Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said a carbon tax "is worth putting on the table" during a panel discussion yesterday with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sponsored by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

"I know that a price on carbon is one that makes Republicans more than a little bit nervous," continued Murkowski. "But I do think that can be and that should be one of the options that is on the table for discussion, in terms of how you can move policies forward," she said.

Sen. Murkowski is correct to note that carbon taxes, which raise the cost of gasoline and household energy bills, face significant political opposition as voters have a well-established track of rejecting carbon taxes on the ballot.

Last Congress, 229 House Republicans voted in favor of an anti-carbon tax resolution. In 2019, a coalition of 90 conservative and free-market organizations penned a letter to Congress opposing any form of a carbon tax. Sen. Murkowski’s support for a carbon tax would make her the only Republican in the Senate on record backing such a tax.

Even the panel moderator noted he was “struck” that Sen. Murkowski “in a state where oil and gas production is so critical, was willing to look closely at carbon pricing.”

Sen. Murkowski’s call for a carbon tax is indeed shocking given that roughly 85% of Alaska’s state budget is funded from oil revenues.

When pressed by the event’s moderator to explain how her plan would deal with low-income Americans facing higher energy costs, Murkowski suggested using the generated revenue for wealth redistribution. “As you know there have been proposals if there is a price, how you can rebate that to individuals, how you can help with transition assistance. These are the types of policies, and discussions, that must be had,” said Murkowski.

Translation: Murkowski suggests using the revenue generated from a carbon tax to send apology checks to poor Americans for raising their energy costs. 

Sen. Murkowski’s comments seem to reference carbon tax and rebate legislation pushed by progressive advocacy groups like Climate Leadership Council and Citizens’ Climate Lobby. According to a recent study from the Tax Foundation, a commonly proposed carbon tax and rebate plan (starting at $50 per metric ton) would raise taxes by $1.87 trillion over ten years, kill 421,000 jobs and reduce GDP by 0.4 percent.

Americans for Tax Reform urges Sen. Murkowski to take carbon taxes completely off the table and instead focus on policies that reduce energy costs for American consumers rather than add to their burden.

The fate of Illinois’ constitutionally mandated flat tax lies in the hand of voters, who will decide on Nov. 3, 2020 whether or not to adopt the Proposed Amendment to the 1970 Illinois Constitution— also known as the “fair tax” amendment or the “Illinois Allow for Graduated Income Tax Amendment.”

A NO vote would uphold the state’s current 4.95% flat income tax rate. A YES vote would open the door for significant state income tax hike, with the top rate rising to 7.99%.

By voting YES, voters will eliminate the only safeguard Illinois taxpayers have against income tax hikes, the flat tax— allowing Governor J.B. Pritzker and the Democrat-controlled state legislature to impose some of the highest tax rates in the nation with little or no recourse. If the measure is approved, on January 1, 2021 Illinois would move from a flat 4.95% income tax to new six bracket system with rates ranging from 4.75% to 7.99%, resulting in a  $3.7 billion income tax increase. 

It’s important to note that although the new rates and brackets, as passed by the Democrat-led legislature under SB 687 in 2019, are separate from the proposed constitutional amendment, this $3.7 billion income tax hike is completely dependent upon voters permitting a graduated-rate income tax structure.

Proponents of the progressive tax amendment are selling it as the be-all-end-all solution for ending the state’s infamous budgetary woes, claiming SB 687 will actually lower taxes for 97 percent of Illinois residents. The former is a flat out lie, whereas the latter is barely even a half truth.

If the amendment is approved, it’s true that Illinois taxpayers with up to $100,000 in income would see their marginal tax rate drop from 4.95% to 4.75% or 4.90% depending on their income level. However, the expected $3.7 billion in new revenue raised off the backs of the rest of the populace would barely make a dent in Illinois’ whopping $226 billion deficit.

Further, the proposed amendment does not contain language that limits the amount of tax brackets state lawmakers can create or how high they can raise taxes. The graduated income tax measure also provides zero accountability measures on how the new money will be spent and fails to address years of runaway spending. Keep in mind the Governor has promised over $10 billion in new spending despite the state being broke. Odds are any tax relief for middle and lower-income families would be short-lived.

