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."
New CBO Report Finds TCJA Made Tax Code More, Not Less Progressive
Democrats routinely claim that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed by Congressional Republicans and signed into law by President Trump in 2017 cut taxes for the rich. President Biden, Nancy Pelosi and others have repeatedly called the bill a “tax scam” that did little or nothing for the middle class.
However, new data from the Congressional Budget Office found that the TCJA made the tax code more progressive, not less. The report found that the top one percent of earners and the top 20 percent of earners paid a greater share of income taxes and federal taxes after the TCJA was signed into law:
- The top one percent of earners paid 38.6 percent of income taxes in 2017 and 41.7 percent of income taxes in 2018.
- The top 20 percent of earners paid 87.1 percent of income taxes in 2017 and 90.9 percent of income taxes in 2018.
- The top one percent of earners paid 25.5 percent of all federal taxes in 2017 and 25.9 percent of income taxes in 2018.
- The top 20 percent of earners paid 69.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2017 and 69.8 percent of federal taxes in 2018.
This latest report proves that the claim the TCJA benefited the rich is merely a left-wing talking point. American families at every income level saw strong tax reduction including the middle class.
According to IRS statistics of income data analyzed by Americans for Tax Reform, households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 saw their average tax liability drop by over 13 percent between 2017 and 2018. By comparison, households with income over $1 million saw a far smaller tax cut averaging just 5.8 percent.
Thanks to the TCJA, millions of Americans saw an increased child tax credit, and millions more qualified for this tax cut for the first time. The TCJA expanded the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 and raised the income thresholds so millions of families could take the credit. In 2017, 22 million households earning $200,000 or less took the child tax credit. These households received an average tax credit of $1,213.
By 2018, 36 million households earning $200,000 or less took the child and other dependent tax credit. These households received an average credit of $2,002.
The TCJA repealed the Obamacare individual mandate tax by zeroing out the penalty. Prior to the passage of the bill, the mandate imposed a tax of up to $2,085 on households that failed to purchase government-approved healthcare. Five million people paid this in 2017, and 75 percent of these households earned less than $75,000.
The tax cuts also resulted in businesses giving their employees pay bonuses, pay raises, increased 401(k) matches, and new employee benefit programs.
Even left-leaning media outlets have (eventually) acknowledged the tax cuts benefited middle class families. The Washington Post fact-checker gave Biden’s claim that the middle class did not see a tax cut its rating of four Pinocchios. The New York Times characterized the false perception that the middle class saw no benefit from the tax cuts as a “sustained and misleading effort by liberal opponents."
While Biden and Democrats continue to mislead about the benefits of the TCJA, the fact is, this law reduced taxes for middle class families across the country and made the tax code more, not less progressive.
Photo Credit: Victoria Pickering
Muriel Bowser's Anti-Science Policies Are Costing Her Constituents Their Lives
Despite the fact that every American has access to a safe, effective Coronavirus vaccine, Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser has re-instituted a mask mandate in the District- including for vaccinated individuals. This action is in direct contrast to the words of the leader of Bowser’s party, Joe Biden, who said: “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in an ICU unit, and you’re not going to die.” Bowser’s mandate demonstrates a mistrust in the effectiveness of the vaccine which is contrary to settled science. This is just one of many anti-science actions taken during Muriel Bowser’s tenure. On July 21, 2021, Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser officially banned the sale of flavored Tobacco. Bowser’s mandate and ban call into question the Mayor’s priories, as murders and crime ravage the District at record rates.
Bowser has attempted to paint the ban as a victory for communities of color. However, her actions will have the opposite effect. They will actually harm communities of color, as “smokers who use sweet-flavored vapor products were 43% more likely to quit smoking than those who used unflavored or tobacco flavored vapor products.” Reduced risk tobacco alternatives, such as personal vaporisers, have been overwhelmingly proven to be 95% safer than combustible cigarettes, and at least twice as effective as more traditional nicotine replacement therapies, leading to the sharpest declines in both adult and youth smoking on record. So, by banning flavored tobacco products, Bowser is eliminating a commonly used and effective pathway to overcoming nicotine addiction.
