IRS Watchdog: $67 Million Missing from Obamacare Slush Fund
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The IRS is unable to account for $67 million spent from a slush fund established for Obamacare implementation, according to a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report released today.
The “Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund” (HIRIF) was tucked into Obamacare in order to give the IRS money to enforce the tax provisions of the healthcare law. The fund, totaling some $1 billion of taxpayer money, was used to roll out enforcement mechanisms for the approximately 50 tax provisions of Obamacare.
According to the report: “Specifically, the IRS did not account for or attempt to quantify approximately $67 million [from the slush fund] of indirect ACA costs incurred for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012.”
The report also found several other abuses of taxpayer funds, including:
Travel abuse: The report states, “Specifically, we identified 38 IRS employees in two judgmentally selected business units whose travel was charged to the HIRIF in FY 2012, but no portion of their salary and related benefits was charged to the HIRIF.” In short, the IRS was not making sure that employee travel reimbursements had anything to do with the purpose of the fund. This is not the first time that IRS employee travel has created a scandal for the agency.
1,272 IRS Obamacare enforcement agents: The report estimates that total slush fund spending cost taxpayers the equivalent of 1,272 new full time IRS agents.
The IRS requested an additional 859 IRS Obamacare enforcement agents for Fiscal Year 2013: According to the report, “The IRS informed us that it requested $360 million and 859 FTEs for FY 2013 to continue implementation of the ACA. However, the IRS did not receive this requested amount for FY 2013.”
To add insult to injury, the IRS has told the Inspector General that it will comply with the recommendations made in the report; unfortunately, the slush fund has been fully spent, making that promise meaningless.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Trump Administration Unveils Deregulatory Action Streamlining Lab Testing
On August 19, President Trump’s Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will no longer require premarket review of laboratory developed tests (LDT).
In addition to various other deregulation efforts the Trump administration has rolled out during the COVID-19 crisis, this deregulation will enable U.S. testing capabilities to continue expanding, and will ensure a quicker, more efficient response to future pandemics.
Despite the fact that diagnostic laboratories are already subject to extensive regulatory and accreditation requirements, the Obama administration made the decision to start regulating lab testing as medical devices and requiring them to go through the premarket review process. While this extensive process is supposed to take about 6 months, in reality it took an average of 262 days (in 2014) for the FDA to reach a decision.
This requirement was issued even though there were warnings that this regulation could impair the ability for diagnostic laboratories to respond to public health emergencies. In addition, this requirement wasn’t issued through official rule-making, but through unofficial guidance.
As warned, a public health emergency hit the United States and this regulation impaired our testing abilities. Because of the premarket approval requirement, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had a de facto monopoly on creating coronavirus tests. As Roger D. Klein and C. Boyden Gray explained in The Hill, “Private laboratories — both hospital and commercial — found themselves needing FDA permission to deploy diagnostic tests. Yet the FDA-authorized coronavirus diagnostic test kits developed and sent by the CDC to public health laboratories in early February were defective and unusable.”
It’s important to note that the Trump Administration’s deregulation is not an all-out removal of regulation on testing. The Obama-era requirement created a duplicative regulatory regime that unnecessarily slowed diagnostic laboratories’ ability to respond to public health emergencies. Moving forward, diagnostic laboratories will still be subject to regulation by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 263a, and its implementing regulations at (C.F.R. pt. 493).
In addition, it is still in a laboratory’s interests to get FDA approval, as it protects their eligibility for coverage under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. As the HHS notes, “Those seeking approval or clearance of, or an emergency use authorization ("EUA") for an LDT may nonetheless voluntarily submit a premarket approval (PMA) application, premarket notification or an EUA request, respectively, but are not required to do so… Those opting to use LDTs in their laboratories without FDA premarket review or authorization may do so with the understanding that they would not be eligible for PREP Act coverage absent approval...”
By hamstringing the country’s ability to tap the private sector and all of its innovation in creating testing options quickly, the Obama-era overregulation had devastating effects on early coronavirus testing capabilities.
The Trump administration’s effort to streamline this regulatory process should be applauded. In situations where a few weeks of testing delays can translate into thousands of infections and deaths, this deregulation can be life-saving.
Photo Credit: Ben Dracup
Biden and Harris Threaten Millions of Uber Drivers and Riders
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have both endorsed the freelance-destroying, independent contractor-crushing California law known as AB5. Biden and Harris want to impose this disastrous policy on a national level through federal legislation called the PRO Act.