According to research conducted by Americans for Tax Reform, government spending has ballooned over the last decade. In fact, Illinois had the nation’s second highest increase in spending per capita, rising 29.30%, between 2010 and 2018. During this time, Illinois raised the state income tax twice to fund this out-of-control spending. Further, just last year state lawmakers hit taxpayers with 20 new tax increases including the doubling of the gas tax, vehicle registration fee hikes, and the increase of online sales taxes. Even with all these tax increases the state still had an $8 billion budget deficit and an unfunded pension liability over $137 billion prior to the Covid-19 pandemic.

As the Illinois Policy Institute points out, for Democratic lawmakers to fully finance all of the Governor’s campaign promises and plug budget holes, a typical middle-class family could end up paying $3,500 more in income taxes. Even Gov. Pritzker admits that “there’s certainly no guarantees” that the amendment would protect middle and lower-income Illinoisans from future tax hikes.

The governor’s claim that there’s certainly no guarantees is correct. Take, for instance, Connecticut—the one state that has swapped out its flat income tax for a progressive income tax in the last 30 years. Nutmeg State lawmakers touted the progressive income tax as a way to fix state finances, address inequality, and promised spending restraint. However, that’s not what happened. It instead, cost the state’s economy over $10 billion, 360,000 jobs, and middle class families have seen their income tax rates climb over 13% and their property tax burden increase by more than 35% since 1999—the year that the personal income tax was first collected. As a result of these failed policies, Connecticut dons the 6th highest outmigration rate in the nation.

If voters need another reason to reject a progressive income tax structure with the higher rates set by SB 687, it’s worth remembering that it would kill jobs and small businesses by imposing the second-highest business tax rate in the nation. Under the Governor’s Fair Tax Plan, the corporate tax rate would rise from 7% to 7.99%, and when you take into account the 2.5% replacement tax already imposed on Illinois corporations, the total taxable rate is 10.49%. In 2018, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that Illinois’ private sector job growth ranked 46th out of 50 states. With the coronavirus pandemic looming over the heads of local businesses, many of which are on the brink of bankruptcy, the proposed Illinois income tax hike would exacerbate the financial hardships of a dilapidated economy.

A study conducted by the University of Illinois indicated that the state of can expect more than half a million full-time job losses and tens of billions of dollars in lost income over the next year as a result of the novel coronavirus. Illinois had already lost a record 850,000 residents over the last decade. By instituting another financial requirement on employers, this would be the last straw for thousands of small businesses and large employers, driving them to leave the state.

Giving Illinois lawmakers a blank check to spend billions of taxpayer dollars however they please will not provide a different outcome this time. The only way to address the state’s financial crisis is by reining in/reforming government spending in a way that taxpayers can afford. If taxpayers in Illinois truly wish to take a stand for fiscal responsibility and accountability, they should vote ‘NO’ on the graduated income tax amendment this November.

Misguided tax hikes on vaping threaten public health in Oregon and Colorado. Both states have upcoming ballot measures which would increase taxes on cigarettes and vaping, even though Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians have concluded that e-cigarettes are at least 95% less harmful than cigarettes.

Oregon Measure 108 places the option on the ballot for voters to decide on a tax hike which would raise rates from 1.33$ per 20 pack of cigarettes to 3.33$. As it applies to E-Cigarettes, the ballot measure, if passed, would impose a tax at a rate of 65 percent of the wholesale sales price for the product. Cigars would also be effected by this ballot measure by increasing taxes from $0.50 to 1.00$ per cigar, this would raise the tax rate to 65 percent, which is its wholesale sales price cap.

The revenue generated from this ballot measure would go to funding multiple health programs for the state.  From 2008 to 2018 nine other ballot measures had been offered by states for a tobacco tax increase. The ballot measures in the past had all been defeated by voters; except Proposition 6 in California during 2016.

