by the Chamber during the 2020 election cycle co-sponsored the PRO Act last Congress. The Chamber endorsed these Democrats despite sending a letter to Congress in 2019 opposing the PRO-Act, noting that co-sponsoring the legislation would impact the Chamber's "How They Voted" rating for lawmakers. The PRO Act was one of only nine pieces of legislation the Chamber encouraged House lawmakers to refrain from co-sponsoring during the 116th Congress.

The U.S. Chamber’s endorsement of 23 House Democrats was a notable increase compared to prior years. During the 2018 cycle, the Chamber reportedly endorsed only 7 House Democrats. According to the U.S. Chamber’s own assessment of its impact on the 2020 House elections, the “U.S. Chamber endorsements are known to have a big impact and that rang true in 2020.”

Below are the House Democrats endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who voted in favor of the PRO Act and the percentage of the vote they received as candidates during the 2020 election.

  1. Rep. Colin Allred (TX-32), won re-election with 51.9% of the vote.

  2. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (TX-7), won re-election with 50.8% of the vote.

  3. Rep. Haley Stevens (MI-11), won re-election with 50.2% of the vote.

  4. Rep. Josh Harder (CA-10), won re-election with 55.2% of the vote.

  5. Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-3), won re-election with 49.7% of the vote.

  6. Rep. Susie Lee (NV-3), won re-election with 48.8% of the vote.

  7. Rep. Angie Craig (MN-2), won re-election with 48.2% of the vote.

  8. Rep. Andy Kim (NJ-03), won re-election with 53.2% of the vote.

  9. Rep. Abigail Spanberger (VA-7), won re-election with 50.9% of the vote.

  10. Rep. Sharice David (KS-03), won re-election with 53.6% of the vote.

  11. Rep. Antonio Delgado (NY-19), won re-election with 54.2% of the vote.

  12. Rep. Elaine Luria (VA-2), won re-election with 51.5% of the vote.

  13. Rep. Dean Phillips (MN-3), won re-election with 55.6% of the vote.

  14. Rep. Greg Stanton (AZ-9), won re-election with 61.6% of the vote.

  15. Rep. David Trone (MD-6), won re-election with 58.9% of the vote.

Photo Credit: Ron Cogswell

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Video: “Forget it.” Joe Manchin Rules Out a Carbon Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Mike Palicz, Ed Tarnowski on Friday, February 5th, 2021, 12:49 PM PERMALINK

Senator Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) went on record Thursday firmly stating his opposition to “any kind of” carbon tax legislation.

"Forget it," there's no viable path for a carbon tax in Congress, Manchin declared yesterday during a webinar event with the Bipartisan Policy Center when asked if there are 50 votes in the US Senate for “any kind of aggressive carbon pricing in the next couple of years.”

"They want to talk about this as a penalty? Forget it. As long as I'm here and there's 50 votes and it takes 51 to pass it,” Manchin continued. 

During the webinar, Jason Grumet, President of the Bipartisan Policy Center, recounted a prior conversation with Sen. Manchin from “7 or 8 years ago” in which he pushed Manchin to support carbon pricing. 

According to Grumet, Manchin pointed his finger in Grumet’s chest and told him “let me get this straight, you want me to go back to West Virginia and tell voters that I’m going to raise prices on a bunch of stuff, I’m going to knock a bunch of you out of jobs but trust me, the global economy is going to invent technologies? That’s not going to happen.” Sen. Manchin laughed along as Grumet retold the story.

Grumet then asked Sen. Manchin if his position has changed since their prior conversation.

“When you say the word tax, that’s a penalty. Don’t penalize me, don’t shoot me in the foot and make me tell you that you’ll like it,” Manchin replied. 

These public comments from Sen. Manchin are a strong rebuke of carbon tax legislation, coming at a time when the Biden administration is considering a proposal to push for a federal carbon tax. 

The full video of the webinar event can be found here

 

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

More from Americans for Tax Reform


Pages

×