The Biden-Harris policy endangers millions of riders and drivers who depend on ridesharing for their livelihood. Americans need flexibility more than ever in this time of pandemic recovery and economic uncertainty.
Note the number of drivers and riders per state on the Uber platform:
Minnesota
Drivers: 11,000
Riders: 682,000
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 68%
Missouri
Drivers: 12,000
Riders: 606,000
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 74%
Mississippi
Drivers: 2,000
Riders: 87,000
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 75%
Montana
Drivers: 1,000
Riders: 69,200
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 76%
North Carolina
Drivers: 26,000
Riders: 1.1M
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 79%
North Dakota
Drivers: 1,000
Riders: 52,400
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 76%
New Hampshire
Drivers: 2,000
Riders: 89,000
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 74%
South Carolina
Drivers: 11,000
Riders: 523,000
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 79%
South Dakota
Drivers: 400
Riders: 9,800
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 83%
Tennessee
Drivers: 17,000
Riders: 901,000
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 76%
Texas
Drivers: 97,000
Riders: 3.4M
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 72%
Utah
Drivers: 5,000
Riders: 292,000
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 79%
Virginia
Drivers: 28,000
Riders: 1.6M
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 66%
Vermont
Drivers: 600
Riders: 46,900
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 71%
Washington
Drivers: 21,000
Riders: 1.2M
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 58%
Wisconsin
Drivers: 10,000
Riders: 467,000
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 76%
West Virginia
Drivers: 1,000
Riders: 45,000
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 83%
Wyoming
Drivers: 400
Riders: 32,500
Percent driving less than 20 hours/week: 81%
See Also:
Biden Threatens Independent Contractors and Freelancers Nationwide
Biden and Harris Slam Uber and Lyft But Have Used Them Over 1,400 Times
Survey: App-based Drivers Want to Maintain Independent Contractor Status
WOW: Biden and Harris Want to Ban Right-to-Work Laws Nationwide
California’s Assault Against Ride-Sharing Services Shows Why National Preemption Necessary to Save the Gig Economy
The ongoing effort to crush digital platform-based transportation services recently got a boost from a California judge who held that companies like Uber and Lyft must immediately reclassify all of their drivers as employees. The ruling comes as a result of trial lawyers and California’s Attorney General bringing a lawsuit against the companies based on the requirements of Assembly Bill 5. This controversial legislation restricts the nature of independent contracting and freelance work across California. Without a successful appeal, both Uber and Lyft have said that they will pull out of the state of California by the end of this week due to the burdensome requirements and unaffordable costs of changing their entire business model overnight.
The very real possibility that hundreds of thousands of California drivers and millions of California commuters will no longer have access to ride-sharing applications to generate income or rides demonstrates the need for federal workforce protections. Avoiding a patchwork of state burdens and restrictions on entrepreneurship can only be achieved through clarity at a national level. While it’s rare that Washington can be pointed to as having any workable solution to state issues, in the case of Big Labor’s assault against the gig economy, it may come down to just that.
The Trump administration recently announced that it would be fast tracking a regulatory order for “determining independent contractor status under the Fair Labor Standards Act.” Under current guidelines, there is no single federally limiting labor test in determining whether someone is an independent contractor or an employee. The distinction is important because it can limit the nature of flexible work agreements between workers and businesses when it comes to working hours or the ability to take on multiple jobs. Unfortunately, it might take more than federal agency deference to fully address the issues arising out of states like California. Due to the ability of new administrations to interpret and re-interpret the FLSA, as was the case in 2015 and again in 2017, these standards continue to change to the potential detriment of the American worker. Under a Biden-Harris administration, independent contractors face a promise of demise.
Instead of leaving the fate of millions of workers to the regulatory re-interpretation of bureaucrats, Congress should implement a federal standard for the nature of workforce relationships between individuals and businesses. The standard would supersede state and local laws to avoid the compliance nightmares associated with a patchwork of laws like AB5 in California and to maximize the ability of all individuals to work with and for whom they wish without the needless involvement of Big Labor or Big Government. This standard would preserve the ability of freelancers and independent contractors to generate income regardless of whether they live in California, Florida, or Ohio.
