norquist2 bak
SEE GROVER TAG
blank 3/18, also lenovo
315 txt, also ggl doc patmck13
NO MERRI
html 2 grass-roots
wednesday mtg hub?
main: color on orig
in on Davis hit:
see also norquist tag
see other node ATR, also Norquist node
10 tags here
covid grift bailout PPP?
enforcer, dictators
gang of 5
---
Tax Day Could Be Easy. They’re Fighting To Make It Hard.
4 26
RR -->
[00:09:54] David Sirota: We'll be right back. Welcome back to Lever Time. It took another decade for this issue to pop up again. In 1998, democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress passed a law reviving the possibility of a return free system. That's right. Buried in an IRS overhaul Bill was a provision instructing the Treasury Secretary to quote, develop procedures for the implementation of a return free tax system.
This proposal sat at the IRS for the next few years until George w Bush's Republican administration took a baby step. They didn't implement return free filing. It was something much smaller than that. A proposal just to let you go online and file your taxes to the IRS for free.
[00:10:40] Ken Dam: Paying taxes is really a responsibility of every citizen, but because it's a responsibility, it doesn't mean it has to be arduous, slow, cumbersome, mysterious.
[00:10:53] David Sirota: This was Bush Treasury Department official Ken Dam, describing the initiative
[00:10:57] Ken Dam: Free File Promises to reduce the needless frustrations of millions of dutiful citizens. As they carry out this duty of citizenship, preparing and filing their tax returns,
[00:11:08] David Sirota: and yet even this simple idea really pissed off the tax prep industry.
Intuit, the owner of TurboTax launched a counter attack and mobilized, enlisting the help of a guy named Bernie McKay, a bigwig lobbyist, and former Carter administration official, who did a full court press on Capitol Hill. According to a ProPublica investigation, the industry basically argued that the IRS could not be counted on to roll out such a big program and the argument.
Really resonated with some folks on Capitol Hill. A group of Republican lawmakers wrote to the IRS claiming that there was no reason for the government to compete with quote well-established tax prep companies. The lobbying worked in 2003, the Bush administration and the tax prep companies made a compromise.
It was called the Free File Alliance. An IRS Blessed Consortium of Tax Prep Companies would help some taxpayers file their taxes for free. But the catch was in the federal contract. Which obligated the IRS to not compete with the consortium in providing free online tax return preparation and filing services to taxpayers
[00:12:22] Julie Story: crash and burn.
[00:12:24] David Sirota: Yep, another crash and burn. But after getting reelected. George W. Bush went back to the tax complexity fight once again. In January, 2005, he announced a whole new advisory panel to evaluate ways to simplify the tax system.
[00:12:40] George W Bush: These fine, distinguished citizens will be taking a good hard look at the tax code....
[00:13:22] David Sirota: The new advisory panel devoted an entire day of public testimony to reviewing Reagan's original return free tax filing idea, which seemed like a really encouraging sign.
We're going ballistic, ma. Go get 'em. But then came the testimony of anti-tax power broker Grover Norquist, a conservative then at the zenith of his political power in Washington. The transcript of the hearing shows him excoriating the idea in what would become a set of talking points that Norquist and others would repeat.
Over and over again in the ensuing years, it's like playing in Las Vegas. Norquist said the house sets the rules and the house has its fingers on the scales. Do you really want to go and argue with the IRS? If they've sent you a bill that's higher than you think it ought to be. It also gives the advantage just as the house in Las Vegas.
He said the interests of the government. Is to maximize its revenue. That testimony casting return free filing as a stealth tax increase, it set the idea back into another free fall. Sub controller, losing controller return free filing officially crashed and burned again when George w Bush's advisory committee left it out of its final report.
Then in 2007, Barack Obama picked up the cause of return free filing. The then presidential candidate was seemingly ready to fight the tax prep industry. ProPublica reported that Obama gave a speech to an audience full of tax wonks in Washington, where he said quote. The government already collects wage and bank account information, so there's no reason the IRS can't send Americans prefilled tax forms to verify.
This means no more worry, no more wasted time, no more extra expenses for a tax preparer. But Obama quickly learned his lesson too. The tax prep lobby was not to be messed with. Bernie McKay and the band of Intuit lobbyists got to work pushing Congress to introduce a series of bills to prohibit the IRS from building its own free tax filing system.
As campaign cash from the tax prep industry flowed to lawmakers, the public opposition was led in part. By Grover Norquist, casting it as a scheme to jack up everyone's taxes.
[00:15:42] Grover Norquist: When this is was done in other places, the government makes a lot of money. Why? Because when the government does your taxes for you, they maximize their revenue, not getting your tax returns accurate.
[00:15:54] David Sirota: That's Norquist in a newsmax interview from 2014.
[00:15:58] Grover Norquist: I think the idea of of having the government do your taxes for you is dead. Dead, dead. That's an important part of tax reform. Killing this idea of the government reaching out, knowing everything about you doing your taxes for you.
[00:16:12] David Sirota: When around this time, Republican lawmakers caught wind, that the IRS might be looking into a realtime data collection system that might later be needed for a return free system.
They pounced.
[00:16:24] IRS Oversight: This subcommittee has placed report language in our annual appropriations bills, by the way, since 2 0 9 Pro prohibiting the IRS from using any funds on a simple tax return pilot program.
[00:16:34] David Sirota: This was a Republican congressman interrogating Obama's IRS Chief at a congressional hearing in 2014.
[00:16:40] IRS Oversight: Are you aware of any further exploration and implementation by the IRS
[00:16:44] David Sirota: Obama's IRS Chief Quickly backed down.
[00:16:47] John Koskinen: The thing that has been the focus of a lot of external societies is the idea of could we pre-populate a return form, get information in pre-populate so you could look at it, and then you could make decisions or the IRS could even file your return for you.
We're not doing anything with that. We have no, uh, no program going forward that I know of, and, uh, certainly we don't intend to do anything like that without talking to you
[00:17:06] David Sirota: once again, after briefly taking flight, the idea of a return free tax system fell out of the sky. The
[00:17:13] Top Gun Clip: goddamn plane has creed into the mountains.
[00:17:17] David Sirota: There was of course, one more test flight as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that President Biden signed. The IRS budget was significantly increased after years of cuts, and the legislation included a new direct file system, which was rolled out in 2024.
[00:17:35] WPRI: This year, there is a new software pilot program being offered in 12 states called Direct File.
It opens to qualifying taxpayers in mid-March.
Your eligibility for direct file does not depend on your income.
[00:17:49] David Sirota: Direct file was a free online service that allowed taxpayers to file their federal tax returns directly with the IRS. Again, this wasn't return free filing. But it was the government's strongest attempt to at least give you a way to file your taxes without the added fees and shady upsells of private companies.
The program was run by the IRS itself, and it ended up being a policy experiment that went surprisingly well. It was rolled out slowly and intentionally so that issues could be seen and addressed quickly. At first, it was limited to really simple filings, and then additional tax complexities were added later on, making it more accessible to more and more taxpayers Overall, the pilot program showed.
Big promise with 94% customer satisfaction that gave a green light for the program to expand beyond the first 12 states it started in. But at this point, I'm guessing, you know what happened when Donald Trump won his second presidential term
[00:18:55] NBC10: starting 2026, the program will no longer be available for taxpayers.
President Trump has said he was looking into getting rid of direct file. He claimed it was. A waste of taxpayers' money because commercial tax preparation companies already offer free filing programs.
[00:19:12] David Sirota: The campaign to kill the successful and popular direct file program was fast and furious as soon as Trump won the 2024 election, nearly 30 house Republicans sent a letter to Trump in December, 2024, just after he'd won, asking him to end direct file on his very first day in office.
The lawmakers had raked in more than $1.8 million of campaign cash from, you guessed it, tax preparation companies and their proxies. Meanwhile, turbo Tax's parent company, Intuit, donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration. Direct file in a lot of ways had been the closest thing to what Ronald Reagan had proposed back in 1985.
...
As I've gone back and forth with my own accountant in this last few weeks, getting more and more annoyed at all the red tape, watching more and more of my time sucked away into a mountain of paperwork. I've been thinking a lot about this interchange on CNBC from a few years back.
[00:23:00] CNBC (Aaron Ross Sorkin): Grover, I wanted to ask you about this.
There's this bill out there, it seems bipartisan and I, I'm surprised by it.
[00:23:06] David Sirota: That was journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin asking anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, why he's fought return free filing for so many years.
[00:23:15] CNBC (Aaron Ross Sorkin): That effectively makes it a a, a permanent ban barring the IRS from ever developing its own online tax filing service.
This would've been. Uh, a free service that would've made paying taxes cheaper and easier, especially for people at the bottom and the middle who are spending, uh, in often cases, you know, several hundred dollars a year, it would actually be a tax cut for most Americans to do this. Why try to block something like that?
[00:23:41] David Sirota: Norquist first insisted that private tax prep companies do provide some free services to the very poor. And then Norquist went on a rant.
[00:23:49] Grover Norquist: The real goal of the Democrats, and we saw this in California, is they want the government to do your taxes for you. Yeah. Like Europe does. They send you a bill. Go ahead and argue with the government.
And when California put that together, you know what? They scored it as a significant revenue raiser 'cause they intended to, to write your tax bill. So it'd be higher than it than you would expect to pay. Now, this is a way to raise taxes. And to completely strip you of all privacy. So
[00:24:15] CNBC (Aaron Ross Sorkin): grow, grow
[00:24:15] David Sirota: Sorkin though, press there.
[00:24:17] CNBC (Aaron Ross Sorkin): Do you have any ideas of how to make it easier and cheaper? Mm-hmm. For American taxpayers to pay their taxes so it doesn't cost them any more money than it already does. It'd just be so much easier. Who, people who are W2 filers, they get a postcard. It says what, what the number is. You either sign it or you, or you go off and you do your own, you do your own tax plan.
[00:24:37] David Sirota: Norquist then started reciting more anti-tax talking points as usual, casting the IRS as a rapacious monster.
[00:24:45] Grover Norquist: The federal government takes about 18% of everybody's money. There's no pleasant, cheap, easy, or uncomplicated way to do that. You want simplicity, you want fairness, make the tax bill lower,
[00:24:56] David Sirota: and that's when Sorkin just scream the quiet part about the whole issue.
[00:25:01] CNBC (Aaron Ross Sorkin): You have no, um, rival idea about how to make it easier for Americans to pay their taxes. I want their tax because I think ultimately your idea is to make it harder for people to pay their taxes so they hate their taxes and push for lower taxes.
[00:25:14] David Sirota: That's it right there. That's what's also underneath all of this, beyond just the tax prep companies wanting to protect their profits, there's a powerful arch conservative, anti-tax movement that wants you to hate literally everything about taxes, and so they've succeeded.
In creating an awful tax process. But I wanna go back to something I alluded to at the beginning. Taxes are not theft. As the anti-tax movement likes to insist. Taxes are the necessary price we pay for a functional society. It's what we pay for roads, bridges, water systems, schools, and all the stuff we call civilization.
What is theft? Is politicians helping giant corporations steal our money and our time just to file our taxes. So as the tax filing deadline approaches, as some of you are stressed out. By Byzantine filing forms or the fear of paying more than you owe or of being audited for a simple mistake, don't forget it does not have to be this way.
---
an 3 23 new rep
During former President Donald Trump's four years in the White House, most Republicans didn't have a lot to say about the United States' federal deficit. But after President Joe Biden was inaugurated in January 2021, liberal economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman predicted that the GOP would magically rediscover fiscal conservatism. Sure enough, many Republicans have attacked Biden as a tax-and-spend Democrat, overlooking the effect that the GOP-sponsoredTax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 — a major tax cut for the wealthy and large corporations — had on the federal deficit.
Critics of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act have argued that while it dramatically reduced corporate taxes and made the rich richer, it didn't help the middle class — and that in some states, it became, in effect, a tax hike for the middle class by taking away various deductions that middle class taxpayers had been relying on.
One of Biden's Republican critics has been Grover Norquist, the 66-year-old founder of Americans for Tax Reform. Journalist Michael Tomasky examines Norquist's influence on GOP tax policy in an article published by The New Republic on March 13, emphasizing that he has been a key contributor to higher federal deficits in the U.S.
"Grover Norquist has been running Americans for Tax Reform since the Reagan era," Tomasky explains. "It was back then, in 1986, that he came up with what I must confess has been an effective — if ruinous — idea: the Taxpayer Protection Pledge that his organization asks political candidates to sign…. Norquist's pledge has done more to destroy policymaking and derail the normal horse-trading of the legislative process than any other single development of the era."
Tomasky notes that since 1990, Republicans in Congress "have not voted for a single tax increase." But the journalist stresses that Republicans in state legislatures are less likely to sign Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge because they "live in the real world."
"It’s only in the fantasyland of Washington that Republicans can be so insanely irresponsible," Tomasky argues. "And make no mistake: It is the Republicans who are fiscally irresponsible. Consider these deficit numbers. Jimmy Carter left office with a deficit of $74 billion, which made conservatives apoplectic. Reagan doubled it. (President George) Bush, Sr. nearly doubled it again. (President Bill) Clinton wiped it all away and left the country with a $236 billion surplus."
