Massachusetts is home to the 16th worst Business Tax Climate in the United States, according to the Tax Foundation. Aside from high taxes and a poorly structured code, small businesses in Massachusetts contend with soaring rent and costly regulatory regimes. Despite all of this and after suffering from a year of economic downturn, pandemic-induced lockdowns, and new expenses, small businesses in Massachusetts face even more new fees and regulations from their state government. 

Members of the Massachusetts legislature are again considering a real-time sales tax remittance requirement for retailers, which does not increase revenue for state coffers like other tax grabs, but does impose significant new costs on employers at a time when many businesses are struggling just to stay open. While this misguided proposal wouldn’t raise any new revenue, a real-time sales tax collection and remittance requirement would force businesses to create an entirely new payment system that would saddle employers with new compliance costs, further reducing the job-creating and sustaining capacity of Bay State small businesses while raising new privacy concerns for consumers.

The retail infrastructure required to fully comply with a real-time sales tax remittance mandate does not exist. Current payment processors only collect a final purchase amount and aren’t built to collect the data required to remit a sales tax instantaneously. As a result, the real-times sales tax requirement some on Beacon Hill are calling for would force businesses and financial institutions to build new systems from scratch in order to comply, all to generate no new revenue, just earlier collection. The State Tax Research Institute estimatesthat this process would cost businesses almost 1.2 billion dollars in costs.

Aside from the added costs, the real-time sales tax proposal raises significant consumer privacy and information security questions. The current sales tax collection and remittance system is already a complex web that requires coordination from multiple government agencies and stakeholders. Any new information needed to make a transaction compliant presents another point of attack for bad actors to access even more consumer information. 

Forcing the nation’s first real-time sales tax requirement on employers would only serve to make Massachusetts a more costly and less hospitable place to do business and invest. The real-time sale tax proposal being advocated for in Massachusetts would inflict pain on in-state employers, with no gain for state coffers. This misguided policy would create no additional revenue for the state. It would only levy new rules and associated costs for businesses that are just beginning to recover from the adverse effects of the pandemic-driven downturn. Several state legislatures have proposed and eventually rejected instant sales tax remittance because they ultimately understood that it was an onerously expensive and unnecessary policy that brought no new revenue to the state. Massachusetts lawmakers should heed the lessons from those failed attempts. 

Reporting from Watford City, North Dakota, the Fargo Forum interviewed local residents regarding President Biden’s hostility to oil and gas workers:

"I think everybody up here feels like we’re absolutely screwed," said Tara Paul, a Denver native who followed her sons to western North Dakota oil country just months before the pandemic hit.

Despite the claims of the Biden administration, workers cannot simply switch to working on solar panels. One of Tara’s sons, Shawn, shared his frustration over Biden’s lack of empathy:

For Shawn, 23, even if oil prices rebound in the next few years, the Biden climate agenda and the newly secured Democratic control in Washington look like writing on the wall for his long-term hopes in the oil business. "You build your lifestyle on these things, and you have to change your whole life up because of politics," Shawn said.

On Dec. 19, 2019, Biden said he would be willing to displace "hundreds of thousands of blue collar workers" in pursuit of a "Green New Deal."

Biden also suggested energy workers who lose their job due to his policies should learn to code.

On Dec. 30, 2019, Joe Biden said: "Anybody who can go down 300 to 3,000 feet in a mine can sure as hell learn to program as well...Give me a break! Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program, for god's sake!”

If you would like to read the rest of the Fargo Forum article, it can be found here.

New Hampshire may soon join the list of 27 right-to-work states, giving private sector workers the freedom to choose whether or not they join and pay dues to a union. This would be a huge win for employees across the Granite State and a boon to the economy. 

Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, public sector workers in New Hampshire and across the country are no longer forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment. That landmark victory for workplace freedom, however, did not apply to private sector unions. Private sector employees in states that do not have right-to-work laws in place still do not have this basic right to choose.  