Such a federal standard would not prohibit businesses from providing perks or benefits to contractors and it would not punish them for doing so. Congress should not mandate that businesses treat freelancers or contractors like employees if those businesses choose to provide health care or retirement contributions and benefits, for example. A restrictive mandate like this would drive up the cost of entrepreneurship, straddling startups and small businesses alike with unaffordable burdens while dismantling the opportunities that exist within the current contracting model.
As an alternative, Congress could create a safe harbor for businesses who choose to give workers benefits under a federal standard for worker agreements. This safe harbor would allow for a business to make retirement, universal savings accounts, or Health Savings Account contributions to independent contractors, without jeopardizing the nature of the independent contracting agreements or lumping these workers into a category of those defined as employees.
This sort of federal standard would protect businesses who are in a financial position to provide their contract workers with benefits without mandating that their smaller competitors significantly increase their overhead costs to the point of insolvency. At the end of the day, both businesses and workers should be given maximum flexibility with limited government intervention in the nature of benefits, hours, or workforce flexibility and mobility. A federal preemption standard would go a long way in saving nearly 9% of the American economy from the litigious nature of unions and their allies in the Democrat Party.
Photo Credit: Collin Dow, Flicker
Kamala Harris on Trump Tax Cuts: "Get rid of the whole thing."
Here's what will happen if Biden and Harris repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
Kamala Harris wants a full repeal of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted by congressional Republicans and President Trump in 2017. Repeal of the tax cuts would result in a $2,000 annual tax increase for a median income family of four.
As reported by Bloomberg News:
Senator Kamala Harris said she'd seek to repeal all of President Donald Trump's 2017 tax overhaul, including its breaks for wealthy earners, corporations and the middle class.
"Get rid of the whole thing," the California Democrat and presidential contender said after a campaign event in Detroit.
Even Barack Obama has warned against raising taxes in an economic downturn. If Democrats repeal the tax cuts, as they have said countless times, Americans will face steep tax hikes just as the country starts to recover from the coronavirus:
- A family of four earning the median income of $73,000 would see a $2,000 tax increase each year.
- A single parent (with one child) making $41,000 would see a $1,300 tax increase each year.
- Every household who claims the child tax credit will see their child tax credit cut in half.
- Millions of low and middle-income households would be stuck paying the Obamacare individual mandate tax of $695 - $2,085. This tax was zeroed out as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Biden has vowed to re-impose this tax.
- The USA would have the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, higher than China (25 percent), the United Kingdom (19 percent), Canada (26.8 percent), and Ireland (12.5 percent).
- Small employers will face tax increases due to the increase in marginal income tax rates and the repeal of the TCJA 20% deduction for small business income.
- The Opportunity Zone program would be abolished. Opportunity Zones were created as part of the TCJA are already helping economically distressed areas across the country.
- Taxes would rise in every state and every congressional district.
- The Death Tax would ensnare more families and businesses.
- Utility bills would go up in all 50 states as a direct result of the corporate income tax increase.
- The AMT would snap back to hit millions of households.
- Millions of households would see their standard deduction cut in half, adding to their tax complexity as they are forced to itemize their deductions and deal with the shoebox full of receipts on top of the refrigerator.
Even left-leaning media outlets have acknowledged the fact that the Trump tax cuts have helped middle income households:
- New York Times: "Most people got a tax cut."
- Washington Post: “Most Americans received a tax cut.”
- CNN's Jake Tapper: "The facts are, most Americans got a tax cut."
- H&R Block: “The vast majority of people did get a tax cut.”
- CNN's Tapper also stated: "In fact, estimates from both sides of the political spectrum show that the majority of people in the United States of America did receive a tax cut."
- FactCheck.org: "Most people got some kind of tax cut in 2018 as a result of the law."
- FactCheck.org also stated: "The vast majority (82 percent) of middle-income earners — those with income between about $49,000 and $86,000 — received a tax cut that averaged about $1,050.
Americans for Tax Reform has compiled over 1,200 examples of how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has helped businesses and households in all 50 states.
On tax policy, Biden has a history of lying to the American people. He lied when he ran for Vice President in 2008 when he repeatedly said he would not support any form of any tax that imposed even “one single penny” of tax increase on anyone making less than $250,000. Biden shattered that promise upon taking office.
