20% Of 14
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) recently a 70 percent top federal income tax rate. This would nearly double the current top tax bracket, which is currently at 37 percent. Today is President Donald Trump’s birthday! Earlier this week, the Trump administration a rule to expand the use of Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs).
Month of 6/1/2008 to 6/30/2008: Top 20 of 14,127 Trails Followed.
This proposal, which was released jointly by the Treasury Department, Labor Department, and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), will promote employer flexibility and choice in the healthcare system.This rule will allow employers to offer HRAs to their employers to purchase insurance as an alternative to employer provided care. HRA funds are tax free to both the employer and employee and funds roll over year to year.More than 80 percent of employers currently offer their workers just one choice, and this rule will allow businesses more flexibility to offer their workers’ health insurance coverage. This week New York banned what they call the “pink tax,” which in fact is not a tax at all, but a price difference for goods marketed towards women. According to New York’s, for similar products including clothing and personal care, the women’s versions are more expensive 42 percent of the time and the men’s versions are more expensive 18 percent of the time.bans price differences on the basis of gender for similar (note: similar, not identical) products.
It could be extra confusing for New York City, which recognizes over 30 genders with enforcement of massive fines.By passing this bill, New York legislators have affirmed that they do not believe women are smart enough to decide for themselves whether a pink razor or vanilla-scented deodorant is worth an extra dollar. Rather than letting consumers choose between supposedly equal but inequitably priced goods, the state will enforce price controls, stripping consumers of their right to choose.The state will mandate the price margins, and consumers will have to choose between the limited array of products that their favorite brands can legally sell. The idea that women cannot decide for themselves whether a product is worth the price is just a sexism-tinged version of the government-knows-best ideology behind socialism.The New York legislature has made it obvious that some basic clarification on taxes is needed. A tax is collected coercively by the government and carries with it the threat of fines and imprisonment.
The “pink tax,” on the other hand, is optional for both men and women. Brands do not have the power to force anyone to buy their pink products, and women are always free to simply buy the products marketed towards men.In a free market, consumers have considerable power over prices. This is because they have the power of choice; if a store sells two different razors, pink and black but otherwise identical, consumers can simply pick the cheaper option. If a product offers women unique benefits at a higher price, customers can individually decide to pay extra for the superior product or buy a cheaper, gender-neutral alternative.Consider a luxury women’s shaving cream. The product is composed of ingredients similar to its masculine counterpart, but with a few key differences. It could contains shea butter to moisturize the skin.
Or maybe the brand simply added perfume and glitter in an obvious attempt to market to women and increased the price accordingly. Brands have a right to charge extra for such products and should not be penalized if it is predominantly women who choose to buy them.To the New York government, the price difference between these products may be arbitrary, even sexist. To some consumers, however, the added features are meaningful, and the aesthetic differences are worth the extra cost. It is the right of the consumer to decide what a product is worth. It is not up to the government to rob whimsical, feminine, sparkly pink products of their rightful place in the free market.Photo Credit.
Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA) to the upcoming Appropriations bill that would block Alaska’s Pebble Mine Project from going through its proper environmental review.This amendment is the part of the ongoing effort from Democrats to completely shut down the Pebble Mine Project. With this amendment, Rep. Huffman would prevent the Army Corps from continuing its review process, effectively shutting down the mine.In 2014, President Obama put in place a pre-emptive section 404(c) veto, effectively banning all mining exploration and investment in an area of Alaska the size of Ohio.
Use of the pre-emptive veto was unprecedented and could provide a playbook for future administrations to block critical mineral resource projects opposed by environmentalists, if left in place. “This is a big program. This is a lot of money.”“There’s a reason this hasn’t passed yet.
And that’s because this is a really big ask.”Citizens' Climate Lobby is a well-funded carbon tax group, and this week the organization conducted a major lobbying push on the hill to impose a carbon tax on the American people, - co-sponsored by 42 Democrats and one Republican,As revealed by the training webinar shown below, the group admits the cost and complexity of a carbon tax is 'something that we at CCL can tend to soft-pedal.' Danny Richter of Citizens' Climate Lobby goes on to say that 'there's a reason this hasn't passed yet.' Click to view videoSee the full quotation below:“Half of the cost of the entire IRS to administer a single program - that’s what Allen said. I mean, he cites the cost of the IRS as I forget what it is, I think it might have been $14 billion.
You have to remember, that this, we’re - this is a big program. This is a lot of money. I think that that’s something that we at CCL can tend to soft-pedal.But $80 billion in the first year, $130 billion in the second year, on the order of, you know $170 billion the next year and increasing after that – that’s a lot of cash. And there are 310 million Americans. That’s, I think, 114 million households.