Tomasky continues, "(President George W.) Bush, Jr. wiped out the surplus and tacked on $460 billion in deficits — that is, adding those two figures, he finished nearly $700 billion in the red. (President Barack) Obama increased the deficit by about $125 billion after inheriting the biggest financial crisis in 80 years, helped along, again, by Republican-led deregulation. Trump increased the deficit by — wanna guess? Try $2.6 trillion. In sum, in the last half-century, Democratic presidents have actually reduced the deficit, because of the numbers under Clinton, while Republican presidents have increased it by something greater than $3.5 trillion. It’s not even close as to which party is more fiscally sound."
roughrider pc
In 2019, RPC was part of a 60 group coalition, led by Americans for Tax Reform, that sent a letter to Congress urging them to vote against the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, labor legislation that would functionally repeal the Taft-Hartley Act to increase union coercive power. The coalition claims that the PRO Act would harm American workers by codifying rules that lead to higher unemployment, violate worker privacy, and overturn right-to-work laws, while supporting union bosses and their campaign contributors. Other members of the coalition include Heritage Action for America, the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, and the Public Service Research Council. [14]
https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-guest-grover-norquist-record-fall-gas-prices-bad-thing
11/2012
https://www.cnbc.com/id/49900853
wASHINGTON — Next to the oath of office, it has been perhaps the most important commitment that Republicans in Congress can make. It is called simply "the Pledge," and its enforcer is such a fixture in the party that he is known simply by his first name, Grover.
Signing it means a promise never, ever to vote for a tax increase.
But the pledge and its creator, Grover Norquist, a 56-year-old conservative lobbyist, have never before faced a test as they do now. The federal deficit stands at $1 trillion. The social safety net continues to grow — and, in the case of Medicare and Social Security, remains hugely popular. And unless the two parties can agree on a fiscal plan before Jan. 1, hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases will go into effect automatically, meaning that Congress does not even need to act for taxes to rise.
The combination means that Mr. Norquist, whose long record of success is a rarity in Washington, finds himself in a tricky spot. Some top Republicans, including Speaker John A. Boehner, are saying they now agree with Democrats that the government must collect more tax revenue. Others have gone so far as to break with Mr. Norquist publicly.
By Mr. Norquist's count, 219 House members — enough for a majority — and 39 senators have committed to the pledge. But some of those members who signed on, many of them years ago, have started to back away, apparently leaving him several votes shy of the majority he would need to block any tax increase.
"A pledge is good at the time you sign it," said Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican whose name still appears as a pledge signer on the Web site of Mr. Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform. "In 1941, I would have voted to declare war on Japan. But each Congress is a new Congress. And I don't think you can have a rule that you're never going to raise taxes or that you're never going to lower taxes. I don't want to rule anything out."
Mr. Norquist contends that every few years, several noisy Republicans say their support is squishy. Yet every time, he says proudly, the outcome is the same.
"It's been 22 years since a Republican voted for a tax increase in this town," he said in a recent interview. "This is not my first rodeo."
Ask Republicans in Congress today what they think of the pledge, and many of them say that while they still subscribe to a low-tax view of government, they resent being hamstrung by a piece of paper they signed well before they were elected. Some of them are even saying they want out.
"I'm frankly not concerned about the Norquist pledge," Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said last week.
Senator John McCain noted with a certain sense of satisfaction at an Atlantic magazine forum last week that "fewer and fewer people are signing this, quote, pledge."
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, at the same forum, said that with the federal debt at $16 trillion, closing tax loopholes and eliminating deductions have to be considered, "even though that may technically violate the pledge." He added, "Sign me up."
Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has called the pledge a "tortured vision of tax purity."
Ted Yoho, who will represent part of northern Florida when the new House convenes in January, said: "I'll pledge allegiance to the flag. I'll pledge to be faithful to my wife." But he is one of a handful of House newcomers who declined to sign to Mr. Norquist's pledge and likened it to a New Year's resolution that many others will break.
Mr. Norquist claims to have invented the idea for a no-new-taxes promise when he was a 12-year-old volunteer for Richard M. Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign.
He is fond of evocative metaphors, like claiming he wants to reduce government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Not honoring the pledge would cause grave damage to the Republican brand, he has said, likening it to a Coke can with a rat head in the bottom.
The walls at the headquarters of his interest group are covered with signed copies from conservative heroes like Newt Gingrich, who warns Republicans to stick to their guns. Mr. Gingrich, like Mr. Norquist, argues that the pledge protects Republicans from agreeing to stealth tax increases that ultimately hurt them.
"Every time I've watched Republicans try to be clever with Democrats on issues of taxation," Mr. Gingrich said last week, "Democrats have won."
In the current talks with President Obama, Republicans have signaled an openness to increasing tax revenue by reducing deductions and credits, as long as income tax rates do not rise. That would still violate the pledge, which states that "any and all efforts" to increase taxes are inexcusable.
Some Republicans have decided that they no longer like the lack of flexibility. "Basically the pledge is like a Master lock," said Representative Scott Rigell of Virginia, who in January became one of the first freshmen to publicly renounce the pledge.
When Mr. Rigell announced his reversal, he braced for the consequences. Instead, he said, the word he received was a text message from his local Republican Party chairman saying, "Thanks for your courage." Yet Mr. Norquist still includes Mr. Rigell's name on his list of pledge signers.
Obama administration officials and other Democrats argue that Mr. Norquist's pledge is doomed because Republicans will eventually need to square their budget policies with public opinion. With society aging and modern medicine developing new treatments, health care costs will continue to rise.
Voters express strong support for Medicare and Social Security and for raising taxes on the affluent, Democrats note. Over all, federal tax revenue has taken up a smaller share of gross domestic product in the last few years than at any point since the 1950s. One possibility is that the pledge will survive on a technicality. If Congress fails to reach a resolution before the tax cuts passed during the George W. Bush administration expire at midnight on Dec. 31, rates will revert to their higher pre-2001 levels. If Congress then approved a bill that restored only some of those lower rates but not, for example, ones for the highest income brackets, Republicans could still claim to be within the bounds of their pledge.
But Mr. Norquist argues that history suggests the pledge will survive on more than a technicality. Republicans, he said, have always come around, even if it takes a little pressure.
When he hears about someone wavering on the pledge, he has a simple routine, he says. "Every time this happens, I call the guy and say: 'I just want to make sure we're on the same page. I don't want to have an argument,' " he said. "But if you really want to raise taxes, I do want to have an argument."
Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform took money from ...
Grover Norquist's organization, Americans for Tax Reform which has a long record of railing against federal government aid, received between $150K and $300K in COVID small business aid from the...
Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform Fdn. Got PPP ...
Jul 6, 2020The Americans for Tax Reform Foundation, a conservative-allied group headed by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, took Covid-19 small business relief funds from the federal government, according to...
no lnx
Patriotic Millionaires To Grover Norquist: 'Move To Somalia'
By
Lucia Graves
and
Jordan Howard
Nov. 17, 2011,
WASHINGTON -- Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, millionaires who want the government to tax them more, met with foremost anti-tax guru Grover Norquist in Washington late Wednesday afternoon. Not surprisingly, they couldn't find common ground -- and ended up debating the state of Somalia.
:{
}:
Patriotic Millionaires, a group of 200-plus people making more than $1 million per year (including actress Edie Falco and economist Nouriel Roubini, among others), believe that America has been good to them and that it is their duty to give back. "[The government] provided a foundation through which we could succeed," writes the group on their website. "Now, we want to do our part to keep that foundation strong so that others can succeed as we have."
In an interview with The Huffington Post, Norquist felt the group only represented liberal interests.
"They were there with a heavy partisan message," Norquist told HuffPost Thursday. "The kinds of arguments I got from these old people weren't interesting when I was 12, the left has not advanced. These guys are Democratic Party hacks."
The six millionaires who met with Norquist on Wednesday were part of a larger effort by the group to convince super committee members and other influential lawmakers that the richest Americans deserve a tax hike, arguing specifically that the highest earners should pay 39.6 percent in taxes, up from the current 35 percent.
The conversation with Norquist, however, which comes just over a week before the congressional super committee must come up with its deficit-slashing plan, turned out to be less a policy discussion than a philosophical debate.
Norquist's belief is that the government's prime goal is to promote liberty.
"I think government, up to a certain point, advances human liberty. Police, a judicial system and an army to prevent people from stealing stuff out of your car, out of your house, knocking you on your head or the Canadians coming over and invading the country," he said. "Those are actually mentioned in the Constitution and in the history of our country as legitimate things for our government to do and they make us freer, not less free. I am for limited government that does a limited number of things competently."
Eric Schoenberg, a member of Patriotic Millionaires and an Adjunct Associate Professor at Columbia Business School met with Norquist in his offices Wednesday. He said that Patriotic feel that liberty only fits within a context and that government has a truly fundamental role in ensuring that people have liberty. Part of the way they do that is by investing in things that benefit the public.
In a phone call directly after the meeting, Schoenberg debriefed HuffPost in full:
[Norquist] raised an issue we get all the time which is, 'Well there's nothing stopping you guys from paying higher taxes, just send a check to the government!' And this to me is frankly an absurd position; I don't consider it to be a very serious argument. Government is not a charity and we can't rely on voluntary contributions from people to support the things that government does. And I also said to him, 'Look would you be willing to sign a pledge where you're willing to forgo all the benefits that government provides? Are you willing to sign a pledge that says you don't want the U.S. military to protect you? That you will refuse to contact the police if somebody steals from you? That you will refuse to contact the fire department if your house is on fire? Because that's the equivalent! Why should you get a free ride? Why should you benefit from my willingness to support the government? Let's do it together.' And he said, 'If I don't have to pay any taxes for it, I would forgo all those things!'To which my response was, 'Well there's an easy way to do that, move to Somalia!' And his argument was, 'Somalia doesn't suffer from too little government, it suffers from too much government.' I don't even begin to understand what that means, but again there's only so much you can go into in these conversations.
Regarding Somalia, Norquist said Thursday that the government there doesn't do enough to promote liberty.
"Somalia has competing governments, they're called clans, and they shoot each other," he said. "They have a series of governments that claim complete control over your property and your life. They have a whole bunch of governments, people acting like governments, people with a legal monopoly on force and they compete with each other. Not compete to provide better services, compete to be in charge of pushing you around."
When the Wednesday meeting adjourned, the groups had found but one point of common ground.
"Our final point of agreement," said Schoenberg, "was the United States is less sucky than other places."
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/democrats-3-5t-reconciliation-bill-woke-handouts-grover-norquist
no lnx vid?
OPINION Published September 22
Grover Norquist: Democrats' $3.5T reconciliation bill's top 10 woke handouts
Here are 10 simply embarrassing examples of corporate welfare, cronyism and corrupt political payoffs
Facebook...
By Grover Norquist FOXBusiness
America cannot afford $3.5T spending plan, US will be in debt: Rep. Young Kim
Rep. Young Kim, R-Calif., argues the House Senate needs to create a ‘responsible resolution’ for the spending plan.
Democrats are trying to impose on American taxpayers the largest tax increase since 1968. Their legislation raises taxes on small businesses and would leave the U.S. with a higher capital gains tax than communist China and a higher corporate tax than all of our economic competitors.
Their plan would be the biggest tax hike in 53 years, just as the country tries to recover from a once-in-a-century pandemic.
Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., discusses the Democrats' spending as the debt ceiling deadline looms and Hunter Biden's pricey art sales.video]
Democrats attempt to tie debt limit to $3.5T spending package
The Democrats have also loaded up the bill with many "woke" handouts they would prefer you didn’t notice. Below is a top ten list of the most perplexing items.
1. $3.5 billion for the Green New Deal youth patrol: A make-work program for jobless climate activists
At a time when small businesses cannot find willing workers, the Democrat bill shovels $3.5 billion of your money so DC bureaucrats can create something called the "Civilian Climate Corps" – a make-work program for young climate activists.
REPORT FROM ANTI-TAX GROUP WARNS THAT $3.5 TRILLION SPENDING PLAN WOULD HIT ECONOMIC OUTPUT, HURT SAVINGS
Instead of getting a real job, these Green New Deal hall monitors will be deployed across the country to engage in unspecified "green" actions. One stated aim is boosting enrollees’ "outdoor recreation."
Fox News congressional correspondent Chad Pergram has the latest on the spending bill on 'Cavuto: Coast to Coast'video
Democrat Party divided ahead of vote on $3.5 trillion spending bill
Perhaps they’ll knock on your door with a clipboard and tell you to put on a sweater instead of heating your home adequately.
The climate brigade youths will receive taxpayer-funded lodging, transportation, and healthcare, possibly even uniforms.
The Democrats even want to make sure they are unionized. Perhaps not by coincidence these union dues would find their way into the coffers of Democrat congressional campaigns.
REPORT FROM ANTI-TAX GROUP WARNS THAT $3.5 TRILLION SPENDING PLAN WOULD HIT ECONOMIC OUTPUT, HURT SAVINGS
2. Fake news tax handout for reporters at "local" newspapers with up to 750 employees
The proposal creates a tax credit for "local newspapers" with up to 750 employees – a largely left-of-center group of workers.
It gives a payroll tax credit for journalists of up to $12,500 in wages per employee per quarter.
This reporter tax carve-out amounts to $1.3 billion. The vast majority of newspapers in the country have fewer than 750 employees, so this will shovel money to long-established daily newspapers as well as weekly left-wing "alternative" papers.
Imagine the outrage if Republicans tried to enact a special tax cut only for talk radio hosts.
CONSERVATIVE GROUP LAUNCHES MULTI-MILLION DOLLARS PUSH TO DETAIL DEMS' $3.5 TRILLION SPENDING PLAN
- Tax credit for $8,000 "Electric Bicycles"
The bill creates a 15 percent refundable tax credit for "electric bicycles." A credit of up to $1,500 for electric bicycles costing as much as $8,000 per bike.
As a reminder, a tax credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in your tax liability. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this provision alone amounts to $7.4 billion.
If you are a "local reporter" and in the market for an "e-bike" this is your lucky day.
4. Solar Subsidies to "Promote Environmental Justice"
This provision gives solar tax credits to select areas to "promote environmental justice" wherein "the Secretary makes an allocation of environmental justice solar capacity limitation."
CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST FOX BUSINESS REPORTING ON THE DEMOCRATS' MASSIVE SPENDING BILL
- Tax breaks for elite, well-funded private universities
The bill would reduce, potentially down to zero, the excise tax on investment income of private colleges and universities depending on the amount of financial aid they offer their students. Notably, universities who can provide a lot of grants and scholarships are typically universities with the largest endowments, such as Harvard and Yale.
This adds up to another $2.3 billion.
- Tax credit for "Environmental Justice" programs
A $1 billion refundable tax credit for university "environmental justice programs."
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
- $10 billion "Green Workforce" tax credit
Democrats allocate $10 billion in a section titled "Investment in the Green Workforce. This contains several niche credits including $400 million for "green" projects in "automotive communities." Automotive communities are defined as communities that have "experienced major job losses in the automotive manufacturing sector" – likely from big-government policies.
8. $15 billion for "Green" doors and windows
The bill would replace a $500 lifetime cap on nonbusiness energy property credits with an annual $1,200 credit. This credit allows up to $600 in credits for "energy efficient" windows and skylights and up to $500 for doors.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS
9.Big Labor tax break
:{
}:
Union bosses could more easily raise membership costs as the cost will be partially hidden by a new above-the-line deduction for up to $250 in "dues" to a labor organization. These dues would again find their way right back to Democrat political campaign coffers in order to elect more Democrats who will grow the size of the DC bureaucracy. Rinse, repeat.
- Tax credit for contributions to university "research infrastructure projects"
Democrats are creating a credit for contributions to public universities’ "research infrastructure projects."
Much of the Democrat tax plan (higher business taxes) would slow growth and make us uncompetitive with China and Europe. The items above are simply embarrassing examples of corporate welfare, cronyism and corrupt political payoffs creeping back into the U.S. tax code. Chicago-style politics playing with billions rather than millions.
Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform.
ref open ltr~ BBB
https://www.atr.org/sites/default/files/assets/9-9-21%20Coalition%20Letter%20Opposed%20to%20Dem%20Tax%20Hikes.pdf
12 pp pdf
September 9th, 2021
Dear Chairman Neal, Ranking Member Brady, and
Members of the Ways and Means Committee:
As your committee begins marking up the $3.5 trillion
reckless tax-and spend reconciliation proposal, we write
in opposition to any effort to raise taxes on American
families and businesses.
It is expected that the reconciliation legislation will include
countless tax increases totaling trillions of dollars.Some of
the tax increases that have been publicly floated include:
• Raising the corporate tax rate to 25 percent or 28
percent, a rate higher than Communist China
• Doubling the capital gains tax to 43.4 percent
• Raising the top rate to 39.6 percent
• Creating a second death tax by eliminating step-upin basis
• 95 percent excise tax on pharmaceutical
manufacturers if they fail to accept government set
price controls
• Repealing the deduction for foreign-derived
intangible income
• Raising taxes on carried interest capital gains
• Raising the tax rate on GILTI to a top rate of 26.25
percent and requiring it to be calculated on a
country-by-country basis
• Imposing a 15 percent minimum tax on book
income
• Retroactively capping the conservation easement
deduction
• Repealing numerous oil and gas tax provisions
including the deduction for intangible drilling costs
(IDCs)
• A tax on American energy manufacturers based on
their methane production
• A carbon border tax
• Capping Section 1031 like-kind exchanges
Supporters of the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill, likeself-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders claim that the tax ...
increases will be paid by billionaires “who don't pay a nickel in federal income taxes … (and) large corporations that make billions in profit, and in some years do not pay a penny in federal income taxes.” This claim is false. Millions of small businesses will see higher taxes through the increase in the corporate tax and the top marginal income tax rate.
In addition, the plan to repeal step-up in basis will raise taxes on family-owned businesses across the country. Democrats have also floated retroactive tax increases on the American people. For instance, the Biden budget calls for retroactively increasing the capital gains tax. This is a terrible idea – retroactive tax policy changes the rules on taxpayers after the fact.
It is fundamentally unfair and erodes confidence in the tax system. Many of the tax hikes being pushed by the administration violate President Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes on any American earning less than $400,000 per year. A recent analysis by the left-of-center Tax Policy Center found that the tax hikes proposed in President Biden’s budget will raise taxes on 74.1 percent of middle income-quintile households in 2022.
In addition, a report by the Joint Committee on Taxation found that over the long-term, approximately $100 billion of the corporate tax increase would be borne by taxpayers making less than $100,000. Now is one of the worst times to raise taxes on American families and businesses. We are still over five million jobs short of pre-pandemic levels. In addition, inflation is running rampant and increasing prices for families and businesses across the country. Rather than pushing tax increases on American families and businesses, we urge you to push policies that promote economic growth so that the economy can recover and grow.
Sincerely, Grover Norquist President, Americans for Tax Reform
Ryan Ellis
President, Center for a Free Economy
David McIntosh
President, The Club for Growth
Brandon Arnold
Executive Vice President, National Taxpayers Union
Brent Wm. Gardner
Chief Government Affairs Officer, Americans for Prosperity
Garrett Bess
Vice President, Heritage Action for America
Adam Brandon
President, FreedomWorks
Stephen Moore
Senior Economic Contributor, FreedomWorks
Governor Scott Walker, President
Young America’s Foundation
Tom Schatz
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Angela Logomasini
Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Marlo Lewis
Senior Fellow, Energy & Environmental Policy
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Myron Ebell
Director, Center for Energy and Environment
Competitive Enterprise Institute
David Williams
President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Lisa B Nelson
CEO, ALEC Action
Daniel Schneider
Executive Director, American Conservative Union
Phil Kerpen
President, American Commitment
Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
President, 60 Plus Association
Jim Martin
Founder/Chairman, 60 Plus Association
Marty Connors
Co-Chairman, Alabama Center-Right Coalition Meeting
Alan Sears
Founder, Alliance Defending Freedom
Bob Carlstrom
President, AMAC Action
Kelly Kullberg
American Association of Evangelicals
Dick Patten
President, American Business Defense Council
Thomas Pyle
President, American Energy Alliance
Kathleen Patten
President and CEO, American Target Advertising, Inc.
Gary L. Bauer
President, American Values
Dee Stewart
President, Americans for a Balanced Budget
The Honorable Jake Hoffman
Arizona House of Representatives
The Honorable Brenda Barton
Arizona House of Representatives
The Honorable Leo Biasiucci
Arizona House of Representatives
The Honorable Walt Blackman
Arizona House of Representatives
The Honorable Judy Burges
Arizona House of Representatives
The Honorable Joseph Chaplik
Arizona House of Representatives
The Honorable John Fillmore
Arizona House of Representatives
The Honorable Gail Griffin
Arizona House of Representatives
The Honorable Justin Wilmeth
Arizona House of Representatives
The Honorable John Kavanaugh
Arizona House of Representatives
The Honorable Becky Nutt
Arizona House of Representatives
The Honorable Jacqueline Parker
Arizona House of Representatives
The Honorable Kevin Payne
Arizona House of Representatives
The Honorable Beverly Pingerelli
Arizona House of Representatives
E.C. Sykes
General Partner, Aslan Ventures
Robert Alt
President and CEO, The Buckeye Institute
Lourdes Cosio
Campaign for the American Future
Ralph Benko
Chairman, The Capitalist League
Susan A. Carleson
President/CEO, Carleson Center for Welfare Reform
Andrew F. Quinlan
President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Jeffrey Mazzella
President, Center for Individual Freedom
Ginevra Joyce-Myers
Executive Director, Center for Innovation and Free
Enterprise
Shannon O. Royce, J.D.
President, Christian Employers Alliance
David Kullberg
Executive Director, Christians for a Sustainable Economy
David N. Bossie
President, Citizens United
Kay R. Daly
President, Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
Mr. John J. Park Jr
Conservative Activist
Karen Hartman
Conservative Activist/Paralegal
Morton Blackwell
Chairman, Conservative Leadership PAC
George K. Rasley Jr
Managing Editor, ConservativeHQ.com
Alfred S. Regnery
Chairman, Conservative Action Project
President, Republic Book Publishers
Ron Pearson
Executive Director, Conservative Victory Fund
James Edwards
Executive Director, Conservatives for Property Rights
Matthew Kandrach
President, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy
Charles J. Cooper
Cooper & Kirk, PLLC
Guillermo J. Aragon
Senior Partner, Corbere Partners
Katie McAuliffe
Executive Director, Digital Liberty
Steven J. Buri
President, Discovery Institute
Anne Schlafly Cori
Chairman, Eagle Forum
Donna Rice Hughes
CEO/President, Enough Is Enough
Palmer Schoening
Chairman, Family Business Coalition
Annette Thompson Meeks
CEO, Freedom Foundation of Minnesota
George Landrith
President, Frontiers of Freedom
Victor Riches
President & CEO, Goldwater Institute
Andresen Blom
President, Hawaiian Values
Carrie Lukas
President, Independent Women's Forum
Heather R. Higgins
CEO, Independent Women's Voice
Andrew Langer
President, Institute for Liberty
Tom Giovanetti
President, Institute for Policy Innovation
Christopher Ingstad
President, Iowans for Tax Relief
Peggy Dau
Representative, Iran Alive Ministries
John Dodd
President Emeritus, Jesse Helms Center
Chairman, North Carolina Center-Right Coalition Meeting
The Honorable Morton C. Blackwell
President, Leadership Institute
Seton Motley
President, Less Government
Mrs. Kielle C. Horton
President, The Lindsey Foundation
Randy M Long
Founder, Long Business Advisors, LLC
Brett Healy
President, MacIver Institute
Gary Marx
President, Madison Strategies
Matthew Gagnon
Chief Executive Officer, Maine Policy Institute
Charles Sauer
President, Market Institute
Christina Murphy Lusk, Esq.
President, The Martin Foundation
Rod D. Martin
Founder and CEO, The Martin Organization, Inc.
L. Brent Bozell, III
Founder and President, Media Research Center
Tim Jones
Chair, Missouri Center-Right Coalition
Fmr. Speaker, Missouri House
Joseph A. Morris
Partner, Morris & De La Rosa
Assistant U.S. Attorney General (President Reagan)
Justin Danhof
Executive Vice President, National Center for Public Policy
Research
Shawn Mitchell
Former National Chaplain, National Federation of
Republican Assemblies
Chuck Muth
Chairman, Nevada Center-Right Coalition Meeting
Melvin Adams
President, Noah Webster Educational Foundation
Kevin Freeman
Founder, NSIC Institute
Gerard Kassar
State Chairman, NYS Conservative Party
Brandon Dutcher
Senior Vice President, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
Doug Kellogg
Executive Director, Ohioans for Tax Reform
Tom Hebert
Executive Director, Open Competition Center
Jeff Kropf
President, Oregon Taxpayer Coalition and the Oregon
Capitol Watch Foundation
Grant Maloy
Chairman, Orlando Center-Right Coalition Meeting
Ellen Weaver
President & CEO, Palmetto Promise Institute
Stephen Stepanek
President, Pine Tree Public Policy Institute
Co-Chairman, New Hampshire Center-Right Coalition
Meeting
Penna Dexter
Co-host, Point of View Radio Show
Lorenzo Montanari
Executive Director, Property Rights Alliance
Nancy Schulze
Founder and President, RCW Speakers
Craig Shirley
Reagan Biographer and Presidential Historian
Dr. Rick Scarborough
President, Recover America Action
Paul Gessing
President, Rio Grande Foundation
Mike Stenhouse
CEO, Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Bryan Bashur
Executive Director, Shareholder Advocacy Forum
Kerri Toloczko
Chairman, Southwest Florida Center-Right Coalition
Meeting
David Miller
Co-Chairman, Southwest Ohio Center-Right Coalition
Meeting
Sal Russo
Co-Founder and Chief Strategist, Tea Party Express
Judson Phillips
Founder, Tea Party Nation
William W. Pascoe, III
Our Man in Washington
Tea Party Patriots Action
Vance Ginn
Chief Economist, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Kent Kaiser
Executive Director, Trade Alliance to Promote Prosperity
C. Preston Noell III
President, Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
Terrence Scanlon
Retired Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commn.
Retired Chairman and President, Capital Research Center,
(22 years)
The Honorable Bob McEwen
U.S. House of Representatives
Former Member, Ohio
The Honorable Stephen Stockman
U.S. House of Representatives
Former Member, Texas
Rusty Cannon
President, Utah Taxpayer Association
Floyd Brown
Founder, The Western Journal
spoke at georgetown
He has authored three books: Rock the House; Leave Us Alone – Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives; and (with co-author John Lott) Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/grover-norquist-the-happiest-man-in-washington/523206/
POLITICS
Grover Norquist, the Happiest Man in Washington
The veteran conservative activist ought to be disturbed by the Trump administration. Why is he so optimistic—and what’s vaping got to do with it?
By Molly Ball
APRIL 18, 2017
As grover norquist dug into his egg-white frittata, he could barely contain his glee.
“If you try and explain American politics by looking at one election, even a presidential election, you miss the forest for the tree,” the founder of Americans for Tax Reform and longtime liberal bogeyman told me over an early-morning breakfast, spearing halves of grape tomato with his fork. “It’s the most interesting tree in the forest—it’s got orange hair!—but it’s still just one tree.”
The Trump administration has many traditional conservatives in despair, convinced the president is trampling the Constitution and turning the Republican Party into something they don’t recognize. Not Norquist. He was the picture of a man who believes his time has come.
The ginger-haired 60-year-old’s eyes sparkled behind his wire-rimmed glasses as he described the rosy future he foresaw under Trump. It isn’t just that tax reform, Norquist’s signature issue, has risen to the top of the agenda for both the president and Congress. The 2016 election, as Norquist saw it, was not a mandate for Trump at all—it was a mandate for old-school Republicans, virtually all of whom got more votes than Trump in their states. (There’s an exotic corollary to this theory involving a new voting bloc of vaping enthusiasts—more about that later.) According to Norquist, whatever might be distracting Trump at any given moment, nothing less than a revolution of conservative governance was happening under his nose.