Overregulation of tobacco products creates black market demand, causing smokers to use riskier, totally unregulated forms of tobacco. For example, in Minnesota, where tobacco taxes are 7 times higher than neighboring states, 35% of all tobacco consumed comes from illicit sources. Bowser’s ban will likely create a similar effect, putting her constituents at rick of consuming harmful, unregulated tobacco products. Furthermore, most tobacco smuggling is operated by multi-million dollar organized crime syndicates that also engage in human trafficking, money laundering, and have been shown to use their profits to fund terrorism. As a result, the US State Department has explicitly labeled tobacco smuggling as “a threat to national security”.
By giving her attention to ineffective tobacco policies, Bowser has proven herself derelict in her duty to protect the people of her city. So far in 2021, there have been 234 homicides in and around Washington DC, with the vast majority of victims being people of color. If Bowser were serious about protecting communities of color, she would focus on stopping the record-setting crime in her city instead of banning life-saving products.
Bowser’s priorities are obviously out of whack. The Mayor’s anti-science policies are costing her constituents their lives.
IRS Agents Accidentally Discharged Guns More Often than They Intentionally Fired Them
Inspector General found that “Special agents not properly trained in the use of firearms could endanger the public, as well as their fellow special agents, and expose the IRS to possible litigation over injuries or damages”
President Biden's push to increase the size and power of the IRS has significant criminal justice ramifications. The agency has a long and poor track record of misusing service weapons and ensuring agents receive the required firearms training. This failure to follow basic procedures puts American lives and property in danger.
According to a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), special agents at the IRS Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CI) accidentally fired their weapons more often than they intentionally fired them:
“According to documentation provided by all 26 CI field offices, the NCITA, and the TIGTA OI, there were a total of eight firearm discharges classified as intentional use of force incidents and 11 discharges classified as accidental during FYs 2009 through 2011.”
Additionally, the audit found that that some special agents did not meet all of the firearms training or qualification requirements:
“Field office management did not always take consistent and appropriate actions when a special agent failed to meet the requirements because the guidance is vague. In addition, there is no national-level review of firearms training records to ensure that all special agents meet the qualification requirements.”
This lackadaisical approach to firearm safety has led to easily preventable accidents. The Inspector General cryptically references accidental discharges that caused "property damage or personal injury":
“In three of the four accidental discharges that were not reported, the accidental discharges may have resulted in property damage or personal injury.”
The details of these incidents are for some reason redacted in the report:
As the agents are authorized to carry weapons, they must meet certain firearms training and qualification standards.
In order to carry or use an IRS-owned weapon, agents must: engage in handgun firing training at least once each quarter, shoot at least the minimum of 75 percentage points on the firearms qualifying test using the issued handgun during two nonconsecutive quarters, participate in biannual firearms building entry exercises, participate in an annual briefing on firearms safety and security policies and CI’s directives and procedures regarding the safe handling and storage of firearms, and participate in a briefing each quarter regarding the policy of discharging a firearm at a moving vehicle.
CI’s National Criminal Investigation Training Academy (NCITA) is responsible for implementing the formalized firearms training and qualification program nationwide. This includes developing the firearm qualification requirements they are expected to meet and the training special agents will undergo. Despite these requirements, CI agents have regularly failed to stay up to date on training or report incidents, endangering the taxpayers they are supposed to protect.
Insufficient procedures for special agents who do not meet firearms qualification requirements
TIGTA found 24 special agents who did not meet the requirement to qualify with the weapon concealed and 48 special agents who did not qualify while wearing warrant service apparel. In all, 13 special agents did not meet both those requirements, while nine of the 13 also did not meet the biannual standard requirement. Making matters worse, the agency failed to secure the firearms of those who did not meet their requirements:
“controls did not ensure that CI personnel properly secured firearms when special agents failed to meet the biannual standard qualification requirement. CI was only able to provide evidence that firearms were surrendered in nine of the 27 instances when special agents did not qualify. The Criminal Investigation Management Information System was only updated to reflect the custody change in four of those nine instances.”
The agency did not keep track of special agents on temporary assignment to another field office:
"In addition, controls did not ensure that special agents on temporary assignment to another field office met the firearm qualification requirements."
The report also found that:
"controls did not ensure that CI personnel properly secured firearms when special agents
failed to meet the biannual standard qualification requirement. CI was only able to provide evidence that firearms were surrendered in nine of the 27 instances when special agents did not qualify."