But now that New Hampshire is back under Republican control, there is a strong chance that things will soon change. Sen. John Reagan’s Senate Bill 61, which was recently approved by the Senate in a 13-11 vote, would prohibit collective bargaining agreements from including mandatory union dues, making New Hampshire the 28th right-to-work state. This commonsense law, if enacted, would give New Hampshire private sector workers the freedom to exercise their First Amendment right to decide to associate or not associate with an organization and give them the option to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks. 

In addition, SB 61 is also smart economic policy. Scholarly research over the years has found that right-to-work states are more prosperous than forced-unionism states. The National Institute for Labor Relations Research, for example, found that the percentage growth in the number of people employed from 2009-2019 was 16.9% for right-to-work states and just 9.6% in forced unionism states.  

These findings are not surprising. Right-to-work laws make states significantly more attractive to businesses looking to expand. John Boyd, founder of the Boyd Company, a business consulting firm that advises where to make job-creating investments, explained that right-to-work is a “common denominator among states attracting both aerospace and other types of advanced manufacturing.” 

“I believe right-to-work, along with lower business taxes and workers compensation costs, will make New Hampshire more competitive and attractive to grow and locate a business,” said Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, who is a cosponsor of the bill. 

Joining Sen. Reagan and Leader Bradley as co-sponsors of SB 61 are Senate President Chuck Morse, Sen. Gary Daniels, Sen. Bill Gannon, Sen. James Gray, Sen. Harold French, Rep. Richard Marston, Rep. Carol McGuire, Rep. Alicia Lekas, and Rep. James Spillane. SB 61 has been placed at the top of House Speaker Sherman Packard’s legislative agenda and Gov. Chris Sununu, a longtime supporter of right-to-work laws, is expected to sign the bill into law if it reaches his desk.  

Finally making New Hampshire a right-to-work state would be a win for all residents of the Granite State. It would give private sector employees the freedom to choose how they wish to assemble and allow them to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks, while also attracting new jobs and opportunities. 

Oklahoma Lawmakers Should Reject Price Controls

In a letter to the Oklahoma Senate Appropriations Committee, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, urged lawmakers to reject Senate Bill 734, which would impose price controls on prescription medication.

If implemented, SB 734 would cap the amount state-regulated commercial insurance plans could pay for prescription drugs at a reference price. “[T]his bill, which is a price control, would jeopardize innovation in the pharmaceutical industry and result in patients having less access to their medicines,” warned Norquist.

To read the full letter, click here.

February 25, 2021

To: Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee

From: Americans for Tax Reform

Re: Oppose Senate Bill 734, Price Controls on Prescription Medications

Dear Senator,

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and our supporters across Oklahoma, I urge you to oppose Senate Bill 734, legislation that would cap the amount state-regulated commercial insurance plans can pay for prescription drugs at a “reference price.” If implemented, this bill, which is a price control, would jeopardize innovation in the pharmaceutical industry and result in patients having less access to their medicines.

Currently in the United States, it costs around $2.6 billion and takes approximately 10 years – which includes the six to seven-year clinical trial process the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires for drug approval – for a new drug to enter the market. Given this long and expensive process, it is unsurprising that less than 12 percent of drugs that begin preclinical testing make it to approval.

As such, forcefully reducing the price of prescription medications is a very shortsighted “solution.” Legislation such as SB 734 would leave pharmaceutical manufacturers with fewer resources available to invest in the next generation of lifesaving and life-improving medicines. Similarly, it would also make it more difficult for potential manufacturers to successfully launch their operations. This would result in the people of Oklahoma being left with even fewer, lower quality choices.

Buttressing this point is experience from countries with a more heavy-handed approach to healthcare policy, which has demonstrated that government intervention neither lowers costs nor increases access. Rather, it stifles development, creates shortages, and leads to fewer choices for consumers and patients.

The best thing state lawmakers can do to mitigate rising healthcare costs is embrace free market solutions, which promote the competition that spurs innovation, improves quality, increases the number of available options, and naturally keeps prices low. ATR opposes Senate Bill 734 and urges lawmakers to vote NO.

Sincerely,

Grover Norquist

President

Americans for Tax Reform