“Trump’s regulatory regime is Reaganite,” Norquist told me. “His tax cut is Reaganite. He’s more aggressive than Reagan on labor issues.” All that other stuff—the crazy tweets, the chaotic White House, the Russia investigation, the travel ban—is just noise. What Trump was really elected to do, Norquist maintained, were the things Republicans had been coveting for years. And Trump is already doing just those things.
He might be the cleverest man in the conservative movement. Or he might have sold his soul.
Norquist is certainly not alone among Republicans rooting for Trump. Yet I was shocked to find him, of all people, so sanguine. Norquist has a Muslim wife, has spent years battling his party’s anti-Muslim fringe, and is a strong proponent of comprehensive immigration reform. (His neatly trimmed beard has even been cited as proof that he is a secret Muslim.) Trump has welcomed into the White House Islamophobic conspiracy theorists and proponents of immigration restriction. His campaign was powered by a populist-nationalist vision that had more to do with shutting out Mexicans than hemming in the regulatory state.
So what, Norquist as much as told me. What mattered was that he believes he is closer than he has ever been, after decades of struggle, to getting his famous wish—a government small enough to drown in a bathtub. And he may be right.
Norquist had just been at the White House, he noted, with a group of conservative activists the administration had brought in to consult.
“We’re working with the administration on the major economic stuff, so I feel very comfortable with the way they’re going,” he said. “Some conservatives who aren’t helping to row the boat don’t feel as comfortable,” because they don’t get the same assurances from the inside.
This was a veiled shot at the White House’s unhelpful conservative critics, but also a statement of Norquist’s strategy. By refraining from criticizing Trump, Norquist was positioning himself to continue to be in the rooms where policy is being made—unlike his unhelpful NeverTrump friends, who have reportedly been blacklisted.
He might be the cleverest man in the conservative movement. Or he might have sold his soul.
Norquist has never minded being liberals’ antichrist; being irrelevant is another thing entirely. Yet this was where he found himself for most of last year’s presidential campaign. While the political world was consumed with Trump, he rarely commented on the race, preferring to tweet about his daughters, state-level politics, vaping, or Burning Man, the annual countercultural festival in the Nevada desert he has attended for the past three years.
Before 2016, Norquist had long had a starring role in national politics as a villain to liberals, who blamed his group’s tax pledge for Republicans’ refusal to compromise. Many a GOP incumbent, stretching back to the first President Bush, has lost reelection after breaking the promise never to raise taxes. Many more, Democrats contend, refuse to consider initiatives that are in the public interest because they fear Norquist’s disapproval. Arianna Huffington has called Norquist “the dark wizard of the anti-tax cult”; Harry Reid, the former Senate majority leader, said Republicans in Congress were being “led like puppets” by him.
The pledge not to raise taxes, Norquist contends, is a promise Republicans make to their voters, not to him. Republicans who won’t sign the pledge, Norquist likes to say, are like “rat heads in Coke bottles”: They ruin the brand’s reputation. As for the idea that he’s Republicans’ leader, he has joked, “I reject all conspiracy theories that have me sharing world domination with the Koch brothers. Sharing? Never.”
In 2016, however, Norquist was relegated to the sidelines, and early. His preferred presidential candidate, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, dropped out in September 2015. Norquist continued to pine for him nonetheless.
“Tonight I dine w/ 2016 GOP nominee, Gov. Scott Walker,” he tweeted. “He beat the union bosses, cut taxes, elected 3 times. Who would not nominate that.” This tweet was issued seven months after Walker left the race, shortly before Trump became the presumptive nominee.
Meanwhile, Norquist was fighting a personal, highly charged battle with his party’s Islamophobic fringe—a fight that continues to echo in the GOP’s post-election conflicts. Frank Gaffney, the head of an anti-Islam think tank, has spent nearly two decades attacking and harassing Norquist, claiming that Americans for Tax Reform is an Islamist front group tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. He also contends that Norquist is gay. There is no apparent truth to Gaffney’s claims, but they have circulated widely on the right, championed by the likes of Breitbart and Glenn Beck.
In the past, Norquist has mostly won this intra-movement battle: He kicked Gaffney out of his influential Wednesday meetings of conservative activists, and had Gaffney barred from the Conservative Political Action Conference. In early 2016, Gaffney tried to get Norquist removed from the board of the National Rifle Association. Norquist’s allies waged an intense campaign on his behalf, and in May, he narrowly avoided removal from the board on a 53-47 percent vote of more than 130,000 NRA members.
This was the reason I was so shocked to find Norquist cheering on Trump. Beyond the exhausting and annoying personal ordeal, his feud with Gaffney seemed to represent the ongoing battle for the soul of the Republican Party, with Norquist’s abstract, libertarian, economically focused agenda on one side and Gaffney’s paranoid, racially tinged vision on the other.
A man who represents everything Norquist doesn’t think the GOP should stand for—tribalism, xenophobia, identity politics—now has the ear of the president.
There is no denying that Trump’s rise has empowered Gaffney and his allies. Gaffney’s views have been embraced by officials now serving in the White House, such as presidential adviser Sebastian Gorka. Gaffney himself was an informal adviser to the Trump transition team. A man who represents everything Norquist doesn’t think the GOP should or does stand for—tribalism, xenophobia, identity politics—now has the ear of the Republican president.
To many, including some of his own strategists, Trump won both the primary and general elections by ignoring conservative dogma and instead tapping into people’s resentment of minorities and foreigners. Many analysts, myself included, saw Trump's success as evidence that perhaps the true mainstream of the GOP was always more Gaffney than Norquist, more Breitbart than National Review. Influential Trump advisers like Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller have declared that they want to reshape America’s political debate into one about American culture and nationalism, not the size of government.
Norquist dismissed my theory that the Gaffney-ites have gained the upper hand in Trump’s GOP. “The guys who make that case are a fringe,” he said. “I don’t think Trump will respond to that.” The travel ban, he claimed, was “temporary and limited.” Hostility to immigrants, Muslims, and foreign trade he chalked up to “a level of grumpiness in the electorate” that would subside once economic conditions improved—which they would, thanks to Trump’s Reaganite regulatory and tax initiatives.
“You get tax cuts and growth, and a lot of the challenges that people have on both immigration and trade become much less of a challenge, in terms of voters’ levels of grumpiness,” he said.
Norquist professes to have zero interest in any kind of racial politics. When, at one point, I made a joke about his “Scandinavian heritage,” based on his name, he responded flatly, “I am completely detribalized.” (Norquist’s grandparents came to the U.S. from Sweden.) Americans for Tax Reform advocated strongly on behalf of the 2013 “Gang of Eight” immigration-reform bill that passed the Senate but stalled in the House of Representatives.
Norquist had polished off his frittata and was chewing on a toasted English muffin, pondering whether vitamin enthusiasts might be the next frontier in anti-FDA activism. He simply refused to accept that the libertarian goals he sought might come, under Trump, at the price of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim policies. It was impossible to tell whether his insistence on seeing only the parts of Trumpism he agreed with was willfully disingenuous or an act of extreme denial.
Or maybe norquist is right. He makes a strong case that Trump is a mere anomaly—the orange-haired tree—while what’s actually having an effect is a Republican Party that, Trump aside, is more right-wing, and more powerful, than ever.
Americans for Tax Reform’s agenda of limiting the federal government is well under way as virtually every Cabinet agency rolls back regulations—one of the few actual accomplishments of the bumbling new administration. The EPA is being gutted, the Federal Communications Commission is in the hands of a hard-core telecom libertarian, financial rules are being loosened. To be sure, Congress’s disastrous attempt to repeal Obamacare was a setback. But in the wake of that fiasco, Trump declared that he would move on to focus on tax reform.
Just imagine what it must be like to spend 30 years as the founder and president of an organization called Americans for Tax Reform and to finally have a president and Congress committed to tax reform as a top priority. It is the Washington policy-dork equivalent of winning the lottery—and changing the American fiscal landscape in the bargain.
It’s not just what’s happening in Washington that gladdens Norquist. Republicans also have unprecedented power at the state level. Americans for Tax Reform produces a map after every election showing which party controls each state, and Norquist handed me the latest version. It was redder than a blood-soaked towel. Twenty-five states are now totally in Republican hands, with a GOP governor and Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature. Democrats can claim similar ownership of just six states.
“Now try funding the modern Democratic Party without union dues—good luck.”
Republican candidates down the ballot, Norquist argues, stood for the party’s traditional platform of supply-side economics, not Trumpist populism—and most of them did better than Trump. “Half the country lives in a completely red state, OK?” Norquist said. “This is a wave that Trump caught—it’s not a tsunami he created.”
If Republicans listen to Norquist—and they generally do, or face the consequences—all those red states will push his agenda forward: lowering taxes, eliminating regulations, expanding gun rights. The withering of the labor movement will further kneecap Democrats, keeping them out of power for a generation. Wisconsin and Michigan have both seen union membership plummet after the enactment of “right-to-work” laws that made joining a union optional for government workers. Other Republican states are considering similar moves, and a Supreme Court case is pending that could impose right-to-work nationally, crippling unions for good.
“Seven million public-sector employees who pay between 4 and 8 billion dollars a year in dues—a third of them will quit,” Norquist said. “Now try funding the modern Democratic Party without union dues—good luck.”
Oh, and one other thing: The government will get its sticky hands off everyone’s electronic cigarettes.
Norquist does not smoke, e-cigarettes or the regular kind. But he views vaping regulation as a new libertarian cause and vapers as a new potential constituency. In fact, Norquist’s theory about why Republicans won in 2016 is not Hillary’s emails or Russia or James Comey or the forgotten white working class. He believes it was crossover votes from vapers.
Aside from his take on Trump, this was the topic I wanted to discuss at my breakfast with Norquist. Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, I noticed, Norquist’s very active Twitter account, which has more than 65,000 followers, popped up regularly in my feed with out-of-the-blue statements like, “VAPING is a political movement.” In March 2016, as Trump and Ted Cruz were locked in the final stretch of their battle for the Republican nomination, Norquist tweeted: “Vape...then Vote....Vape...then Vote....Then Vape again.”
There are 10 million e-cigarette users in America, and they are passionately anti-vaping-regulation, even if they’re liberal on everything else. Norquist is working to move them into the Republican tent.
Norquist’s square-jawed press aide, John Kartch, who was seated next to him at our booth in a downtown D.C. hotel restaurant, reminded him about a vape-shop owner they’d met during the campaign. “He told us he was a lifelong Democrat, very left-wing—he personally hated you forever.”
“He didn’t say hated,” Norquist said, sounding slightly wounded.
But the man’s political orientation completely changed when he opened a vaping business and encountered a bunch of burdensome regulations, Kartch said. “He came to D.C. and presented Grover with a T-shirt.”
“Which I wore at Burning Man!” Norquist recalled. “I have the picture!”
“So, we picked up a lot of people who were probably center-left, if they voted at all,” Kartch said, this being the moral of the story.
“They have more tattoos than I do,” Norquist said archly. How high a bar is that?
“I have no tattoos,” Norquist admitted.
I asked Norquist how he could be so sure that vaping ought not be regulated, given that experts disagree on its potential health effects and much research remains to be done. “It’s none of the government’s goddamned business if it makes your nose fall off!” he said. He later clarified that rather than banning dangerous substances, the government should warn people and let them make their own decisions, as it does with alcohol and tobacco.
The vapers, Norquist contends, were pivotal in at least two swing states in 2016—one that Trump won, and one that he lost.
An Obama-era Food and Drug Administration regulation, if it isn’t repealed, would retroactively ban the vast majority of e-cigarettes. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire’s Republican senator, refused to take a position on it. Although she led in most polls, Ayotte lost her bid for reelection in November by a minuscule margin—one-tenth of a point—and Trump lost the state.
There is always a new group to be brought into the tent of people who want to be left alone by the government.
Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, on the other hand, supports legislation to keep vaping legal. Johnson, who was behind in the polls, pulled off one of the election’s biggest upsets, winning reelection by 3.4 points. He arguably dragged Trump to victory in the state on his coattails: Trump won Wisconsin by just seven-tenths of a point.
Norquist believes the senators’ fates and their stances on vaping were not a coincidence. During the campaign, ATR sponsored a cross-country pro-vaping bus tour, and hammered the issue particularly hard in Wisconsin. “There’s a guy we worked with who went to every vaping shop in Wisconsin, reminding them that Senator Johnson was the No. 1 defender of vaping,” Norquist told me.
The idea that vapers were the key to the 2016 election struck me as exotic, to say the least. But this is Norquist’s theory of coalition politics, one he has pursued relentlessly for decades: There is always a new group to be brought into the tent of people who want to be left alone by the government. America’s 2 million homeschooling families. Fifteen million holders of concealed-carry gun permits, a number that’s triple the membership of the NRA. And now, 10 million vapers.
Later, I called Johnson’s campaign manager, Betsy Ankney, to ask if the vapers had been crucial to his win, expecting she would laugh me off the phone. But while she didn’t attribute victory to the vapers alone, she didn’t deny that they had helped. “It is something we got a huge swell of support around,” she said. The campaign targeted digital ads at vapers as a result.
Norquist’s trust in Trump has put him at odds with many other conservative organizations. Americans for Tax Reform supported the failed House plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, on the grounds that it cut taxes; Heritage Action, the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, and the Kochs’ Americans for Prosperity all opposed the bill, despite a White House meeting at which the president personally asked for their support. Republicans in Congress didn’t take Norquist’s side. The other conservative groups’ opposition helped torpedo the legislation.