Ultimately, TIGTA's analysis of the qualification process led to some damning conclusions:
"Considering the gravity of carrying and using a firearm, there should be no margin for error in the firearms training and certification program. By not having effective procedures to ensure special agents are qualified to carry and use a firearm when needed, CI risks endangering other special agents and the public. In addition, the IRS could be held liable for injuries or damage resulting from special agents using a firearm who have not met the required qualifications."
Investigations are put at risk when special agents do not meet firearms training requirements
Despite the importance of firearm training, TIGTA could not always determine if offices conducted training:
"we could not always determine if the field offices conducted the required training or if all special agents participated in the necessary training because field office supporting documentation varied among the locations. For example, two locations did not always document that they conducted training or which special agents attended. This lack of documentation was the main reason we could only verify that 78 (13.1 percent) of the 597 special agents in our judgmental sample met all of their training requirements during FY 2011."
In addition, the Inspector General noted that "there were numerous unexplained absences" that led to firearms training not being conducted.
Special agents are required to surrender their weapons when they fail to participate in this training, however this often does not happen:
"However, there is currently little consequence for special agents who fail to meet the training requirements listed on the checklist. The responses of field office management and the UFCs from the four field offices varied as to the actions taken after a special agent missed such training. The responses included:
- The UFC will try to schedule makeup training, but the special agent needs to at least qualify to keep the firearm.
- Management will speak to the special agent personally if there is a pattern of unexcused absences.
- Depending on the circumstances, the special agent may have to surrender the firearm if management concludes that the reason for missing the training was not sufficient.
- Management will discuss the circumstances with the supervisory special agent and emphasize the importance of training attendance. However, missed training would not result in the surrender of the firearm."
These lapses by the IRS-CI could torpedo their ability to effectively try cases:
"Court decisions in the past have held law enforcement entities liable because their law enforcement agents did not have training that reflected the environment that they would likely encounter, such as training involving moving targets and low-light conditions. Other court decisions underscored the importance of properly documenting firearms training. One decision dismissed the claims against a law enforcement entity that maintained thorough records that showed the law enforcement personnel had been trained. Another decision upheld a jury’s conclusion that undocumented police training did not constitute adequate training."
The IRS-CI regularly failed to ensure their agents met firearms training and qualification requirements. This failure could have grave consequences for the public. As noted in the report:
"If there is insufficient oversight, special agents in possession of firearms who are not properly trained and qualified could endanger other special agents and the public."
Discharge incidents often went unreported
CI management is required to be notified when a special agent discharges their weapon. CI must report all accidental discharge incidents externally to the TIGTA OI and internally to the NCITA and the Director of Field Operations. Despite these directives, CI did not always properly disclose accidental discharges:
“we found that four accidental discharges were not properly reported. This included two that were not reported to both to the TIGTA OI and the NCITA, one that was not reported to the TIGTA OI, and one that was not reported internally to the NCITA.”
These cases were not reported as a result of CI’s failure to ensure that proper actions were taken after an accidental discharge and conflicting or unclear reporting information.
Agents did not undergo remedial training after discharges due to special agent negligence
Compounding their mistakes, CI agents did not always provide remedial training when an accidental discharge occurred. Even when they did undergo training, the standards remained wildly inconsistent. The report found that:
“two of the four use of force coordinators stated that they may require the special agent to participate in some type of remedial training, one stated that the special agent would be counseled, and one stated that there would be no additional training required."
Given the history the IRS has of misusing its service weapons, the Biden proposal to give the agency even more power and money is alarming to law-abiding taxpayers.
With Lapse of TPA, Biden Rejects Bipartisan Calls for a Taiwan Free Trade Agreement
The Biden Administration recently let Trade Promotion Authority lapse, making any type of comprehensive trade agreement impossible. Just days before, his administration received a bipartisan letter from 42 senators calling on the U.S. Trade Representative to pursue a Free Trade Agreement with Taiwan. A trade agreement with Taiwan, the UK, or even to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is now all but impossible.
Instead, the Biden-Harris administration will resume a limited executive-level Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with Taiwanese officials. As an executive agreement, the TIFA will be nonbinding and avoid any reduction in tariffs or other commitment that would require implementation legislation.
The narrow scope means American workers will be missing out on the massive benefits that free trade with allies like Taiwan has to offer. A bipartisan group of senators say the TIFA talks don't go far enough and they're calling for U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai to pursue a real Free Trade Agreement with Taiwan instead.