To stay up-to-date on Biden's tax hikes, visit ATR.Org/HighTaxJoe
List of Tax Reform Good News
1,200 examples of small business expansion, new hires, pay raises, Opportunity Zone job creation and utility rate reductions where the GOP-enacted Tax Cuts & Jobs Act was cited as a key factor:
Full A-Z national compilation (PDF)
State lists:
Ala. Alaska Ariz. Ark. Calif. Colo. Conn. Del. D.C. Fla. Ga. Hawaii Idaho Ill. Ind. Iowa Kan. Ky. La. Maine Md. Mass. Mich. Minn. Miss. Mo. Mont. Neb. Nev. N.H. N.J. N.M. N.Y. N.C. N.D. Ohio Okla. Ore. Pa. R.I. S.C. S.D. Tenn. Texas Utah Vt. Va. Wash. W. Va. Wis. Wyo.
Specialized lists:
Examples of companies providing new employee and family benefits
(Pictured at top: The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act helped Rod’s Harvest Foods in St. Ignatius, Montana raise employee wages and bonuses)
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Kamala Harris Admits She Will Strip Everyone's Private Health Insurance
Kamala Harris admitted that her "Medicare for All" plan would strip away private health insurance plans. Harris made the remark in a post debate interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper on July 31, 2019:
Anderson Cooper: "In your plan, eventually, everyone would be taken off the private plan their company currently has."
Sen. Kamala Harris: "Yes."
ATR Releases List of 2020 Alaska, Florida, & Wyoming State Pledge Signers (Primary Election)
Americans for Tax Reform recognizes the Alaska, Florida, and Wyoming incumbents and candidates who have taken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge ahead of the August 18 primary election. The Pledge is a written commitment to hardworking taxpayers and to the American people to “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.”
“By signing The Pledge to the voters, these candidates and incumbents demonstrate that they will safeguard taxpayers from higher taxes,” said Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform. “Pledge signers understand that government should be reformed in a way so that it spends and takes less taxpayer dollars, and will oppose tax increases that prolong failures of the past.”
New candidates sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge regularly. For the most up-to-date information on this race or any other, please visit the ATR Pledge Database.
Candidates can still make this important commitment to voters ahead of the August primary by visiting: www.atr.org/take-the-pledge
The following candidates and incumbents have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge:
|
Alaska |
||||
|
First Name |
Last Name |
Office |
District Number |
Incumbent |
|
Michael |
Dunleavy |
Governor |
Yes |
|
|
Kevin |
Meyer |
Lieutenant Governor |
Yes |
|
|
Paul |
Bauer |
State House |
16 |
No |
|
Keith |
Kurber |
State House |
4 |
No |
|
Christopher |
Kurka |
State House |
7 |
No |
|
Kevin |
McCabe |
State House |
8 |
No |
|
Thomas |
McKay |
State House |
24 |
No |
|
Ryan |
Smith |
State House |
6 |
No |
|
David |
Eastman |
State House |
10 |
Yes |
|
Gabrielle |
LeDoux |
State House |
15 |
Yes |
|
Mark |
Neuman |
State House |
8 |
Yes |
|
Cathy |
Tilton |
State House |
12 |
Yes |
|
Stephen |
Duplantis |
State Senate |
L |
No |
|
Calvin |
Moto |
State Senate |
T |
No |
|
Bernadette |
Rupright |
State Senate |
D |
No |
|
Catherine |
Giessel |
State Senate |
N |
Yes |
|
Josh |
Revak |
State Senate |
M |
Yes |
|
Stephen |
Wright |
State Senate |
D |
No |
|
Florida |
||||
|
First Name |
Last Name |
Office |
District Number |
Incumbent |
|
Ashley |
Moody |
Attorney General |
No |
|
|
Mary |
Hutton |
County Commissioner |
3 |
No |
|
Matt |
Morgan |
County Commissioner |
1 |
No |
|
Ron |
DeSantis |
Governor |
0 |
Yes |
|
Steve |
McKnight |
Non-leg Office |
54 |
Yes |
|
Sandra |
Atkinson |
State House |
4 |
No |
|
Donna |
Barcomb |
State House |
72 |
No |
|
Pedro |
Barrios |
State House |
105 |
No |
|
Erika |
Benfield |
State House |
27 |
No |
|
Bryan |
Blackwell |
State House |
77 |