Yet Norquist is confident he will win the war. He told me he trusted Trump because of the time he had spent in his presence. He had met Trump four times: Once in 2012, when he viewed him as a potential donor. Once in July 2015, when Trump spoke at the libertarian FreedomFest in Las Vegas and met with Norquist privately. Once at a reception before Trump’s April 2016 foreign-policy speech at the Center for the National Interest. (This was apparently the same reception at which Trump notoriously met the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.) And finally, at the White House in January.
It was a conversation with Trump at their third meeting that stood out in Norquist’s mind. “He said, ‘Do you like my tax cut?’ and I said, ‘Yes, it’s a fine tax cut,’” Norquist recalled. “And then he pointed at me and he said: ‘I’m with you 100 percent. I’m with you 100 percent. I’m with you 100 percent.’”
Norquist smiled, an impish, purse-lipped, cat-that-ate-the-canary smile. “So, he’s with me 100 percent,” he said. “He said it three times. What could be clearer?”
Molly Ball is Time magazine’s national political correspondent and a former staff writer at The Atlantic.
==
A Conversation with Grover Norquist, President of Americans ...
Grover Norquist is the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist, an advocate for lower, simpler taxes, is an outspoken cost...
.
Apr 9, 2021
Commentary: Grover Norquist — Socialist-spending plans slam into debt ceiling
Commentary: Grover Norquist — Socialist-spending plans slam into debt ceiling. Grover Norquist. Oct. 18, 2021.
.
Oct 18, 2021
https://www.mediamatters.org/critical-race-theory/grover-norquist-parents-are-being-forced-home-school-kids-and-not-reenter
==
https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/the-coronavirus-pandemic-has-exposed-what-the-gops-anti-tax-rhetoric-is-really-all-about/
newt Gingrich is usually, and rightly, blamed for destroying American politics, even more than Donald Trump. The former House Speaker didn’t go to Washington in the 1970s to strike deals. He went there to wage soft civil war against the United States.
But if there’s a close second to the title of America’s Worst Person, it probably goes to someone you never heard of. He’s not a politician. He’s not a pundit or bureaucrat. When it comes to influencing the GOP’s attitude toward taxing, spending and budgets, however, it would be hard to find someone more influential than Grover Norquist.
Norquist is the head of Americans for Tax Reform. The name is a misnomer. It doesn’t want to “reform” taxes so much as get rid of taxes on the very, very rich. Norquist is probably most famous for saying, in 2001, that he doesn’t want to abolish government per se. “I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can … drown it in the bathtub."
while Gingrich was on the front lines of the soft civil war, armed with lies, slander and disinformation as his weapons of choice, Norquist was in the backrooms, pulling strings, pressing Republicans to pledge to never ever—never ever ever—raise taxes or be punished. The last Republican to raise taxes for the purpose of balancing responsibly the federal budget was George H.W. Bush, the last one-term president.
At some point, it’s hard to say when, Gingrich’s focus on language and Norquist’s focus on policy merged so that the Republicans always sounded like they were being responsible when calling for balanced budgets, but they were in fact being reckless. Why? Responsible budgets consider expenses as well as revenues. You can’t just ignore one if you’re being serious or responsible. Thanks to pressure from Norquist, however, the Republicans pretended revenues didn’t exist. And, alas, the Democratic Party usually went along. The result has been that for years most debates over budgets turned on the question of how much to starve a government of, by and for the people.
To be sure, this pretending was collective. Norquist’s group doesn’t care about the size of government. What it cares about is shoving the tax burden off the shoulders of the very, very rich while at the same time seeing the rich enriched with lucrative contracts. If that means huge deficits, so be it. Similarly, the Republican don’t care about deficits when Republicans are president. (Yes, Ronald Reagan raised taxes but he left office with the books well in the red.) Deficits only matter when Democrats are in charge.
All of this was clear to anyone paying close attention. Even so, Norquist in particular had plausible deniability on his side. Though budgets were swollen to bursting on account of irresponsible Republican attitudes, he and others could always say, well, we’re spending too much on wasteful expenditures. If we didn’t spend so much of what people don’t need—or on what people have grown dependent on—budgets and the government would be smaller and better. Plausible deniability meant his group always seemed to be at least somewhat principled, even to people paying close attention.
It seems to me the age of plausible deniability is over. Americans for Tax Reform, which was at the center the tea party movement that took over the Republican Party, applied for and received a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan as part of an effort to stimulate the economy as it reels from the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. The guy who wanted to drown the government in a bathtub cried to help while drowning.
You could say, well, that’s OK. Everyone’s facing hard times. But everyone faced hard times during thefinancial panic of 2007-2008, too. Indeed, Barack Obama, after winning reelection, wanted George W. Bush-era tax cuts on the rich to expire in order to fund a multi-billion dollar jobs program. After 2012, when the GOP lost seats in the Senate, some Republicans felt pressure to play along—until Norquist stepped in. “We’ve got some people,” he said, “discussing impure thoughts on national television.”
The jobs program was shelved, almost certainly prolonging the Great Recession.Yet amid another historic crisis, here we see Grover Norquist of all people with his hand out. It’s not a lot, just $350,000 in forgivable loans. It’s the principle of the thing in that there are no and never have been principles guiding the fiscal conservative project. Only the idea that government is for the very, very rich, not of, by and for the people.
Norquist isn’t alone, of course. The Republicans were so hostile toward Obama’s economic agenda that they brought the country to the brink of insolvency by refusing to lift the debt limit. And yet Republican members of Congress and the president’s family business got access this month to $660 billion in forgivable PPP money, as did 90,000 well-connected businesses that promised to save zero jobs in the bargain.
Sabotage was good politics when Obama was in charge. With Trump, it’s belly up to the trough. This should matter to white swing voters after the election. The Republicans will try reupping the con. They will say they fight for them. They don’t. They are waging soft civil war. While that was never obvious, it should be clear now.
John Stoehr is the editor and publisher of the Editorial Board, a newsletter about politics in plain English for normal people and the common good. He’s a visiting assistant professor of public policy at Wesleyan University, a fellow at the Yale Journalism Initiative, a contributing writer for the Washington Monthly, and a contributing editor for Religion Dispatches.
==
==
net neutral 818:
- Americans for Tax Reform also signed the letter. They are best known for their ties to prominent conservative figures like founder Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and the Koch brothers, but they also have financial ties to the telecom industry. The NCTA gave them $50,000 per year for general support from 2011 to 2015 according to tax records. The CTIA (via MyWireless) chipped in another $165,000 from 2010-2016. They are also a member of the State Policy Network.
- The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) signed the letter through their 501(c)(4) affiliate ALEC Action. ALEC is well known for their work with corporations and interest groups on crafting model legislation for state legislatures, and among those corporate partners are major net neutrality opponents like AT&T, Comcast, Charter, and Verizon. ALEC has also received at least $10,000 from MyWireless, tax records show.
==
A gas and oil representative lamented that all the public hears about is when something goes wrong, like the “Firestone event.” Turns out the “Firestone event” was a deadly house explosion that recently occurred in Firestone, Colorado where two people were killed. The conflagration was caused when a well owned by Anadarko Petroleum was still attached to an abandoned, leaking gas line. Anadarko, a big fracking company, is a sponsor of the ALEC conference. What a nuisance that the public remembers such an event and that the state would step in to require additional safety precautions!
Renewable energy technologies are the enemy at ALEC. The Colorado Senator stated that renewable energies can’t even be considered an industry because of thesubsidies needed and because “we can’t afford charities.” Totally ignored are the massive public subsidies handed out to the gas and oil industry. Even one of the presenters had to remind the audience that the fracking industry had received billions of dollars in public subsidies. You could hear a pin drop in response.
And on the docket today is the consideration by the Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force of a model policy resolution condemning Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs, pushed by **Americans for Tax Reform**. PACE programs allow property owners to receive low-cost commercial loans to finance energy efficiency and renewable energy projects with long-term repayment options.
Sigh. So much for the free market.
Learn more about what’s on the agenda at this ALEC conference at ExposedbyCMD.org.
==
==
2/14 billboards to keep VW union
tenn http://www.newsmax.com/US/grover-norquist-union-volkswaqen-tennessee/2014/02/07/id/551465
Americans for Tax Reform, the politically active nonprofit headed by longtime antitax activitst Grover Norquist, raised and spent nearly $31 million in 2012, according to its tax filing for the year -- a new record for the group.
Because ATR separately had reported to the Federal Election Commission that it spent nearly $15.8 million on independent expenditures in the last election cycle -- ads that explicitly ask the public to vote for or against a candidate -- the 501(c)(4) social welfare organization appears to be testing the IRS guideline that such a group's political spending can't amount to a majority of its activity. In this case, the amount reported to the FEC comes to more than 51 percent of ATR's total spending.
ATR told the IRS that it spent just $9.8 million on politics for the year, seeming to contradict what it reported to the FEC. The tax agency has no cut-and-dried test for what it counts as "political" spending, as OpenSecrets Blog has noted in the past. However, it has always been clear that expenditures directly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, as reported to the FEC, fit what the IRS considers to be political activity.
"I cannot think of a definition where express advocacy would not be considered political intervention" under IRS rules, said Donald Tobin, a law professor at Ohio State University's Moritz School of Law.
Frances Hill, an expert on nonprofits at the University of Miami's law school, agreed. She said the only way the figure ATR reported to the IRS could be correct was if the group overreported its spending to the election agency, due to error or out of a desire to show it was spending more than it did.
Repeated efforts today to get comment from ATR were unsuccessful by the time of this post.
In addition, the vast majority of ATR's funds -- $26.4 million, or 85 percent -- came fromCrossroads GPS, the 800-pound-gorilla among conservative dark money nonprofits that are highly politically active and don't disclose their donors. That means that ATR used at least a sizable portion of the Crossroads grant to fund its political ads, even given the fact that it is difficult to trace how any single donated dollar is spent.
Crossroads, which was cofounded by GOP strategist Karl Rove, made $35.1 million in grants to other nonprofits last year, including the large grant to ATR, according to its own tax forms, also filed on Friday but not available until today. Rove's group counts its grants to other 501(c)(4) groups toward its social welfare spending, which must be a majority of what it does, the IRS says.
On the tax form, Crossroads says, "Grants are accompanied by a letter of transmittal, stating that the funds are to be used only for 501(c)(4) [tax] exempt purposes, and not for political expenditures, consistent with the organization's tax-exempt mission" (emphasis ours).
Crossroads may be arguing "that when it makes the grants, it has made them conditional" on the money not being used for politics, Tobin said. But he noted that this is another imprecise area at the IRS: There are no requirements that an organization follow up on how its funds were used, nor any standard ways of doing so. "We haven't had a lot of cases or guidance," Tobin said.
The use of millions of dollars in Crossroads funds by ATR for advertising for or against candidates and for other campaign-related purposes raises further questions about the burgeoning role of nondisclosing 501(c) organizations in politics. Such groups aren't supposed to operate in concert with candidates but can have a huge impact raising and spending unlimited amounts of money on their own, and can strategize with similar groups and with super PACs, among others. Tax filings show that in any number of cases, conservative groups have networked to give money to each other and back again.
In the 2012 election cycle, nondisclosing 501(c) organizations spent more than $300 million, according to forms they filed with the FEC, and that doesn't include any money spent on issue ads unless they were aired within weeks of an election (the only circumstance in which they must be reported).
Aside from Crossroads GPS, ATR brought in only $4.6 million in grants from other organizations and individuals, some of which have been identified by OpenSecrets Blog.
Americans for Tax Reform has been circulating and promoting its Taxpayer Protection Pledge for decades. Getting lawmakers to sign this pledge, which calls on lawmakers to promise that they will neither raise taxes nor end deductions during their time in office, is the centerpiece of the ATR mission.
For the last seven years for which IRS filings are available, ATR has reported spending an average of $759,085 promoting the pledge each year. In 2012, however, ATR claims to have spent nearly $28 million on the project.
Given that it only spent $31 overall, and $15.8 was laid out trying to either elect or defeat candidates running for Congress, according to FEC reports, that means ATR counted at least some of its ads as pledge promotion.
This is not the first time that Americans for Tax Reform's IRS filings have raised questions about discrepancies and rule bending. In 2010, ATR received more than $8 million from Crossroads GPS and the Center to Protect Patient Rights. That same year, after reporting to the FEC that it spent $4.1 million on independent expenditures in the midterm elections, it reported to the IRS that it only had spent $1.9 million on politics, while also spending $8 million on "election related advertisements."
Discrepancies are not new for ATR. The critical issue this year, though, is that if it did spend the $15.8 million it reported to the FEC, then it spent more than half of its 2012 outlays on politics.
Crossroads' other activity
Crossroads reported spending $188.9 million during the election year -- more than eight times what it spent in 2011, it said on its tax documents. Of that, $74.1 went for direct or indirect political activity, according to the forms; that's more than the almost $71 million that it told the FEC it spent on politics.
In addition, it reported making $35.1 million in grants. Besides the large sum to ATR, Crossroads GPS gave $2 million to Americans for Job Security, a dark money group to which it hadn't previously donated but with which it coordinates strategy.
More than $128 million was sent to Crossroads' five highest-paid contractors, all of which provided either media services, database services or phone communication services. Most of that -- $118 million -- went to Crossroads Media LLC, a firm that is technically not affiliated with the 501(c)(4) group. The head of the media firm, Mike Dubke, was a founding member of Americans for Job Security -- which itself paid Crossroads Media nearly $15 million from late 2011 to late 2012, FEC reports show.
The Wall Street Journal first wrote about some of the elements reported on Crossroads' Form 990 when it was given an advance look last week. Together, Crossroads GPS and its super PAC affiliate, American Crossroads, laid out more than $176 million in the 2012 cycle for political ads and other activity that had to be reported to the FEC.