In a letter to Ambassador Tai at the end of June, the group of 42 senators led by Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla) and Senator Mark Warner (D-Va) requested that the administration "take steps to begin laying the groundwork for negotiation of a free trade agreement... with Taiwan." This letter follows a previous letter by 50 senators in late 2020 calling for a free trade agreement with Taiwan and a letter by 161 members of Congress in 2019 calling for the same. Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen also stated her own desire for a free trade agreement with the United States last year, and Taiwan's chief trade negotiator John Deng reiterated this desire to U.S. officials last month.
While the United States does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it shares deep economic ties with the island nation. Taiwan is the U.S.'s ninth-largest trading partner in the world, and the U.S. exports more to the island than to France or Italy. The island is particularly important for American farmers as the seventh-largest destination for agricultural exports from the United States.
Taiwan is a strategic technology partner as well, home to companies like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), the global leader in high-end chip production. A trade agreement would incentivize greater technological exchanges between countries and could seal in rules on how to deal with state-owned enterprises, like those found in the USMCA, that would prevent a Chinese takeover of the industry.
Previous free trade talks between the United States and Taiwan had stalled due to trade barriers from the island government, in particular those on U.S. meat exports. As of January 2021, however, Taiwan lifted its restrictions on American pork and beef, showing an open willingness to negotiate and make concessions in order to get a larger deal.
In addition, USTR has previously identified numerous trade barriers from Taiwan that remain today, such as those restricting imports of rice, ground beef, certain animal byproducts, and genetically modified foods. Additionally, Copyright Piracy was one of Taiwan's worst-performing subcategories on the 2020 International Property Rights Index. While Taiwan has made recent progress on combatting copyright infringement, US-Taiwan negotiations could result in robust enforcement for intellectual property belonging to American companies. Without TPA, the Biden Administration ensures these barriers stay intact.
The Biden Administration must shift its focus away from bloated international tax cartels that will harm American workers and toward Free Trade Agreements that will lower trade barriers to provide an economic boost for all countries involved. Taiwan would be a great place to start.
Photo Credit: Pixabay
Heads Up: Infrastructure Bill Paves the Way for a Miles-Traveled Tax
Bill sets up pilot program with the goal of imposing a permanent vehicle mileage tax, shovels money to states to push them to do the same, and spends taxpayer money for politicians to lobby the public to support the tax
The $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill would pave the way for a new miles-driven tax on drivers by creating various pilot programs for a "vehicle per-mile user fee.”
A vehicle miles-traveled tax (VMT) would charge motorists based on how many miles they have traveled and is often pitched by proponents as a means of capturing additional revenue from the American people.
Biden administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, have repeatedly stated that a VMT would violate President Biden’s pledge that he will not raise any taxes on people making less than $400,000 a year.
In March, Secretary Buttigieg was even forced to make an embarrassing walk back of his previous support for a VMT. “No (a VMT) is not part of the conversation about this infrastructure bill,” Buttigieg told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “I just want to make sure that's really clear."
Despite these promises from the Biden administration, $125 million is included in the legislative text to fund the creation of VMT pilot programs. Below are details taken straight from the infrastructure bill:
Spends $75 million doling out grants to State, local and regional transportation departments to set up pilot programs
Section 13001 authorizes $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026 to be distributed as grants by the Secretary of Transportation with the purpose of establishing pilot projects at the State, local, and regional level “to test the feasibility of a road usage fee.”
Taxpayer dollars used to lobby the public for tax hikes
Sections 13001 states that an objective of the pilot programs that the Secretary of Transportation will be responsible for meeting will be “to conduct public education and outreach to increase public awareness regarding the need for user-based alternative revenue mechanisms for surface transportation programs.”
Translation: Taxpayer dollars used to lecture drivers on why they need to pay more taxes. Imagine a public service announce from Pete Buttigieg promoting a miles-traveled tax and paid for by taxpayers.
Spends $50 million creating a national VMT pilot program
Section 13002 authorizes $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026 to carry out the implementation of a national VMT pilot program. Program participants would volunteer to participate in the pilot program with the goal of testing “the design, acceptance, implementation, and financial sustainability of a national motor vehicle per-mile user-fee.” Volunteers would be solicited from all 50 states and include both commercial and passenger vehicles.