No |
|
Frank |
Blanco |
State House |
44 |
No |
|
David |
Borrero |
State House |
105 |
No |
|
Drew- Montez |
Clark |
State House |
80 |
No |
|
Victor |
Dotres |
State House |
80 |
No |
|
Luther |
Dowe |
State House |
29 |
No |
|
Gabriel |
Garcia |
State House |
116 |
No |
|
Mike |
Giallombardo |
State House |
77 |
No |
|
Fred |
Hawkins |
State House |
42 |
No |
|
Danny |
Kushmer |
State House |
59 |
No |
|
Steven |
Linne |
State House |
6 |
No |
|
Charles |
Lynch |
State House |
78 |
No |
|
Fiona |
McFarland |
State House |
72 |
No |
|
Silmo |
Moura |
State House |
81 |
No |
|
Stevan |
Novakovic |
State House |
31 |
No |
|
Matt |
Nye |
State House |
52 |
No |
|
Michael |
Owen |
State House |
59 |
No |
|
Rosa |
Palomino |
State House |
112 |
No |
|
Jenna |
Persons |
State House |
78 |
No |
|
Juan |
Rodríguez |
State House |
29 |
No |
|
Michelle |
Salzman |
State House |
1 |
No |
|
Gary |
Scott |
State House |
42 |
No |
|
Jeremy |
Sisson |
State House |
47 |
No |
|
John |
Snyder |
State House |
82 |
No |
|
Alexandria |
Suarez |
State House |
120 |
No |
|
Keith |
Truenow |
State House |
31 |
No |
|
Kaylee |
Tuck |
State House |
55 |
No |
|
Eileen |
Vargas |
State House |
84 |
No |
|
Mike |
Beltran |
State House |
57 |
Yes |
|
Chuck |
Brannan |
State House |
10 |
Yes |
|
Colleen |
Burton |
State House |
40 |
Yes |
|
Mike |
Caruso |
State House |
89 |
Yes |
|
Bob |
Cortes |
State House |
30 |
Yes |
|
Nick |
DiCeglie |
State House |
66 |
Yes |
|
Byron |
Donalds |
State House |
80 |
Yes |
|
Randall |
Fine |
State House |
53 |
Yes |
|
Tommy |
Gregory |
State House |
73 |
Yes |
|
Jim |
Kallinger |
State House |
9 |
Yes |
|
Chip |
LaMarca |
State House |
93 |
Yes |
|
Lydia |
Maldonado |
State House |
90 |
Yes |
|
Stan |
McClain |
State House |
23 |
Yes |
|
Toby |
Overdorf |
State House |
83 |
Yes |
|
Vincent |
Parlatore |
State House |
101 |
Yes |
|
Bobby |
Payne |
State House |
19 |
Yes |
|
Paul |
Renner |
State House |
24 |
Yes |
|
Spencer |
Roach |
State House |
79 |
Yes |
|
Will |
Robinson |
State House |
71 |
Yes |
|
Bob |
Rommel |
State House |
106 |
Yes |
|
Anthony |
Sabatini |
State House |
32 |
Yes |
|
Tyler |
Sirois |
State House |
51 |
Yes |
|
David |
Smith |
State House |
28 |
Yes |
|
Jennifer |
Sullivan |
State House |
31 |
Yes |
|
Matt |
Tito |
State House |
68 |
Yes |
|
Angel |
Urbina |
State House |
62 |
Yes |
|
Joshua |
Adams |
State Senate |
11 |
No |
|
Jennifer |
Bradley |
State Senate |
5 |
No |
|
Jason |
Brodeur |
State Senate |
9 |
No |
|
Tami |
Donnally |
State Senate |
31 |
No |
|
Ileana |
Garcia |
State Senate |
37 |
No |
|
Jason |
Holifield |
State Senate |
5 |
No |
|
Ana |
Rodriguez |
State Senate |
39 |
No |
|
Dennis |
Baxley |
State Senate |
12 |
Yes |
|
Jeff |
Brandes |
State Senate |
24 |
Yes |
|
Keith |
Perry |
State Senate |
8 |
Yes |
|
Wyoming |
||||
|
First Name |
Last Name |
Office |
District Number |
Incumbent |
|
Karl |
Allred |
State House |
19 |
No |
|
Taylor |
Allred |
State House |
21 |
No |
|
Joey |
Correnti |
State House |
47 |
No |
|
Christopher |
Culross |
State House |
14 |
No |
|
Bill |
Fortner |
State House |
52 |
No |
|
Jeremy |
Haroldson |
State House |
4 |
No |
|
Roxie |
Hensley |
State House |
45 |
No |
|
Camilla |
Hicks |
State House |
6 |
No |
|
Julie |
McCallister |
State House |
47 |
No |
|
Michael |
Pedry |
State House |
38 |
No |
|
Martin |
Phillips |
State House |
3 |
No |
|
Rachel |
Rodriguez-Williams |
State House |
50 |
No |
|
Nina |
Webber |
State House |
24 |
No |
|
Lyle |
Williams |
State House |
18 |
No |
|
Bill |
Winney |
State House |
22 |
No |
|
Chuck |
Gray |
State House |
57 |
Yes |
|
Mark |
Jennings |
State House |
30 |
Yes |
|
Dan |
Laursen |
State House |
25 |
Yes |
|
Tyler |
Lindholm |
State House |
1 |
Yes |
|
Clarence |
Styvar |
State House |
12 |
Yes |
|
Tim |
French |
State Senate |
18 |
No |
|
Ryan |
Jackson |
State Senate |
28 |
No |
|
Richard |
Jones |
State Senate |
18 |
No |
|
Craig |
Malmstrom |
State Senate |
10 |
No |
|
Tim |
Salazar |
State Senate |
26 |
No |
|