Colorado Proposition EE is another ballot measure tax hike. In Colorado cigarettes are currently taxed at a rate of 84 cents per pack.  The ballot measure would set up an incremental schedule to increase the tax rate for cigarettes to 1.80$ per pack by July 2027. This would result in a 2.64$ tax rate per pack overall. For cigars, the ballot measure would incrementally raise the tax rate from 20 percent to 22 percent by July 2027. E-Cigarettes are currently not taxed in Colorado.  This ballot measure would create a new tax for E-Cigarettes starting at 30 of percent manufactures list price in 2021, and incrementally increase to 62 percent of manufactures list price by July 2027. Most of the revenue from these new taxes will be geared towards education funding but, a sizable portion will also be directed towards the general fund.

These taxes make life-saving vape products more expensive and less accessible, and risk jobs and businesses as small vape shops will suffer. Meanwhile cigarette tax revenue is notoriously unreliable. Colorado and Oregon voters will have to consider the many downsides of these tax hikes as they head to the polls.

Iowa has been a Right to Work state since 1947. But that will come to an end under Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Theresa Greenfield (D).

As seen on video and in writing, Biden and Harris vow to ban Right to Work laws which protect 166 million Americans in 27 states, more than half the U.S. population. Right to Work laws allow workers the freedom of employment without forced membership in a labor union or forced payment to a union boss.

Joe Biden said: "We should change the federal law [so] that there is no Right to Work allowed anywhere in the country. For real. Not a joke. Not a joke."

Kamala Harris said: "Banning Right to Work laws. That needs to happen."

Click here or below to watch Kamala Harris and Joe Biden vow to abolish Right to Work:

Harris and Biden also documented their anti-Right to Work position in writing here and here. And both have endorsed active legislation called the PRO Act which bans Right to Work. The PRO Act legislation is live ammunition, having already passed the Democrat-run U.S. House of Representatives. In the Senate, it has 40 Democrat co-sponsors and one self-described socialist co-sponsor, Bernie Sanders.

As stated in her op-ed in the Globe Gazette, Theresa Greenfield, the Iowa Democratic Senate candidate, endorses the PRO Act as well, meaning Iowa would lose its Right to Work status.

Right to Work states outperform non-Right to Work states:

• Right to Work states experience stronger growth in the number of people employed, growth in manufacturing employment, and growth in the private sector. According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, the percentage growth in the number of people employed between 2007-2017 in Right to Work states was 8.8%, and 4.2% in forced-unionism states. Growth in manufacturing employment between 2012-2017 in Right to Work states was 5.5%, and 1.7% in forced-unionism states. The percentage growth in the private sector from 2007-2017 in Right to Work states was 13.0%, and 10.1% in forced-unionism states.

 

• Right to Work laws increase individual life satisfaction and economic sentiment. A study by Christos Makridis of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that Right to Work laws are associated with an increase in self-reported current life satisfaction, expected future life satisfaction, and sentiments about current and future economic activity among workers, as Forbes describes. The study explains that "these improvements in well-being are consistent with an increase in competition among unions, which prompts them to provide higher quality services that are valued by their members." As the Heritage Foundation explains, "It was no accident that foreign automobile brands located their U.S. plants primarily in right-to-work states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee."
   
• Forced-unionism states experience severe out-migration. An analysis by Stan Greer of the National Institute for Labor Relations Research found that forced unionism states, between 2007-2017, experience net migration of -7.4%, whereas Right to Work states experience a 1.6% growth in number of residents. 
   
• Right to Work laws protect workers from union corruption. The Detroit Free Press reported that U.S. Department of Labor documents showed embezzlement from hundreds of union offices across the country over the past decade. In the past two years, "more than 300 union locations have discovered theft, often resulting in more than one person charged in each instance." Workers should not be forced to fund entities that have high instances of theft and corruption, especially when there are no similar demands that citizens must directly fund a private organization.

Consider yourself warned: If Democrats win full control of the federal government, Iowa's Right to Work will be gone overnight.

"No one should have to pay someone for the right to have a job. Forced union dues were recognized as wrong when congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Everyone in a free country has the right to work without being asked to pay off union bosses."

The 27 Right to Work states are: Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, Nevada, Oklahoma, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Idaho, Utah, Kansas.

See Also:

Biden and Harris Threaten Independent Contractors and Freelancers Nationwide