Creates an Advisory Board stacked with special interest groups, lobbyists and woke activists
Section 13002 sets up "Federal System Funding Alternative Advisory Board" to make recommendations on the structure, scope and methodology of the pilot program and to carry out a public awareness campaign for the program. The bill mandates that the board shall include representatives of the trucking industry, transportation focused non-profits, and “advocacy groups focused on equity.”
Outlines tools used to track driver’s miles driven
The bill lays out the various “vehicle-miles-traveled-collection tools” that would be used by the federal government to track drivers. These tools include third-party onboard diagnostic devices (GPS tracking devices), smart phone apps, data from automakers and data obtained by car insurance companies.
Photo Credit: WTOP
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Khan Promises FTC Bipartisanship, But Her Record Proves Otherwise
Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee had its first opportunity to ask newly-anointed FTC Chair Lina Khan questions regarding her plan for running the FTC. Congressman Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) questioned, if Khan would “commit to [run the FTC] in a bipartisan fashion where you will consult and coordinate with all commissioners and ensure that they have the resources of the commission available to them on all pending business.” Khan answered affirmatively, stating that she would be “happy to find shared areas of agreement” at the FTC.
What a wonderful sentiment, if only Khan meant it. So far, Khan has launched one of the most partisan crusades in the history of the FTC. She has taken advantage of her temporary 3-2 majority to steamroll consequential changes and smash long-held bipartisan norms. 71 percent of proposals during the Open Commission Meetings have been pushed through with this 3-2 majority. Some of these proposals overturned enforcement principles previously agreed to with bipartisan support. One example is the 2015 “Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding ‘Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the FTC Act,” which was written to limit the FTC’s “standalone” authority over unfair methods of competition when addressing anticompetitive conduct outside of the scope of the Sherman or Clayton Acts. Another example is the Policy Statement on Prior Approval and Prior Notice Provisions in Merger Cases, which essentially functions as imposing a decade-long merger tax on corporations.
Even though Khan said that “staff is always available to provide analysis and assessment and commissioners are routinely requested that analysis from staff and staff is providing it,” FTC commissioners from the Republican minority have disagreed with that description. Commissioner Christine Wilson has discussed that the loss of “full consultation with staff through oral briefings,” along with “comprehensive memoranda” and “a robust dialogue amongst the commissioners” has harmed her ability to make fully informed decisions, as they only give monologues that are “akin to theater.”
We may not know for a long time the perspective of staffers on the impacts of this half-fast procedural approach due to an agency-wide gag order. Jen Howard, Khan’s chief of staff, has put a “moratorium on public events and press outreach.” The internal and external silencing of FTC staffers under Khan is troubling. Thankfully, Khan has been unable to silence commissioners that have emphasized her careless changes to long-standing procedures.
House Republicans, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-Wash.), Rep. Jim Jordan [R-Ohio], and James Comer [R-Ky.], wrote a letter to the FTC denouncing these radical reforms. They noted that “reports suggest radical changes at the FTC may be damaging morale and having significant negative effects on experienced FTC staff.”
Khan reckless pursuit of “reforming” the FTC appears to be willingly ignoring the commissioners outside of the temporary Democrat majority and the perspectives of other scholars. Despite Khan’s words promising bipartisanship, her actions promote a partisan transformation of the agency.
Photo Credit: New America
Infrastructure Bill Contains $14.5 Billion Superfund Tax Hike, Hits Critical Minerals
The $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill making its way through the Senate contains a $14.55 billion tax hike on American chemical and mineral producers.
Section 80201 of the bill would revive long-expired Superfund excise taxes at twice their previous level. This direct tax hike on American producers would result in higher prices for consumers, threaten thousands of jobs, and undermine domestic critical mineral development.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has introduced an amendment (#2388) that would strike the inclusion of the Superfund Excise Tax from the bill. Americans for Tax Reform supports the Cruz amendment and urges lawmakers to vote in favor of the amendment.
The Superfund taxes were last in effect in the mid-1990s, when Congress allowed them to expire on the grounds that they were burdensome and unnecessary. Despite being sold as a "user-fee" to fund the Hazardous Substance Superfund, only $3.5 billion of $14.55 billion of new revenue projected by the Joint Committee on Taxation is authorized for the Superfund.
