The Indiana House Committee on Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development will be considering legislation that would impose a first in the nation price control on nonalcoholic beverages. House Bill 1109, if implemented, would prevent distributers of packaged nonalcoholic beverages with a weight volume of 8 ounces or more from offering seasonal promotions and other discounts to Indiana retailers unless they are extended to every store in the state. 

Despite the good intentions behind this bill, it would inflict a great deal of harm on the state economy. “Allowing the government to meddle into negotiations between private businesses in order to impose price controls would actually result in fewer discounts being available, driving prices up and leaving families across Indiana to face higher costs at a time when they can least afford it,” warned Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, in a letter to committee members. “Many of these households along state lines could decide to instead visit stores in Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, or Ohio, hurting Indiana’s small businesses and their employees.”

To read the full letter, click here.

__

January 18, 2022

To: Members of the Indiana House Committee on Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development

From: Americans for Tax Reform

Re: Oppose House Bill 1109

Dear Representative,

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and our supporters across Indiana, I urge you to oppose House Bill 1109, legislation that would jeopardize the right to private contract in order to impose price controls on certain nonalcoholic beverages. If implemented, this bill would inflict a great deal of harm on small businesses and consumers across the Hoosier State.

Under the status quo, all Indiana retailers, from small convenience stores to large chain grocery stores, can negotiate their preferred contract terms with the nonalcoholic beverage industry. This flexibility allows retailers to benefit from seasonal promotions and other price discounts that can be passed onto consumers, ultimately making their stores more competitive than those in surrounding states.

This free-market approach is not unique to Indiana, but is the standard practice used by all retailers and the nonalcoholic beverage industry nationwide. Unfortunately, HB 1109 seeks to disadvantage Indiana retailers by making it illegal for distributers of packaged nonalcoholic beverages with a weight volume of 8 ounces or more to offer special pricing deals in Indiana unless they are extended to every store in the state.

Despite the good intentions behind this bill, it would actually result in a number of negative consequences for the local economy. Allowing the government to meddle into negotiations between private businesses in order to impose price controls would actually result in fewer discounts being available, driving prices up and leaving families across Indiana to face higher costs at a time when they can least afford it. Many of these households along state lines could decide to instead visit stores in Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, or Ohio, hurting Indiana’s small businesses and their employees.

Adding insult to injury, HB 1109 would also drive new investment, jobs, and opportunities away from Indiana. Why would a CEO in any industry want to do business in a state that is known for undermining the right to private contract and has the unwelcome distinction of being the only state in the country to impose price controls on nonalcoholic beverages? There are plenty of other states with lower tax rates that are much less hostile to businesses.

ATR opposes HB 1109 and urges lawmakers to vote NO.

Sincerely,

Grover Norquist

President

Americans for Tax Reform

Californian progressives are looking to implement the nation's first single-payer health care system. To pay for it, they want to double their state's tax burden, which is the third worst in the nation (beaten only by New York and New Jersey). 

California Assemblyman Ash Kalra has proposed an amendment to California's state constitution introducing several taxes to pay for this new system. According to the California Globe, "If enacted, it would impose an excise tax, payroll taxes, and a personal income tax to fund comprehensive, universal single-payer health care coverage, as well as a health care cost control system." According to the Tax Foundation, the amendment would "increase taxes by $12,250 per household, roughly doubling the state's already high tax collections."  

Among the taxes is a payroll tax on employers with over 50 employees. These tax hikes would stunt the growth of small businesses by providing a hard taxing wall that most would avoid. The law also imposes several surtaxes for personal income with a top rate of 2.5%. When combined with the current 13.3% top income tax rate and the 2.25 payroll tax, you are left with a combined maximum marginal rate of 18.05%, more than seven percentage points higher than the state with the next-highest rates (Hawaii, 11 percent) according to the Tax Foundation. 

Finally, the amendment enacts a 2.3% Gross Receipt Tax on businesses. Gross Receipt taxes charge on a company's gross sales, without deductions for a firm's business expenses. These tend to harm businesses with low-profit margins and are generally seen as inefficient and damaging to the economy. Only a few states use them instead of a corporate income tax. California takes this flawed taxing model and makes it even worse.  

Instead of imposing a GRT to replace the income tax, this new amendment imposes it on top of the income tax. As a result, California is burning the candle at both ends, leaving the businesses trapped in the middle. Not only that but California's 2.3% Gross Receipts Tax is "a rate more than three times that of the country's highest current pure GRT," according to the Tax Foundation. 

California progressives need a 2/3 supermajority in both houses to approve to pass this amendment. However, once the taxes have been approved, a simple majority can, and most likely will, raise them. However, before they can do that, they need to clear one last hurdle. For a constitutional amendment to become law, California requires the public to vote on it as a ballot measure. And the people of California are getting tired of high taxes.  

