Report on Lifeline Program: Spending on Improper Payments Rose Significantly

A government program with a long running history of waste and abuse was just caught red handed again.
The Federal Communications Commission Inspector General released a report that found that the percentage of improper payments from the Lifeline program rose from 2.93% to 21.93% from 2016 to 2017, accounting for an increase of $295.74 million in waste and fraud in just one year. The report explains the Universal Service Administrative Company’s procedures did not prevent individuals from receiving multiple Lifeline benefits, nor did it prevent ineligible consumers from receiving benefits from the Lifeline program. The report illustrates that FCC rules and Lifeline policies were not able to ensure that service providers received documentation on eligibility. The report identified the Lifeline program as one of four programs susceptible to significant improper payments.
What’s troubling is that these taxpayer dollars were improperly used and took away from funding for qualified low-income users. If the program is to exist at all, we need to be focusing on those who have no broadband access at all, and that means cutting wasteful spending on ineligible participants in the program.
Unfortunately, the program has a long history of abuse. After a three year investigation, in 2017, the Government Accountability Office could not confirm whether 1.2 million individuals enrolled in Lifeline were eligible for the program. In another case of Lifeline abuse, The FCC fined a provider $30 million for knowingly adding fraudulent subscribers to the Lifeline program.
For the 2019 calendar year the budget for the Lifeline program will increase to $2.33 billion as the budget is indexed for inflation yearly in accordance with the Consumer Price Index from the Department of Labor. The current budget for the program is $2.28 billion. This increases the amount of taxpayer dollars exposed to fraud.
The Lifeline program is administered by the USAC, established in 1985 as a fixed dollar subsidy to the carriers for low income Americans to afford basic phone service. Since 2016 the program has also provided reduced pricing for voice-data bundles or stand-alone broadband.
We need to close the digital divide. But the only way we’ll get there is by ensuring that waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars is minimized so those with no broadband service are prioritized.
Photo Credit: xburlesquegrotesquex
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Dems Rushing Through Small Biz Tax Paperwork Mandate in Biden Spending Bill

Congressional Democrats are sneaking through new reporting requirements that will increase tax complexity for independent contractors, small businesses, and freelancers. They have included this proposal in the 200 page manager’s amendment to President Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus bill. This is another attempt by the Left to exploit the COVID-19 crisis by passing unrelated policy measures long desired by progressives.
The provision in question would lower the reporting threshold to $600 or more for 1099-K reporting and eliminates the transactions threshold. Currently, one is only required to report when there is more than $20,000 in sales and more than 200 transactions in a year. The proposal also extends the 1099-K reporting to "specified electronic payment processors."
This would impact freelancers and independent contractors including freelancers compensated via PayPal, Etsy sellers, Airbnb hosts, Uber and Lyft drivers, food delivery couriers, and others participating in the sharing economy.
This provision would end up harming low- and middle-income contractors, small businesses, and freelancers, many of which have been devastated by the coronavirus pandemic. Implementing new, burdensome reporting rules will only do more damage. It is quite ironic that a provision like this may be included in the so-called “American Rescue Plan.”
The House plans to vote on the stimulus package today, so Democrats are trying to rush these provisions through with no debate or public scrutiny.
Democrats last enacted burdensome new 1099 reporting requirements in Obamacare, when they required businesses to send 1099 forms for all purchases of goods and services over $600 annually.
Soon after this provision was signed into law, the National Taxpayer Advocate raised concerns that these reporting requirements would cause “disproportionate” harm to small businesses and do little to improve tax compliance.
This provision was so unpopular that it was quickly repealed in 2011 with a bipartisan vote of 87 to 12 in the Senate and 314 to 112 in the House. The Obama administration even hailed repeal of the provision a “big win” for small businesses in a press release:
“Today, President Obama signed a law that removes the expanded ‘1099’ reporting requirement from the Affordable Care Act. This is a big win for small businesses.
The SBA and President Obama supported repealing this provision, which would have required businesses to send 1099 forms for all purchases of goods and services over $600 annually. With this bipartisan effort, we have removed a requirement that would have been an undue barrier to small business growth.”
This provision being rushed through today is eerily similar to the Obamacare reporting requirement.
We should not make the same mistakes again. Expanding reporting requirements for 1099-K receivers will harm independent contractors, small businesses, and freelancers. Increasing compliance costs and the regulatory burden on already-struggling workers and small business owners is especially alarming given they have been disproportionately harmed by the pandemic.
Photo Credit: Kentucky Democratic Party
Costly Real-Times Sales Tax Collection Proposals would Hurt Small Businesses

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.
States Must Act to Prevent the Taxation of PPP Relief Aid