Critical Minerals are hit by the tax
The tax would apply to a list of 42 chemicals and minerals. Four of these substances—Arsenic, Antimony, Chromium, and Cobalt—are listed as “critical minerals” by the Department of Interior, which means they are “essential to the economic and national security of the United States” and have supply chains that are “vulnerable to disruption.”
Increasing taxes on critical minerals contradicts the stated goals of lawmakers seeking to ramp up our domestic critical mineral supply chain. It makes little sense to impose harsh tax hikes on these vital resources, especially at a time when policymakers are growing increasingly concerned about the potential for countries like China to cause problems for American supply chains.
Coalition of taxpayer groups opposes the Superfund Excise Tax
A coalition of taxpayer advocacy organizations, including Americans for Tax Reform, wrote a letter in July expressing concern about the implications of reimposing the Superfund excise taxes: “A tax increase on job creators, individuals, or consumers is always a precarious endeavor, but in the midst of a recovery from a downturn precipitated by the response to the pandemic could threaten our economic vitality in the years to come.”
Threatens 7,500 Jobs
An economic analysis by the American Chemistry Council found that nearly 7,500 jobs would be at risk if the tax increase were passed. Moreover, 44 plants that produce critical chemicals, minerals, and metals could potentially be forced to shut down.
The following chemicals and minerals would be subject to Superfund excise taxes:
|
Lawmakers should put American consumers first and remove this tax increase from the bipartisan infrastructure package.
Photo Credit: Meetthemets18
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Bring Home the Bacon? Not in California You Won’t
The Californian government has made many mistakes over the last several years. It overtaxed its people, allowed homelessness to overrun its cities, and crippled its economy with crushing lockdowns, but this time it’s gone too far:
It came for people’s bacon.
On January 1, California will begin enforcing an animal welfare law passed by voters in 2018 that requires more space for breeding pigs, along with egg-laying chickens and veal calves.
While veal and egg producers believe they can meet the new standards, only 4% of hog operations meet them. This means that unless the state allows non-compliant meat to be sold, California projects to lose almost half of its pork supply. A Hatmiya Group study estimated that it could make pork prices soar. In fact, “the price of bacon could rocket up by 60 percent.”
So much for “bringing home the bacon”.
This is yet another blow for many restaurants across the state recovering from lockdowns, since bacon is a very popular food item. “Our number one seller is bacon, eggs and hash browns,” said Jeannie Kim, who for 15 years has run SAMS American Eatery on San Francisco's busy Market Street. “It could be devastating for us.”
Even worse, many did not even realize this would be happening. “KPIX-5 called dozens of restaurants, stores and meat markets Monday and very few were aware of what may be coming. That included Concord caterer Rogie Purificacion, who said pork is a staple in Hispanic and Asian cooking.”
Another Californian, Jenny Flannagan, remembered the “chicken law” but didn’t realize it would affect bacon as well. “It’s kind of sad. It would be nice to know what we were voting for,” she said. “I don’t think anybody knows about this.”
With less than half a year left until the law takes effect, it is very unlikely that the pork industry will manage to adapt in time. California consumes around 15% of pork produced in the country. The pork industry has filed multiple lawsuits to stop this law, but so far, the Courts have favored California. The National Pork Producer Council, alongside restaurants and other business groups, has asked Governor Newsom to delay the requirements.
Over the last two years California has passed regulations that have crushed freelancers’ ability to operate, created diversity quotas for corporate boards, used taxpayer dollars to create a task force on reparations, and passed even more laws to limit its citizens’ ability to obtain a legal firearm.
Should this pork law take effect in January, the good people of California have the perfect chance to show us what they value more: Onerous, overbearing business regulations or their bacon.
Photo Credit: Anggun Tan
More from Americans for Tax Reform
FTC Letters Put American Companies In "Mother-May-I" Relationship With Unelected Bureaucrats
The Federal Trade Commission has started sending letters warning certain companies engaged in mergers and acquisitions (M+A) to proceed “at their own risk” until the FTC weighs in, according to a blog post from Bureau of Competition Director Holly Vedova.
This is yet another part of FTC Chair Lina Khan’s plan to put every company in a “Mother-May-I” relationship with the government. These letters will only serve to dissuade companies from engaging in future M+A activity, a massive driver of innovation and economic growth.