According to a report by the non-partisan California Policy Lab, "Entrances to California from other states have dropped 38% since March of last year, while the number of residents leaving to other states has increased 12%." Californians are tired of the state's overregulation and sky-high taxes and are leaving in higher and higher numbers. Do lawmakers think they will agree to raise taxes even more?  

If Californians approve this amendment, life for Californian taxpayers will become even more untenable. Californians taxes will be doubled while their healthcare is placed in the hands of the same ineffective bureaucrats who can barely run the state. But it doesn't have to be this way. The people have a choice. We hope they choose rightly. 

In order to protect the American people from inflationary spending, U.S. Senators Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) recently introduced the Inflation Prevention Act (IPA). This bill would make it out of order to consider new legislation estimated to increase inflation if year-over-year inflation rate is above 4.5 percent. This restriction could only be waived with a three-fifths majority of lawmakers.

This legislation is four pages long, outlining the policy clearly: 

SEC. 2. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST SPENDING THAT WILL INCREASE INFLATION UNTIL INFLATION IS NOT GREATER THAN 4.5 PERCENT.  

(a) POINT OF ORDER.—  

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the Senate, it shall not be in order to consider a provision in a bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or conference report that provides new budget authority and that is estimated to result in an increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unless the annualized rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers most recently published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not more than 4.5 percent. 

Cosponsors of this legislation include Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), and Steve Daines (R-Mont.). 

This bill is especially necessary now as inflation surges and Democrats repeatedly attempt to pass trillions in new government spending. 

The harm of rampant inflation is blatantly obvious to most Americans outside of Washington. The average U.S. household spent $3,500 more in 2021 due to inflation, according to a Penn Wharton University of Pennsylvania Budget Model analysis.  

Low-income households were disproportionately harmed, as those households spent about 7 percent more while higher-income households spent about 6 percent more. For example, between November 2020 and November 2021, the bottom 20 percent spent $309 more on food, $761 more on energy, $476 more on shelter, $390 on other commodities, and $224 on other services. 

Most recently, the consumer price index, or “inflation,” increased by 7 percent on an annualized basis, a 40-year high. In January 2021, before Joe Biden took over the presidency, annual inflation was at a stable 1.4 percent.  

Not only is inflation harming consumers by increasing household costs, but it could also have long lasting economic damage. Inflation is eroding purchasing power, especially given that wages are decreasing. Real average hourly earnings dropped by 2.4 percent on an annualized basis. 

According to a new Gallup poll, 71 percent of low-income households have reported experiencing financial hardship due to rising prices. Of the 71 percent, 28 percent of low-income households say they have experienced “severe hardship” due to rising prices, and 42 percent say they have experienced “moderate hardship.”   

88 percent of voters say they are concerned about increased inflation, according to a recent Harvard CAPS and Harris poll. When asked what causes inflation, the top three answers were "Massive government spending," "Significant amounts of money being injected in the economy by the Federal Reserve," and "Uncontrollable government deficits."     

Even so, President Biden and Congressional Democrats still seek to pass trillions in new spending, with the full awareness that this kind of spending would be inflationary. 

If lawmakers refuse to take inflation seriously in desperate times, there must be guardrails in place to protect the American people. Lawmakers should support Sens. Scott and Thune’s Inflation Prevention Act (IPA).

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced on Thursday that President Biden's Department of Energy will use taxpayer dollars from the recently enacted infrastructure law to hire 1,000 new government employees tasked with the vague mission of leading a “clean energy revolution.”

In a video released Thursday, Granholm dubbed the new program the “Clean Energy Corps” and revealed that the corps will be funded from the $62 billion appropriated to the department by the recently enacted bipartisan infrastructure law. The addition of 1,000 new bureaucrats to the Department of Energy (DOE) would represent the largest staffing expansion at the department since its creation in 1977.

Modeled off the “Civilian Climate Corps” which aimed to boost young adults’ outdoor recreation

According to reporting from The Hill, the new DOE program is modeled off President Biden and congressional Democrats’ proposed “Civilian Climate Corps (CCC)” -  a make-work program for progressive climate activists to promote “environmental justice.”

In September, President Biden described the CCC as a government program designed to help “young adults find work installing solar panels, planting trees, digging irrigation ditches and boosting outdoor recreation.” The CCC itself is currently stalled as part of the Democrats’ reckless trillion tax and spend package.

Government competing with private business for workers

As Main Street struggles to find workers during a labor shortage, Democrats now plan to recruit and add 1,000 activists to the government payroll, increasing government competition with the private sector for workers. The newly launched application portal for the program stresses that the department is seeking applicants “right out of college” and that experience in clean energy isn’t required so long as individuals are “committed to public service and with a mission of supercharging the clean energy revolution.”   

The so-called "Clean Energy Corps" is a clear effort from the Biden Administration to ram through some version of Democrats's failed effort to create a Civilian Climate Corps, which Congress has thus far rejected.

Taxpayers should not be on the hook for providing progressive climate activists with a government job.