The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), created in March 2020 as part of the CARES Act, was meant to help businesses retain workers and avoiding permanent closure amid government-mandated lockdowns. PPP loans issued to businesses were forgivable and not subject to federal income tax, so long as 60% of the loans went to keeping employees on the payroll. In some states, however, employers now face the prospect of being hit with higher state taxes as a result of accepting federal relief.
Businesses like Macromatic Industrial Controls in Wisconsin used PPP loans to help keep their workers employed. With taxes due this spring, the company’s president Steve Sundlov had been raising concerns about PPP loans being taxed by the state.
“The PPP money was again presented to us as tax-free money, and those were the rules that we were give,” Sundlov said, adding that “now, it seems like the rules are changing and that’s very difficult to deal with.”
Though it had originally appeared as though Governor Tony Evers (D) was going to subject PPP relief to state taxation, after increasing pressure from the Republican-controlled Wisconsin legislature, Gov. Evers agreed last week to sign into law a bill exempting PPP loans from state income tax.
The prospect of state taxation of PPP loans that Wisconsin lawmakers rectified last week is a problem that’s not limited to Wisconsin. While it was good to see Governor Evers make the right decision, the threat of state taxation of PPP loans continues to hang over employers in many other states. Governors and legislators in a number of states still need to take action to ensure businesses are not subject to higher state taxes on account of their utilization of pandemic aid authorized under the CARES Act.
Unless state legislators in Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, and 16 other states take action soon, PPP relief aid that businesses received during the pandemic will be subject to state taxation because state lawmakers declined to exempt PPP loans as taxable income and disallowed expense deductions. The good news is that legislators in some of those states are in the process of taking such action.
Meanwhile in Maine, the Democrats who run state government seem less concerned about protecting businesses from surprise tax bills on their PPP relief aid. Gov. Janet Mills (D) introduced an executive budget on January 25, 2021 that did not exempt forgiven PPP loans from state income tax. The Governor argued that by taxing this relief aid, the state could get an additional $100 million revenue shortfall on top of the windfall of additional federal revenue that Congress is about to send.
After public backlash, Gov. Mills announced that she would look towards additional aid from the federal government to avoid taxing PPP funds, which the state is sure to get as part of the $1.9 trillion spending package now working its way through Congress.
While efforts to exempt PPP aid from state income tax are encouraging and necessary, lawmakers in many states still need to approve conformity legislation before taxes come due this spring. While Mr. Sundlov’s worries that he will “owe tens of thousands of dollars in income tax” have abated thanks to the prudent action recently taken by Wisconsin lawmakers to conform with the CARES Act’s tax exemption for pandemic relief funds, thousands of other small businesses across the U.S. still face the prospect of unexpected state tax bills. Unless lawmakers in those states act soon, some employers might have to resort to the sort of payroll reductions that PPP loans and the other liquidity enhancing provisions of the CARES Act were designed to prevent.
Photo Credit: Robert English
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Oilfield Welder on Biden's Hostility to Oil and Gas Jobs: "You have to change your whole life up because of politics."

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.
Compilation of Personal Stories from Americans Hurt by Biden's Energy Policy

Americans for Tax Reform is collecting personal testimonials of Americans hit by President Biden's energy restrictions. (If you would like to submit a short video, please send it to Mike Mirsky at mmirsky@atr.org). Please see the examples below:
Pipeline Worker: "I've got my whole life invested in this."
Will New Hampshire Become the Next Right-to-Work State?

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.
Photo Credit: James Walsh
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Biden's Quiet Tax Proposal: Banks Pay Twice