And you want to get to 114 million households on a monthly basis an amount of money. Not all of them have a bank account. A lot of them are going to have questions. There’s births. There’s deaths. So, there is some element of the sense that this is, um – the comment earlier that this is a reality check – this is another big reality check.This is a big program. And as simple as we like to make it out to be, and it is in concept simple – when you’re talking about getting money to that money people in this diverse a country, that’s a big deal.
There’s a reason this hasn’t passed yet. And that’s because this is a really big ask. And we keep on asking it because it’s an ask that eventually somebody needs to say ‘yes’ to.
But, um, I don’t think that we should really ultimately be surprised, um, when we really think about what’s involved with this. And that I think is one of the great virtues of this study, um, is this reality check Allen has given us.”A carbon tax and “dividend” scheme would impose a large tax increase on the American people.
20 Of 14000
It would also create a large new entitlement spending program and give the government more power over your life. It’s no wonder more than 75 conservative groups this week sent a statement to congress: “See Also. House Democrats have been obsessed with forcing President Trump to release his tax returns ever since they regained control of the House of Representatives.Recently, Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) subpoenaed Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig to force them to turn over the President’s tax returns. In a win for the rule of law, the Trump Administration has refused to comply with the left’s outrageous and constitutionally questionable demands.The left’s repeated demands to force the release of the president’s tax returns is unprecedented.
In the vast majority of cases, Congress seeks taxpayer information to assist in drafting tax legislation. The Supreme Court has ruled that legislators can only demand private tax information when they are pursuing a “legitimate task of the Congress.”House Democrats assert that their request is based on a legitimate legislative purpose. If you believe that, you’ve been living under a rock for the past two years.Ever since they lost the 2016 election, Democrats have been frothing at the mouth to expose the President’s tax returns. During the 2018 midterm elections, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that exposing the President’s tax returns “is one of the first things the Democrat House would do — that’s the easiest thing in the world. That’s nothing.”In this case, Democrats are clearly seeking to expose the president’s tax returns just for the sake of exposure. Petty partisanship is the left’s only motivation here.If Democrats are successful in exposing the president’s returns, they would turn the IRS into a political organization. Millions of Americans trust the IRS to handle their sensitive financial information discreetly and legitimately. Forcing the IRS to release the president’s tax returns would be a grave violation of the public trust, and could open up every American’s data to the whims of the left’s political vendettas.It is time for all Americans to stand up and defend this president from the left’s unprecedented and unconstitutional demands.
Click to join ATR in stopping the Democrats’ overreach in trying to expose President Trump’s tax returns.See also:Photo Credit. Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist has released a letter in support of S. 287, the “Bicameral Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019.” This legislation, sponsored by Senator Pat Toomey (R - Pa.), restores important trade responsibilities to Congress.In contrast to the careful checks and balances outlined in the Constitution, Congress has ceded its trade authority to the executive branch in recent decades. To remedy this, S. 287 addresses and updates Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, legislation that allows the president to take trade action in the interest of national security.Among other reforms, this legislation gives Congress 60 days to approve Section 232 trade actions, and narrows the Section 232 justification to its original national security intent.
The reforms contained in S. 287 will give Congress input on executive branch trade actions as the Framers intended. Congress should pass this legislation, and President Trump should sign it into law.You can read the letter or below:Dear Senator Toomey:I write in support of S. 287, the Bicameral Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019. This legislation restores important trade responsibilities to Congress, giving the legislative branch vital input on trade actions taken by the executive branch.The Framers designed our constitutional system with careful checks and balances in mind. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the express authority to “regulate commerce with foreign nations.” Historically, Congress has carefully deliberated and executed trade policy.
Unfortunately, over the past several decades, Congress has ceded its trade authority to the executive branch.To remedy this, S. 287 addresses and updates Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a provision that allows the executive branch to levy tariffs on imports that “threaten to impair” U.S. National security. Under Section 232, the President can formally levy tariffs or other trade actions after the Department of Commerce conducts an investigation, with non-binding input from the Secretary of Defense.The current administration has used the Section 232 statute to levy 25 percent tariffs on imported steel and 10 percent tariffs on imported aluminum. These sweeping tariffs have had a ripple effect on the world stage.
While President Trump is right to target bad actors and renegotiate trade deals to benefit Americans, the impacts of steel and aluminum tariffs demonstrate that Congress should have input on the executive branch’s trade actions.S. 287 protects the original intent of Section 232 by including several important reforms that vest trade power back in the hands of Congress. Specifically, the bill:. Gives Congress 60 days to approve any Section 232 actions. If Congress does not pass an approval resolution in the 60-day window, the President’s proposed trade actions do not go into effect. Narrows the Section 232 justification to its original national security intent. The Department of Commerce uses an overly broad definition of national security in determining whether or not the President is justified in using his Section 232 authority. This legislation restricts the national security justification to imports with applications in energy resources, military equipment, or critical infrastructure.
Transfers the investigative authority from the Department of Commerce to the Secretary of Defense. This ensures that a rigorous national security justification is met.