Tags:
- 501(c)(4),
- americans for job security,
- americans for tax reform,
- crossroads gps,
- crossroads media,
- dark money,
- donald tobin,
- frances hill,
- grover norquist,
- karl rove,
- mike dubke,
- outside spending,
- robert maguire,
- shadow money trail,
- social welfare,
- taxpayer protection pledge
Grand Total: $15,794,552
Total For Democrats: $457,352
Total Against Democrats: $13,925,653
Total For Republicans: $1,408,000
Total Against Republicans: $3,547
| Candidate | Party | State | Office | Total | For | Against | Results | Ads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wilson, Charlie | D | OH | House | $3,125,327 | $0 | $3,125,327 | Lost | |
| Pace, Sal | D | CO | House | $1,575,152 | $0 | $1,575,152 | Lost | |
| Critz, Mark | D | PA | House | $1,527,329 | $457,352 | $1,069,977 | Lost | |
| Peters, Scott | D | CA | House | $1,392,781 | $0 | $1,392,781 | Winner | |
| Owens, Bill | D | NY | House | $1,125,923 | $0 | $1,125,923 | Winner | |
| Barrow, John | D | GA | House | $1,110,276 | $0 | $1,110,276 | Winner | |
| Lawson, Alfred Jr | D | FL | House | $1,046,252 | $0 | $1,046,252 | Lost | |
| Rothfus, Keith J | R | PA | House | $990,000 | $990,000 | $0 | Winner | |
| Maloney, Sean Patrick | D | NY | House | $699,127 | $0 | $699,127 | Winner | |
| Enyart, William | D | IL | House | $472,053 | $0 | $472,053 | Winner | |
| Peters, Gary | D | MI | House | $471,498 | $0 | $471,498 | Winner | |
| Warren, Elizabeth | D | MA | Senate | $439,233 | $0 | $439,233 | Winner | |
| Chandler, Ben | D | KY | House | $321,400 | $0 | $321,400 | Lost | |
| Berkley, Shelley | D | NV | Senate | $320,514 | $0 | $320,514 | Lost | |
| Kaine, Tim | D | VA | Senate | $292,997 | $0 | $292,997 | Winner | |
| Baldwin, Tammy | D | WI | Senate | $203,841 | $0 | $203,841 | Winner | |
| Heitkamp, Heidi | D | ND | Senate | $190,594 | $0 | $190,594 | Winner | |
| Weber, Randy | R | TX | House | $150,000 | $150,000 | $0 | Winner | |
| Gill, Ricky | R | CA | House | $138,000 | $138,000 | $0 | Lost | |
| Anderson, Lee Ivey | R | GA | House | $130,000 | $130,000 | $0 | Lost | |
| Heinrich, Martin | D | NM | Senate | $44,032 | $0 | $44,032 | Winner | |
| Tester, Jon | D | MT | Senate | $24,676 | $0 | $24,676 | Winner | |
| Hovde, Eric | R | WI | Senate | $3,547 | $0 | $3,547 | Lost in primary | Lost in primary |
==
targets green energy
http://grist.org/wind-power/anti-wind-activists-want-to-create-fake-grassroots-campaign-against-industry/
oct 2012
Dark money group Americans for Tax Reform just dropped close to $2 million to influence competitive House races.
Victories for the 501(c)4 non-profit lobbying organization, founded by conservative lobbyist Grover Norquist in 1985, would undoubtedly complicate efforts to reach a deal to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff" because the group "opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle." ATR's central tenet -- the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which requires lawmakers to "solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases," enjoys the backing most Republicans in Congress and all but one of this year's GOP presidential candidates. But there have been some notable dissenters.
Norquist's influential group has reported spending a total $3.9 million on House and Senate races, almost all in the last two weeks. In the last 24 hours alone, ATR clocked $1.97 million in independent expenditures in reports to the the Federal Election Commission. All were for negative television ads, like the one seen above, against Democrats in six House races, three of them involving Republican freshmen:
- $414,000 to oppose Scott Peters in effort to unseat veteran Republican Rep. Brian Bilbray for California's 52nd Congressional District, a race that nonpartisan political handicapper Charlie Cook rates a tossup.
- $185,000 to oppose the reelection of rookie Democratic Rep. Mark Critz in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District, another tossup, according to the Cook Political Report. ATR's latest expenditures are in addition to $495,000 the group dumped into the race earlier this month.
- $136,000 against incumbent Democratic Rep. John Barrow Georgia's 12th Congressional District. Cook gives Republicans a better-than even chance to take Barrow's seat.
- $374,000 to boost freshman Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo., against state Rep. Sal Pace in Colorado's 3rd district. Before this weekend, the race had seen less than $90,000 in total outside spending, but Tipton has received strong support from GOP insiders. While Cook still rates Tipton the favorite to win a second term, he has moved the contest from "likely" to "lean" Republican.
- $344,000 to oppose Sean Maloney, a one-time aide to former President Bill Clinton, in his race against freshman Republican Rep. Nan Hayworth in New York's redrawn 18th Congressional District. Cook also rates this contest a tossup.
- $519,000 in Ohio's 6th Congressional District, where former Democratic Rep. Charlie Wilson is trying to snatch the seat back from the freshman Republican who unseated him two years ago, Rep. Bill Johnson. While Cook gives Republicans the edge to keep this seat, he cautions that polls show the race is "quite tight."
==
sponsor of bogus climate conf see wars 33 march 2008
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is ostensibly a group that pushes for lower taxes. It has close ties to the Republican Party and has frequently allied itself with the tobacco industry.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Special Projects
o 1.1 Monthly radio program
o 1.2 Nationalization of Virginia state tax issues
* 2 KStreetProject.com
* 3 Ronald Reagan Legacy Project
* 4 Property Rights Alliance
* 5 Alliance for Worker Freedom
* 6 The Media Freedom Project
* 7 The American Shareholders Project
o 7.1 Conservative Movement Maps
o 7.2 Action Alerts
- 7.2.1 End the Estate Tax
- 7.2.2 Fight Net Neutrality
- 7.2.3 Oppose any limitations on "Grassroots" Internet Lobbying
- 7.2.4 Extend lower taxes on capital gains and dividends
- 7.2.5 Suport Alito for the Supreme Court
- 7.2.6 Support the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)
* 8 Personnel
* 9 Funding
* 10 History
* 11 Wining and dining with Norquist
* 12 Tax and spend ... for war
* 13 Contact information
* 14 Articles and resources
o 14.1 Related SourceWatch articles
o 14.2 References
o 14.3 External resources
o 14.4 External articles
Special Projects
The website provides links to the following projects:[1]
Monthly radio program
Grover Norquist's Radio Show, "Leave Us Alone" broadcasts on the internet every fourth Thursday on Rightalk. The organizational website maintains an archive of the programs. [2]
Nationalization of Virginia state tax issues
Starting in 2004, ATF launched a national letterwriting campaign to persuade Virginia legislators to fight Democratic Governor Mark Warner's plan to raise taxes to maintain the state's AAA bond raising and meet commitments to K-12 and higher education funding, among other purposes. Warner had inherited budget shortfalls from his predecessor, Republican George Allen and had already cut spending to avoid a deficit. [3]
When 34 Republican legislators worked with Virginia’s Democratic governor to secure passage, they issued a "Virginia's Least Wanted" poster targeting those Republicans. On April 24, 2005, ATF issued a press release touting those legislators that had signed a pledge not to increase taxes.[4]
On June 15, 2005, after the state primary, ATR issued a press release claiming that "Taxpayer advocates believe the two scalps they claimed last night – those of Gary Reese (H-67), who was defeated by newcomer Chris Craddock, and James Dillard (H-41), who retired rather than face a strong challenge from Michael Golden – are only their latest wins against the pro-tax 'Republicans.' Last September, Sen. Ken Stolle (S-8) was denied a seat in Congress because of his pro-tax vote; anti-tax Delegate Thelma Drake took the seat in Congress instead. In the special election to succeed Thelma Drake, Republican Michael Ball lost by less than 100 votes because he tried to finesse the tax issue."[5]
However, the strategy may have backfired. Both the Dillard and Reese seats, which had been Republican, ended up as Democratic seats in the general election. In fact in the Craddock-Caputo race in Virginia's 67th District, Norquist became a target in the campaign.
KStreetProject.com
K Street Project is "non-partisan research of political affiliation, employment background, and political donations of members in Washington DC's premier lobbying firms, trade associations, and industries." Ironically, it shares its name with the project by the Republican Party to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials. That projects was launched in 1995, by Republican strategist and ATF founder Grover Norquist working with former House majority leader Tom DeLay.
While many of the resources on this site appear non-partisan, there is also a prominent link to Daniel J. Flynn's report on liberal bias in higher education. [6]
Author of Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (Crown Forum, 2004) and Why the Left Hates America: Exposing the Lies That Have Obscured Our Nation's Greatness (Prima Forum, 2002). The latter is a Crown imprint which publishes conservative, current event titles. [7] such as Flynn, Ann Coulter and L. Brent Bozell III, founder and president of the Media Research Center. Flynn served from 1994-1997 as program officer for Young America's Foundation, from 1997-2003 as executive director of Accuracy in Academia, and from 2004-2005 as director of the Campus Leadership Program at the Leadership Institute.[8]
Ronald Reagan Legacy Project
The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project is a project of Americans for Tax Reform. It is a project to put Reagan's image on U.S. ten dollar bill and to "dedicate more things after Reagan." It promotes a Ronald Reagan Day and naming landmarks after Reagan.
Property Rights Alliance
This group works to influence legislation in opposition to the estate tax,[9] environmental protection, licensing restrictions, Federal purchase of land for national parks and wildlife areas, broadcast requirements for multicssting and drug importation, as well as seizure by eminent domain. [10]
Alliance for Worker Freedom
The "Alliance for Worker Freedom" is a "special project" of Americans for Tax Reform. The name is really a misnomer, as the Alliance opposes unions. At the Web site of the AWF, it says "AWF works to raise awareness of labor union abuses within the political system by educating movement conservatives on the threats to liberty posed by labor unions." AWF opposes collective bargaining.[1] AWF opposes the Employee Free Choice Act.[2] [11]
The Media Freedom Project
Advocating free market solutions to media, technology and telecommunications policy issues http://www.mediafreedomproject.org/index.php?content=aboutus
The American Shareholders Project
This project has the mission of providing a "voice to people...in the public policy debates that impact" savings and investments. [12] This includes opposition to the estate tax and a "fairer, simpler", e.g. less progressive tax rate.[13]
Conservative Movement Maps
"As a resource to our friends and supporters, we have provided issue maps that describe the 50 states in terms of where they are in the issues that most affect Conservatives" such as voting trends, but also government pensions, home schooling and official English laws.[14]
Action Alerts
[15]
End the Estate Tax
Fight Net Neutrality
Oppose any limitations on "Grassroots" Internet Lobbying
Extend lower taxes on capital gains and dividends
Suport Alito for the Supreme Court
Support the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)
"Approving CAFTA will reward the democracies in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic for rejecting the Communists, and will send the message to the region and the world that those who adopt free market policies will prosper, and those who adopt Leftist anti-American protectionist policies will fail."[16]
Personnel
ATR is headed by Grover Norquist, one of the most connected members of the new right-wing movement. He has close ties to the Republican Party, large U.S. business interests, and both the subsidized and regular U.S. media. Norquist helped the Heritage Foundation write the Republican's 1994 Contract With America.
Shortly thereafter, Norquist led a right wing charge to "de-fund" the left, declaring that "We will hunt [these liberal groups] down one by one and extinguish their funding sources." Norquist has also worked as a lobbyist for clients including Microsoft, American Business for Legal Immigration, Distilled Spirits Council, Edison Electric Institute, Interactive Gaming Council, and British Petroleum.
Funding
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Carthage Foundation; see Scaife Foundations
* JM Foundation
* John M. Olin Foundation
* Sarah Scaife Foundation; see Scaife Foundations
* R.J. Reynolds
* Philip Morris
* Tobacco Institute
* Jack Abramoff's clients, the Chiefs of the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas and the Coushattas tribe of Louisiana both gave $25,000 in 2001 and AATF received a cut of funds for laudering the emoney [17]
History
In a May 25, 1989, memo to the Steering Committee of Americans for Tax Reform – a document that was curiously found in the files of the now defunct Tobacco Institute – Grover Norquist excitedly reported progress on the ‘anti-tax front’. Not only had a swag of member of Congress promised to veto any tax increase, Norquist reported, there had been “three Wall Street Journal editorials highlighting the importance of ATR’s pledge campaign in stopping tax hikes”.
He also reported that an article in the Washington Times “which kindly quotes an agreement that I will have input into the question of what is a ‘duck’ – ie tax increase, and what is not”. [18]
Gingrich, as Republican whip in the House of Representatives, negotiated an agreement with the then President George Bush to vet any budget proposals. Under the deal, Gingrich would advise on whether proposed revenue raising proposals were in fact tax increases, or 'ducks' as Gingrich termed them. “It is fair to say, in dealing with Darman [White House Budget Director] and the administration in general on what is and isn’t a duck, I would lean very heavily on Richard Rahn (chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), Jeff Eisenach and Grover Norquist … They have a very good sense of the distinction between ducks and geese”, Gingrich said.
“The president has agreed the administration team will consult with the House Republicans and that for my part I will, as whip, in turn consult with these three people regarding the duck test,” he said. [19]
Wining and dining with Norquist
While corporate funding for ATR may have been volatile, Norquist had success on another front. In a letter to invitation to PM’s Washington-based Legislative Council, Ms Beverley McKittrick, Norquist reported that during 1997, 1997 and 1998 a series of ATR hosted dinner discussions on tax issues had all been sold out. The earlier dinners had featured speakers such as former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, Congressman John Kasich and Congressman Bill Thomas.