The Hart Scott Rodino Act of 1976 requires companies engaging in M+A activity above a certain threshold to notify the FTC and Department of Justice, the two agencies that enforce antitrust law, before the transaction is consummated. After a company provides the FTC and DOJ with a detailed filing with information about the transaction, the agencies have 30 days to determine if the transaction is anticompetitive in nature.
If a bureaucrat determines that the M+A activity under review will negatively impact competition in a relevant market, the FTC or DOJ can request more information or materials from the filing parties, also known as a “second request.” Generally, the reviewing agency then has another 30 days to examine the new information once the company fulfills the second request.
If the reviewing agency believes that the transaction will harm competition, it can file an injunction in federal court to prevent the transaction from being consummated. If the reviewing agency does not challenge the transaction before the waiting period expires, the transaction goes ahead unimpeded.
In the letters, the FTC is warning companies against making deals even if the agency does not challenge the transaction before the waiting period expires. The letters threaten legal action and “aggressive enforcement” of antitrust law against companies that consummate a transaction after the waiting period expires and before the FTC weighs in. This could lead to deals being delayed for months or even years as companies wait for an FTC bureaucrat’s approval.
Not only will the FTC’s aggressive posture likely lead to companies abandoning current pending deals, it will dissuade firms from engaging in innovation-driving M+A activity in the future.
Mergers generally increase efficiency that reduces production costs, leading to lower prices and increased output for shoppers. Acquisitions allow larger firms to quickly deliver innovative new products to consumers because they have the scale and infrastructure to do so. More than half of all startups say that their most realistic long-term goal is to be acquired by a larger firm, providing a key incentive for entrepreneurs to assume the massive risk that comes with starting a new company. M+A activity ultimately benefits all Americans with lower prices and greater access to innovative products and services.
Ultimately, Khan’s tenure so far has created an enormous cloud of uncertainty for American companies, exactly the opposite of what the economy needs as we attempt to rebound from a pandemic-induced recession. These letters are just the latest example of Khan’s partisan weaponization of the FTC and will have a massive chilling effect on current and future M+A activity.
Cryptocurrency Missteps in the Infrastructure Bill
The 2,700-page bipartisan infrastructure package includes a cryptocurrency provision as a pay-for sparking intense activity to get this language corrected. The current language on cryptocurrency and digital asset reporting requirements would undermine the entire ecosystem and jeopardize the privacy of millions of Americans with its overly broad and vague reporting requirements on cryptocurrency and digital assets.
As written, cryptocurrency brokers and individuals involved in crypto transactions will be required to file tax returns if they receive more than $10,000 in a transaction. Such a threshold opens the door to fishing expeditions into taxpayers. Proponents argue this a way to generate more tax revenue. The Joint Committee on Taxation claims that this proposal will raise approximately $28 billion in revenue to offset some $550 billion in spending, but that figure is contrived. The extreme volatility of the of crypto markets raises skepticism of how they arrived at that figure.
While not generating any real revenue, the new requirement would impose a real cost on users from the time and labor it takes to collect and identify all the information needed to file tax returns to the IRS. Cryptocurrency brokers, much like stockbrokers, would have to notify cryptocurrency traders of their obligation to report personally identifiable information (PII) for a tax return on any digital asset. The broker will be required to collect the name, address, and phone number of the trader. Brokers will also be required to file returns identifying information on the individuals involved in the transactions.
But the overly broad language as to who is considered a “broker” for crypto and digital assets implicates far too many aspects of the blockchain ecosystem. Fortunately, Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) have echoed the same criticisms, agreeing that the provision would pull in “non-financial intermediaries like miners, network validators, and other service providers,” calling it “unworkable” and saying they would offer an amendment.
IRS reporting requirements remain onerous no matter who has to comply. Least of all should Congress require those who have no insight in to financial aspects of individual or broker accounts to comply with IRS reporting obligations.
In the first half of 2021, the amount of global crypto users doubled to 200 million. This immense growth will be stunted in the face of rushed, ill-conceived regulation.
Congress should attempt to encourage the growth of privately developed and operated digital currencies instead of subjecting them to additional tax requirements, which is more than likely to alienate certain cryptocurrency users and encroach on the privacy of individual cryptocurrency holders.
Photo Credit: Maxim Hopman
More from Americans for Tax Reform
State news
Top Stories