Over the past year, American banks were instrumental in supporting the survival of 51 million American jobs. The Paycheck Protection Program is currently in the middle of a successful second round as banks helped extend a lifeline to over 700,000 small businesses. Banks have been on the front lines throughout the healthcare emergency, retaining thousands of employees and remaining open to help Americans meet their financial needs. They should be applauded. But their resiliency is now a target as Democrats are preparing to tax these institutions at a time when access to affordable financial services is necessary to rebuild a prosperous economy.
President Biden consistently campaigned on reversing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and increasing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, creating the highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world. For banks, S&P Global estimates a tax hike like this could cost the ten largest U.S. banks $7 billion annually.
Bloomberg reported the nation's top six banks saved $32 billion since Trump’s tax cuts. These savings helped them invest in their hundreds of thousands of employees and continue to expand access to affordable financial services and products. Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup raised their minimum wage to $15 per hour after the tax cut. Bank of America increased hourly wages to a minimum of $20 per hour.
The Biden administration also plans on instituting a financial risk fee on banks. Democrats, including Secretary Hillary Clinton, have been pushing for this double tax since 2015. And Biden may find a likely ally in the Senate to spearhead this initiative. During Senator Amy Klobuchar's (D-Minn.) presidential campaign, she proposed a financial risk fee to pay for her “Climate Smart and Green Infrastructure” ambitions. She also chairs the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee which helps craft Senate Democrat's policies.
The mechanics of the financial risk fee could be similar to President Obama’s plan in 2015. His administration proposed an annual seven basis point fee on the non-depository liabilities of financial institutions with assets over $50 billion. These liabilities include Federal Funds Market Repurchase Agreements, commercial paper, and bond issuances, and would directly affect 42 depository institutions with assets over $50 billion. A large institution like Bank of America, which borrows to finance its lending and market-making activities, can see an annual $540 million fee in addition to their record increase in corporate tax.
This tax risks the employment of 1.4 million bank employees, and the tens of millions of customers who rely on these banks daily, especially during the healthcare emergency. Although many small banks would be exempt, this arbitrary penalty would discourage smaller banks from taking on new customers to remain below the $50B asset threshold.
Proponents of these policies claim that taxing bank’s borrowing reduces the chance of bank failures. However, economists have shown that bank taxes like this are ineffective and have failed elsewhere.
Essentially banks could be taxed for simply being banks, serving customers, facilitating financial transactions, and providing loans to small businesses or entrepreneurs. This tax would raise the cost of financial services and punish many of the unbanked and underbanked who need access the most to affordable financial products.
Without banks' further participation in programs like PPP to meet the financial needs of Americans, small businesses could see a pullback in lending, and the economy will be slow to recover. It is inappropriate for the administration to punish the banking sector in light of the essential services they have continued to provide almost a year into the healthcare crisis. Banks should, instead, be rewarded and bolstered for their ongoing support in stimulating the American economic recovery.
Photo Credit: Steve Walser
Letter: Oklahoma Lawmakers Should Reject Price Controls

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
Photo Credit: Jimmy Emerson, DVM
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Pipeline Worker: "I've got my whole life invested in this."

Americans for Tax Reform is collecting personal testimonials of Americans hit by President Biden's executive actions. (If you would like to submit a short video, please send it to Mike Mirsky at mmirsky@atr.org).
Please watch this video from Jason, a member of Pipeliners Local Union 798:
“My name is Jason Jernigan, I’m 45 years old and I’m a member of Local 798, Pipeliners Union. I’ve been a pipeliner for 21 years. This is all I know how to do. The recent administration has taken my livelihood from me and expected me to get a job somewhere else. I’ve got my whole life invested in this.”
See also:
Rise of Personal Shoppers Shows Robust Competition in Same-Day Delivery Market

Coronavirus lockdowns have fueled a massive surge in online shopping, with American e-commerce growing a staggering 44 percent in 2020 and online spending representing 21.3 percent of all sales.
Brick-and-mortar retailers have responded to this demand by rethinking their business models and expanding the resources they dedicate to fulfilling digital orders. The resulting innovation and competition in the evolving same-day delivery market has expanded access to goods and services for American consumers and increased job opportunities for American workers.
Walmart now has over 170,000 “personal shoppers” dedicated to fulfilling online orders. These shoppers receive online orders, pick the items off of shelves, then prepare them for delivery to customers’ homes. These jobs start at over $13 an hour, more than Walmart’s $11 minimum wage, and approximately 40 percent of personal shoppers are existing Walmart employees looking to advance in the company.
The rise of personal shoppers expands access to goods and services for American consumers. With government-mandated lockdowns forcing the entire country into self-isolation, online delivery services have been a lifeline for Americans that need groceries, prescriptions, and other household essentials delivered directly to their door. With stores like Target and Bed Bath and Beyond adding personal shoppers to their respective workforces, consumers will have more places to shop from without leaving their homes.
Competition between companies in the same-day delivery market will also benefit consumers in the form of lower prices and greater perks. Walmart has rolled out Walmart+, a new membership service that directly competes with Amazon Prime by offering same-day delivery, as well as two-hour delivery for an additional fee. Increased competition in the same-day delivery space will only continue to benefit consumers as choices increase.
This new market also benefits American workers, especially those who saw their jobs vanish due to the pandemic. As retailers continue to amp up their online presence, new jobs will need to be filled, and plenty of Americans will be available to fill them.
Ultimately, competition is a rising tide that lifts all boats. The rapid expansion of the same-day delivery market will benefit American consumers through increased access to goods and services, lower prices, and better membership perks. American workers will benefit through increased job opportunities as demand for personal shoppers increases.
As our country attempts to recover from the economic damage inflicted by COVID-19, the evolving same-day delivery market is a welcome reminder that American innovation will always adapt to new challenges.
Photo Credit: Bev Sykes