Norquist offered McKittrick a subscription to the 1999 series of six dinners – with Congressmen Armey, Chairman Archer and the Speaker of the House Denny Hastert amongst the invited speakers – “for a modest contribution of $10,000”.
“Only 24 business leaders will be in attendance,” Norquist assured McKittrick. The series of dinners, Norquist wrote, were chaired by Bill Roesing of Seagram & Sons and co-chaired by Chuck Crowders of Lucent Technologies.[20]
By 1999 PM’s contribution to ATR had grown to $160,000. [21] The Tobacco Institute contributed another $10,000 in 1999. [22]
In March 1999, Norquist was active lobbying members of the Senate Budget Committee in defence of the tobacco industry. “The Tobacco industry is a lawful industry subject to an excessive tax burden, already 41 cents per packet to state governments for re-imbursement of smoking related illness and over a dollar per pack taxes (depending on the state, some taxes are much higher0. That is already one-third tax burden on a legal product. Furthermore they employ thousands of Americans, which educates, feeds and clothes families across this nation”, Norquist wrote. [23]
The following week ATR was claiming to legislators that a Senate Budget resolution seeking to remove the tax-deductibility of payments made by the tobacco industry to settle the legal actions taken against it by State Attorney General’s would breach ATR’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge. The second paragraph of the pledge, ATR said, required supporters to “oppose any further reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar further reducing tax rates”.[24]
ATR’s role also extended to facilitating the introduction of one Republican political aspirant to RJR. “Bethany Noble from Americans for Tax Reform will be bringing Kevin Kellems (republican candidate to oppose Baron Hill in Ind. 9) by for a brief visit at 3.00 today. Kellems is a tobacco farmer, and has a pretty fair shot at unseating Hill,” Donald Foreman, an RJR staffer, wrote in an e-mail to his colleagues.
There was potential for embarrassment however, as RJR had donated $500 to Hill. Despite this, Foreman suggested “this is a race we may want to keep an eye on and see how it look [sic] in a few months”. [25]
A 1999 RJR Corporate Affairs plan identified one of the key strategies as being to “mobilize key third party groups (such as Americans for Tax reform, CART, NSA and others) to ensure that RJR’s message is effectively communicated, reinforced and understood by key opinion leaders”.
“We seek forums, in the media or with third parties who help us fight onerous legislation/regulation, to balance hyperbolic accusations of well financed critics whose credibility with key audiences is greater than hours”, the document stated. [26]
Tax and spend ... for war
Shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City, the New Republic reported that Norquist had been working to broker a "strange alliance" between the Republican Party and radical Islam.[27] In February 2003, however, ATR weighed in to support the Bush administration's war drive against Iraq. According to the New York Times, "Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said his organization had sent every state legislature a proposed measure for adoption the day fighting starts that supports Mr. Bush's actions."[28]
Contact information
Americans for Tax Reform
1920 L Street NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 785-0266
Fax: (202) 785-0261
Email: friends AT atr.org
Press contact: John Kartch, jkartch AT atr.org
Website: http://www.atr.org/
Articles and resources
Related SourceWatch articles
* Americans for Tax Reform and Jack Abramoff
* Americans for Tax Reform and Big Tobacco
* In Defense of Freedom Coalition
* Media Freedom Project
* Peter Roff
* Global Climate Science Communications Plan (1998)
* Peter Cleary
References
- ↑ Alliance for Worker Freedom Collective Bargaining, organizational Web site, accessed August 27, 2010
- ↑ Alliance for Worker Freedom The Employee Free Choice Act, organizational Web site, accessed August 27, 2010
External resources
External articles
* BBC News, Why does Taxing the rich make ordinary voters angry, Feb. 3, 2010.
* Reuters, "Tea Party Warriors Take aim at Florida Senate Race, Feb. 2, 2010.
* Ken Bode, "Florida Tea Party in Full Swing", Indianapolis Star, Jan. 29, 2010.
* Peter Roff, "Obama Spending Freeze is Simply not Credible", U.S. News and World Report, January 26, 2010.
* Americans for Tax Reform, "ATR Launches Media Freedom Project, Web site; Grassroots Organization Will Advocate for Media Deregulation", Media Release, U.S. Newswire, May 4, 2005.
* Washington Post, "Virginia's Money Plans" chart of February 25, 2005.
* Shenon, Philip, "$25,000 to Lobby Group Is Tied to Access to Bush," New York Times, March 10, 2006.
* Americans for Tax Reform,"[29] "Leave Us Alone]" accessed June 8, 2006. All footnotes in the special projects section link to the ATR website on the page noted, as accessed on that same date.
* Americans for Tax Reform, "Virginia signers of the taxpayer protection pledge" Release of April 4, 2005.
* Americans for Tax Reform, "Taxpayers win in Virginia Primaries" release of June 14, 2005.
* James V. Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt, "Senate Report: Five Nonprofit Groups Sold Clout to Abramoff," Washington Post, October 12, 2006.
* Press release, "Survey: 7 in 10 Americans Urge FCC to Cap Out-Of-Control Spending on 'High Cost' Portion of Universal Service Fund Phone Bill Tax," Cap The Fund (a project of The Senior Coalition, Americans for Tax Reform, the Maryland Taxpayers Association and The Media Freedom Project) via PR Newswire, November 14, 2007.
* Press release, "As Federal Phone Tax Heads Higher, 'Cap The Fund' Web Site To Help Consumers Support FCC Curbs on Universal Service Fund (USF) Waste," Cap The Fund via PR Newswire, March 18, 2008.
* John Eggerton, "Boehner, Conservative Groups Weigh In on Localism: FCC Chairman Kevin Martin Hears from Rep. John Boehner, Americans for Tax Reform, Christian Coalition, Citizens United," Broadcasting & Cable, June 13, 2008.
* Glen Dickson, "Microsoft Presses for White Spaces Vote: Microsoft's Craig Mundie tells reporters 'no justifiable reason' to delay FCC vote on proposed devices," Broadcasting & Cable, October 27, 2008.
* David Hogberg, "Conservatives Admit Mistakes As They Plot Return To Power," Investor's Business Daily, November 6, 2008.
* Mike Allen, "Exclusive: Conservative group offers support for $2M", Politico, July 17, 2009.
* Dennis Whitfield, ACU Executive Vice President, "Statement from ACU regarding false headline by Washington publication POLITICO ", Media Release, July 17, 2009.
* Tom Hamburger and James Oliphant, [30], "Court Ruling on Campaign Spending could Pay off for GOP."
* Tea Party movement gains steam across the country, [31], January 23, 2010.
Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Tax_Reform"
TWO
https://inthesetimes.com/features/janus_supreme_court_unions_investigation.html
no lnx grafs
Behind Janus: Documents Reveal Decade-Long Plot to Kill Public-Sector Unions
The Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME is poised to decimate public-sector unions—and it’s been made possible by a network of right-wing billionaires, think tanks and corporations.
MARY BOTTARI
ILLUSTRATIONS BY ANNEE SCHWANK
FEBRUARY 22 | MARCH ISSUE
THE ROMAN GOD JANUS WAS KNOWN FOR HAVING TWO FACES. It is a fitting name for the U.S. Supreme Court case scheduled for oral arguments February 26, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, that could deal a devastating blow to public-sector unions and workers nationwide.
In the past decade, a small group of people working for deep-pocketed corporate interests, conservative think tanks and right-wing foundations have bankrolled a series of lawsuits to end what they call “forced unionization.” They say they fight in the name of “free speech,” “worker rights” and “workplace freedom.” In briefs before the court, they present their public face: carefully selected and appealing plaintiffs like Illinois child-support worker Mark Janus and California schoolteacher Rebecca Friedrichs. The language they use is relentlessly pro-worker.
From the March 2018 issue
Behind closed doors, a different face is revealed. Those same people cheer “defunding” and “bankrupting” unions to deal a “mortal blow” to progressive politics in America.
A key director of this charade is the State Policy Network (SPN), whose game plan is revealed in a union-busting toolkit uncovered by the Center for Media and Democracy. The first rule of the national network of right-wing think tanks that are pushing to dismantle unions? “Rule #1: Be pro-worker, not anti-union. … Don’t rant against unions. … Using phrases like ‘union fat cats’ and ‘corrupt union bosses’ and other negative language reduces support for reform.”
And yet, SPN groups have systematically spearheaded attacks on unions and workers in statehouses and courtrooms nationwide. The Janus case, and its precursor, Friedrichs v. the California Teachers Association, represent SPN’s most audacious move yet, an effort to kneecap the unions of public-sector workers—including teachers, nurses, sanitation workers, park rangers, prison guards, police and firefighters—in a single blow.
“TRUST TEACHERS!”
On Jan. 11, 2016, about 100 people bundled in coats and mittens mill around the Supreme Court steps. They hold signs with little red apples that read, “Trust Teachers!” and “Respect Teachers? Then respect their First Amendment rights!”
From a distance, it looks like a teachers’ rally. A closer look reveals an odd array of participants. Grover Norquist, the man who wanted to drown government in a bathtub, cheerfully declines an interview as he breezes by.Daniel Turner, who worked for the education reform task force of the far-right American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), waves a “Trust Teachers!” sign from behind the podium. Near him stands Chantal Lovell from SPN’s Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a group credited with jamming a union-busting bill through Michigan’s lame duck legislature in 2012. A representative from SPN’s Arizona-based Goldwater Institute is present, as is a fellow from the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity (who also declines an interview).
The night before, SPN organized a dinner for representatives of its member groups who had flown in for the oral arguments. Among its members were the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in Friedrichs and 12 groups that had filed supporting amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs. The suit was filed on behalf of Rebecca Friedrichs and nine other California teachers who wanted to stop paying their “fair share fees”—money paid by non-union members to cover the costs of collective bargaining.
On the courthouse steps, a woman with a bullhorn tries to rev up the audience. “Who do we trust?” she asks. “Teachers,” murmurs the crowd. “Who?” she yells. “Teachers!” Now they have the hang of it. The podium is emblazoned with the hashtag #IStandWithRebecca.
Friedrichs deadlocked the Court 4-4 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, leaving the status quo of union fees in place. Expect a repeat of this courthouse scene February 26. SPN is once again rallying the troops and a #StandWithMark hashtag is already circulating.
Janus has its origins in a lawsuit filed by billionaire Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner. Rauner issued an executive order in 2015 instructing Illinois to stop collecting fair share fees. At the same time, he filed a federal lawsuit to speed the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two SPN member groups—the Illinois Policy Institute and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation—joined the suit with plaintiff Mark Janus, who makes a much more sympathetic poster child than a billionaire venture capitalist. When Rauner was found not to have standing, Janus was allowed to pursue the suit.
Janus is a child-support worker employed by the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. “The union voice is not my voice,” Janus wrote in a Chicago Tribune op-ed. “The union’s fight is not my fight. But a piece of my paycheck every week still goes to the union.”His lawyers will argue before the Court that if “money is speech” in a post-Citizens United world, then fair share fees are unconstitutional “forced” or “coerced” speech.
The Court decided 40 years ago in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that fair share fees are constitutional.The decision tried to balance the right of a union to exist against the rights of any workers who don’t want to be members. Since unions must represent all employees in contract negotiations, the Court held that nonmembers could be assessed a fee to cover the costs associated with this representation. But, the Court said, nonmembers could not be charged for costs associated with political activities. Today, fair share fees and political fees are separated. The Abood decision is not a good enough compromise for the Janus lawyers, who argue everything a public-sector union does is political.
Overturning Abood would be “a right to a free ride, nothing more, nothing less,” says Joel Rogers, a University of Wisconsin law professor. “There’s no question that it’ll have a devastating financial effect on public-sector unions, at least in the short tem.”
THE TROIKA
Media coverage has focused almost uniformly on the personal stories of Mark Janus and Rebecca Friedrichs, and the complex legalities of their cases. That coverage obscures the bigger picture.
“It’s a mistake to focus on the individual plaintiffs,” says Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, an assistant professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University. “Instead, the focus should be on the conservative advocacy groups. … ALEC, SPN and the Kochs’ Americans for Prosperityhave all worked hand in glove over the past several years to cut back the strength of public-sector unions. The effects of this case will be felt far beyond the plaintiffs.”
Infographic ]
ALEC was founded in 1973 as a venue for politicians and corporate lobbyists to meet behind closed doors and draft cookie-cutter legislation, known as “model bills,” that promote corporate interests. The Center for Media and Democracy published ALEC’s library of secret bills in 2011. One stack of model bills aims to privatize public services and public schools; another stack aims to break unions.
Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a right-wing political advocacy group founded by billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, owners of Koch Industries. AFP, fueled by a large network of millionaire and billionaire funders, spends millions on TV ads in election cycles and serves as the Kochs’ “grassroots” lobbying arm. AFP representatives participate in both ALEC and SPN.
SPNis the least well-known of the three groups, in part because it is made up of dozens of innocuous-sounding “institutes” and “centers” like the Illinois Policy Institute and the Mackinac Center. Yet SPN’s 66 think tanks and 87 associated groups take in more than $80 million annually, eight times the budget of ALEC.
SPN’s predecessor, the Madison Group, was launched by ALEC in the 1980s to be a Heritage Foundation in each of the states, at the suggestion of President Ronald Reagan to millionaire Thomas Roe. Today, SPN members provide the local presence needed to make ALEC proposals appear homegrown.