Linda |
Weeks |
State Senate |
20 |
No |
|
Dan |
Young |
State Senate |
8 |
No |
|
Bo |
Biteman |
State Senate |
21 |
Yes |
|
Jeff |
Wasserburger |
State Senate |
23 |
Yes |
How Law Enforcement Can Steal Your Stuff
Civil asset forfeiture was originally designed to limit the resources available to large-scale criminal enterprises. It morphed into a way for police to confiscate and then keep or sell an individual's property if it is allegedly involved in a crime; the owner does not even need to be arrested or convicted of said crime when police seize cash, cars or real estate.
Through civil asset forfeiture, police are able to seize an individual’s private property with no warrant and without ever pressing charges. This is predicated on the legal fiction that an object can be guilty of a crime, making the property owner’s innocence irrelevant. A mere accusation that a piece of property was involved in illegal activity is sufficient for property to be confiscated by law enforcement.
This poses an obvious risk to property owners, who can have their possessions (cash, cars, houses, and more) stolen by the government without being so much as accused of a crime. It also poses a threat to the integrity of our justice system. When police departments rely heavily on forfeitures for revenue, they will inevitably focus their resources on crimes that are profitable for police, rather than crimes that pose the most serious public harm.
Some states have laws restricting the ability of government officials to seize private property without a conviction. In many cases, state and local laws do not allow seizures which would be permissible by federal officers. Fifteen states require a criminal conviction for most property forfeitures in civil courts, and civil asset forfeiture is banned outright in three states.
The equitable sharing program provides a loophole for law enforcement to collect revenue through forfeitures where local and state laws prohibit the practice. Through equitable sharing, states and localities can forfeit seized properties to federal authorities, who may then “share” as much as 80% of those proceeds with said state and local agencies. From 2000 to 2013, equitable sharing programs raked in $4.7 billion for state and local agencies; it is no wonder that law enforcement fights so hard to keep the practice alive.
The financial needs of law enforcement obviously do not justify the equitable sharing program. Funding for government operations backed by taxpayers should be transparent.
Under federal law, property owners are required to prove that they did not know about or consent to an illegal use of their property in order to defend against asset forfeiture. Proving a negative is a difficult thing to do, and equitable sharing means that this standard can be applied even in areas where forfeiture reform has taken place.
In addition to creating perverse incentives for law enforcement, equitable sharing undermines federalism. When Tony Jalali allowed two medical marijuana dispensaries to rent his retail property in full compliance with California law, he should have been protected by state laws banning forfeiture of property worth over $40,000 without a criminal conviction. But through equitable sharing, the federal government was able to seize his property. He was able to win back his property after a year of litigation and with help from the Institute for Justice, but otherwise the local government could have taken 80% of his residential property value; the federal government would have kept the rest.
What is more troubling is the fact that Jalali could have had his property taken from him even if he had had no knowledge of the activities of his tenant. For example, the landlord of an apartment in which a tenant produced or sold drugs, or the owner of a car in which a friend drove erratically, could have the apartment or car confiscated by the government. Because of equitable sharing, states are by and large powerless to prevent these seizures.
Americans shouldn’t need the full force of a major public interest law firm just to hold on to their own property. The equitable sharing program needs to be reexamined in order to bolster the independence of state and local governments. Moreover, civil asset forfeiture needs to be reformed at the state, local, and federal levels.
Photo Credit: Michael Robert
Biden and Harris Slam Uber and Lyft But Have Used them Over 1,400 Times
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have slammed the ridesharing model, in and of itself, as a form of worker exploitation.
On March 7, Biden said he opposed allowing rideshare drivers to continue as independent contractors because "we can't let corporations undermine basic rights."
But that hasn't stopped Biden and Harris from using the services for themselves. In fact the Harris and Biden campaigns have used Uber and Lyft on at least 1,456 occasions, according to FEC reports.
Despite their assertion that the core rideshare model is exploitative, their campaigns, collectively, have spent $80,593 on Uber/Lyft rides. Biden’s campaign has spent $11,695.17 on 400 Uber/Lyft transactions, while Harris’s campaign spent $68,898.32 on 1,056 Uber/Lyft transactions. This spending was done over the duration of their respective presidential campaigns.
For example, a single July 26, 2019 disbursement shows "Kamala Harris for the People" spent $2,260.14 on Uber transportation.
A single March 5, 2020 disbursement shows "Biden for President" spent $292.97 on an Uber ride or rides.
Two days later, on March 7, Biden vowed to end the freedom for drivers to work as independent contractors, because he said: "We can't let corporations undermine basic rights." His campaign continued to use Uber and Lyft.
It is worth noting that 72% of app-based drivers in California would prefer to maintain independent contractor status. Additionally, by a 3-1 ratio, Americans consider rideshare app drivers to be independent contractors, as opposed to employees. Pew Research notes, in a large rideshare survey, that "the clear preference for a light regulatory approach among partisans in all camps is striking." On this issue, Americans are not on the same page as the Biden/Harris campaign.
Most independent contractors, even outside of ridesharing, become an IC because they aren't bound to a company. They are free to work when, where, and how they want. Many app-based drivers partner simultaneously with the direct competitors of the platforms.
At a time when households need to juggle taking care of their families, schooling, and health, independent contracting is more important now than it has ever been. Additionally, with the country's gaze towards making a more just society for people of color, Uber and Lyft have been an incredible source of transportation for once underserved communities. By a 5:1 ratio, residents of majority-minority neighborhoods say rideshare services like Uber and Lyft “serve neighborhoods taxis won’t visit" according to a landmark Pew Research Center survey.
This is significant because a lack of access to easy, quick, and cheap transportation can have a malignant effect on the rest of one's life. According to the CDC, access to transportation is one of the most significant social determinants of health. Further, Uber/Lyft have offered a safe alternative to potentially dangerous situations. Many have opted for ridesharing rather than driving while intoxicated. Vulnerable populations, being primarily women, who are wary of walking or taking public transportation at late hours are given the option of a quick get-away with rideshare services.
The anti-independent contractor Assembly Bill 5, passed in California has resulted in an untold number of people losing their jobs and small businesses having to close their doors. Biden and Harris have endorsed AB5 as well as the federal PRO Act, which would impose AB5 insanity on a national level.
A survey done by Edelman Intelligence reported that, without the extra income, rideshare and food delivery app drivers in California wouldn’t be able to put money away for a rainy day (76%), provide for themselves and their family (73%), pay their bills (73%), put food on the table (65%), and pay rent/mortgage (67%). Nearly 72% of rideshare and food delivery app drivers support Proposition 22, a ballot initiative which would override Assembly Bill 5 by considering app-based drivers independent contractors and not employees or agents.
It’s clear that this law will have dire effects on the livelihoods of rideshare drivers, despite the purported goal of “protecting” workers. Both Biden and Harris were seemingly apprehensive about coming out to support these laws during their respective presidential campaigns, but still gave in to the party’s leftist base.
In fact, Kamala Harris could be found praising ridesharing just a few years ago.
In the 23rd minute of the video below, Harris says, "Who of you has heard of Uber or these other car services? Right? Where you can go onto your smartphone and you can through GPS get a car to pick you up. And that car will know where you are because of the GPS and you’ll know what cars are in that area because of GPS. And so you get into the car right away and you are off. Very efficient! Changing one of the oldest business models called taxi services."
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
State news
Top Stories