In red states, SPN groups provide the cookie-cutter studies, the “expert” legislative testimony and the media commentary to back ALEC’s union-busting bills, school voucher programs and other Koch political priorities. In blue states, these think tanks use door-knocking campaigns to solicit workers to quit their unions, “recertification” efforts to force unions to vote annually on whether to exist, and lawsuits aimed at demobilizing organized labor.
“This form of ultra-conservatism is geared toward making sure that there is no organized power outside of big business and wealthy, organized donors,” says Theda Skocpol, a Harvard professor of government and sociology. For that reason, pulling back the curtain on how this machine operates and is funded is vital to workers’ interests.
The work of this “troika,” as Skocpol and Hertel-Fernandez call it, is underwritten by corporations, right-wing foundations and a handful of billionaires. Most corporate donors have managed to keep their identities secret, but ALEC’s industry advisory board, which helps fund the organization, has included representatives of Koch Industries, Exxon Mobil, Pfizer, State Farm and other giant firms. Known past funders of AFP include the American Petroleum Institute and Reynolds American. SPN’s past donors include Altria/Phillip Morris, AT&T and Time Warner.
Another big chunk of the funding for the troika—tens of millions over the past decade—flows from Donors Trust and Donors Capital, two donor-advised funds connected to the Koch brothers’ network. These funds help donors cloak their identities.
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee, with more than $900 million in assets, is another major operational funder. Harry Bradley started the foundation in 1942, shortly after the death of his brother, Lynde, with profits from their electronics parts manufacturing company. Like the Koch brothers’ father, Fred Koch, Harry was a big supporter of the far-right, anti-civil rights John Birch Society. He frequently hosted its founder, Robert Welch, for public presentations at the company’s Milwaukee headquarters. Today, Bradley is one of the SPN network’s biggest benefactors, funneling $133 million to network groups since the 1980s. Bradley has also funded ALEC and AFP.
Across the country, in statehouses and in court, the troika has transmuted this flood of money into a two-pronged attack on unions. But, Skocpol says, “This is not what the public wants. It is entirely a political effort to destroy the most significant, organized political counterweight to the extreme Right.” In fact, the popularity of unions is on the rise. A 2017 Gallup poll found that the percentage of Americans who approve of unions had risen 5 points in a single year, to 61 percent, the highest since 2003.
IN THE STATEHOUSE
A trove of Bradley Foundation documents were leaked in 2016 by a sophisticated group of international hackers. The documents reveal the inner workings of a 15-year effort to build infrastructure in battleground states to support the Republican Party and tear down unions.
In 2003, Bradley launched its disingenuously named Working Group on Employee Rights at a private meeting in Washington, D.C. The group includedGrover Norquistof Americans for Tax Reform (an SPN member) and Paul Kersey, who has worked for the National Right to Work Committee, the Illinois Policy Institute and the Mackinac Center, three of the nation’s premier union-busting operations. A later meeting would bring in ALEC, SPN and the anti-union front group Center for Union Facts. What emerged is a stream of underwriting for think tanks, anti-union litigation efforts, anti-union media groups, opposition research shops and even an anti-union alternative to teachers unions (the Association of American Educators).
[pix Bradley Foundation board chair and multimillionare James Arthur “Art” Pope (L) and Bradley board member and billionaire Diane M. Hendricks
In 2009, Bradley CEO Michael Grebe, once an attorney for the Republican National Committee, backed a little-known county executive, Scott Walker. Grebe took a highly unusual step for a “philanthropist,” becoming the chair of the Walker campaign for governor.
As a result of the financial crisis, Democrats were swept out of office in 2010 and a wave of Republicans took control of 26 state legislatures (up from 14) and six new governors’ mansions. This was the opportunity the groups had been waiting for.
Bradley suddenly ramped up its annual giving to AFP from $20,000 to $520,000. The head of AFP, Tim Phillips, visited Walker before he was sworn in, urging him to provoke a showdown with public-employee unions. The group was working on a similar strategy in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Weeks after taking office, Walker declared that Wisconsin was facing a dire financial crisis and introduced his Act 10 “budget repair bill,” which would slash $900 million in school spending and gut the state’s collective bargaining law. Walker justified the bill by declaring repeatedly that the state was “broke.”[2 SANTAS] But in a Congressional grilling a month later, when pressed by Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich on how much money the measure would save, Walker admitted, “It doesn’t save any.” (Similarly, when Rauner issued his executive order to block fair share fees, he claimed budget deficits forced his hand, but in front of a friendly audience at the Hoover Institute in California, he admitted that the executive order had “nothing to do with any of the budget.”)
The Wisconsin gambit has been repeated in red state after red state. All told, 15 states have passed bills restricting collective bargaining by public workers, and six states—Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Kentucky and West Virginia—passed ALEC union-busting right-to-work bills despite mass protests. In some states, the public has taken to the ballot to turn back the attack: Voters in Ohio reversed the measure with a veto referendum in 2011; Missouri has a referendum on the ballot for 2018.
IN THE COURTS
States under Democratic control required different strategies. A blitzkrieg of lawsuits against unions were unleashed, including the 2012 Knox v. SEIU in California, the 2014 Parrish v. Dayton in Minnesota, the 2014 Harris v. Quinn in Illinois, the 2015 D’Agostino v. Patrick in Massachusetts, the 2015 Bain v. California Teachers Association and the 2016 Friedrichs. These cases did not originate with public workers, critics claim, but were instead initiated by right-wing lawyers who sought out clients to advance a union-busting agenda.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTWLDF) [DARK MONEY DOC? ATI?] supplied attorneys for most of these cases and is the lead attorney in Janus. Founded in 1968 with a mission to “eliminate coercive union power,” the foundation (along with its advocacy arm) is an SPN member with $14 million in annual revenue. NRTWLDF is funded by the usual suspects: Donors Trust and Donors Capital, the Bradley Foundation, and the anti-public-school Walton Foundation, run by Walmart’s founding family.
A long list of amicus curiae briefs from a variety of think tanks may make it seem as if the Janus side has broad national support. In fact, 13 of 19 briefs filed by organizations (rather than governments or individuals) for the plaintiff come from current or former members of SPN. Seventeen were filed by groups that have received funding from Bradley, Donors Capital and Donors Trust.
Infographic]
Another funder of this work is the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a trade association affiliated with ALEC and SPN that filed anti-union briefs in Friedrichs and Janus. Why should private-sector NFIB care about public-sector unions at all? In his book The One Percent Solution: How Corporations Are Remaking America, One State at a Time, political economist Gordon Laferquotes a 2015 NFIB blog post: “Because ... if unions are dealt a blow in the public sector, private sector businesses might see decreased pressure from pro-labor forces on issues ranging from the minimum wage to paid sick leave and other employee benefits.”
Lafer, a professor at the University of Oregon’s Labor Education and Research Center, insists the corporate money behind these institutions should not be overlooked.“Who are the most serious opponents to the corporate agenda on the minimum wage, paid sick leave, health insurance and NAFTA free trade?” Lafer asks. “[Corporations] think they will get rid of their best-funded opponents on a whole range of issues.”
DEFUNDING THE DEMOCRATS
Grover Norquist is excited about a potential Janus victory for another reason. “Seven million public-sector employees who pay between $4 billion and $8 billion a year in dues—a third of them will quit [paying],” he told The Atlantic. “Now try funding the modern Democratic Party without union dues—good luck.”
While fair share fees do not directly fund union political activity, any loss of funding could weaken a union’s organizational capacity, ultimately undercutting electoral clout. According to FollowTheMoney.org,unions contributed an estimated $602 million to state and federal races and ballot initiatives in 2016. Slightly more thanhalf of that ($319 million) came from public-sector unions. In 2016, labor was the largest contributor to state-level Democratic candidates, accounting for at least 18 percent ($128.7 million) of their total fundraising. Unions also mobilize their workers as persuasive door knockers at election time who can explain who they are and what they fight for.
Research by academics like Columbia’s Hertel-Fernandez suggests that the erosion of public-sector union membership by ALEC bills has also dampened political participation. His most recent study, based on data from 1980 to 2016, shows thatright-to-work laws decrease Democratic presidential vote share by 3.5 percent and depress overall turnout.
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
It would be imprudent for Bradley or SPN to be as blunt as Norquist in public (given their tax-exempt status as charitable organizations), but internal Bradley and SPN documents are clear about their goal of bleeding the Democratic Party of funding.
Norquist has long described unions, public-sector workers and trial lawyers as the funding “pillars” of the Democratic Party. In internal documents prepared for its board of directors, Bradley staff channels Norquist and recommends continued funding for the NRTDLF because “big Labor and trial attorneys … are the two principal funding pillars of the Left.” Bradley has gifted the anti-affirmative action Center for Individual Rights, which represented the Friedrichs plaintiffs, with more than $1.5 million.
Materials prepared for the Bradley board track Friedrichs and the cases leading up to it. A map from the pro-worker Economic Policy Institute is included to show states that allow fair share fees, annotated to show the potential monetary losses for unions at $500 million to $1 billion per year. Bradley staff quote “the leftist In These Times,” which characterizedFriedrichs as a case “that could decimate public-sector unions.”
Another case leading up to Janus was Bain v. California Teachers Association, which attacked the way the union processed political fees. Bradley staff called Bain and Friedrichs combined a “powerful ‘one-two’ punch” against unions, predicting that “all that would remain to fund the unions’ political apparatus would be the hardcore teacher members.”
For Bradley, the anti-union work was a twofer. Bradley has long been a proponent of the privatization of America’s schools; America’s public school teachers and powerful teachers unions stand in the way. Internal documents show Bradley staff bluntly advocating projects to “defund teachers unions and achieve real education reform” at the same time.
“Teachers unions are at the heart of all this,” says Harvard’s Theda Skocpol. “Teachers exist in every community across the country. They are educated, they speak up, and they care about public schools. Break the teachers unions and you break the organizational power that exists in and around the Democratic Party at the state and local level.”
In an April 2016 fundraising letter obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy and published in the Guardian, SPN CEO Tracie Sharpe asks her readers to help strike “a major blow to the Left’s ability to control government.”
I am writing you today to share with you our bold plans to permanently break the power of unions this year. ... I am talking about the kind of dramatic reforms we’ve seen in recent years in Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan and now West Virginia—freeing teachers and other government workers from coercive unionism—and spreading them across the nation. … I’m talking about permanently depriving the Left from access to millions of dollars in dues extracted from unwilling union members every election cycle.
SPN’s secret union-busting toolkit even celebrates this February 2016 quote from a Wisconsin AFSCME leader talking about the devastating impact of Walker’s Act 10 bill: “Do we have less boots on the ground? Yeah. Do we give the same amount of money to candidates? No.”
The Freedom Foundation in Olympia, Wash.—a featured and feted SPN member—has been equally explicit in its fundraising letters. One 2014 letter obtained by the Guardian reads, “The Freedom Foundation has a proven plan for bankrupting and defeating government unions through education, litigation, legislation and community activation.”
A Freedom Foundation-produced brochure, titled “Undue Influence: Public Unions’ Cycle of Power, Electioneering,” shows multiple charts and graphs on union spending in campaigns and elections. The graph “Democrats’ Dependence on Union Funds” lists 31 Washington state Democratic legislators and their union campaign contributions. The accompanying text argues that “the problem associated with union electioneering” could be solved by weakening unions and eliminating fair share fees.
SPN member groups have also cited their union-busting efforts as key to electing Trump. The Wall Street Journal profiled Tracie Sharpe in a post-election puff piece on its editorial page, titled “The Spoils of the Republican State Conquest.” She tells the paper that Wisconsin and Michigan were only “thinly blue” and that the destruction of the states’ unions has put the GOP on better footing.“When you chip away at one of the power sources, that also does a lot of get-out-the-vote,” Sharpe chirped. “I think that helps—for sure.”
Unions lost 136,000 members in Wisconsin; Trump won by 23,000 votes. “Did the labor reforms enacted in Wisconsin and neighboring Michigan help Donald Trump win those states?” asks Norquist associate Matt Patterson in the Daily Signal. “No question in my mind. Hard to fight when your bazooka’s been replaced by a squirt gun.”
Most of the groups pursuing this agenda, including Bradley and SPN, are tax-exempt charitable groups. After Citizens United ushered in a surge of dark money groups, the Obama administration’s IRS attempted to distinguish real charitable organizations from false ones, only to have the effort shut down by tremendous blowback from the Right. Ever since, the IRS has been reluctant to take action on these kinds of issues.
“There is simply no basis in law to find that defunding or attacking unions is a tax-exempt charitable activity,” says attorney Marcus Owen, former director of the IRS’s exempt organizations division. “On the contrary, such actions are deeply infused with private benefit to employer interests and political party interests—but not with community or public benefit, which is required under the law.”
DEGRADATION OF CRITICAL SERVICES
The Democratic Party is not the only loser in this scenario; real harm will be done to U.S. workers and their families. Following World War II, unions expanded dramatically, representing 35 percent of the workforce at their peak in the mid-1950s and helping to usher in an era of shared prosperity. According to the Economic Policy Institute, unionized workers make 20 percent more, on average, than other workers, but their ranks have shrunk to 6.5 percent of private-sector workers and 34.4 percent of public-sector workers in 2017.This decline has exactly tracked the decline of the American middle class.
The attack on public-sector workers is also an attack on women and African Americans, groups disproportionally represented in public-sector unions. According to a National Women’s Law Center analysis, women make up 55 percent of union-represented public-sector workers, and a 2010 analysis from the Center for Economic and Policy Research shows that African Americans are 30 percent more likely than the overall workforce to hold public-sector jobs.
One silver-lining argument contends that an adverse Janus ruling presents an opportunity for unions to simply do their job better: Talk to every member, innovate on services and benefits, and do the kind of “deep organizing” needed to outmaneuver wealthier opponents. The data from Wisconsin, however, is not encouraging. Five years after Walker’s draconian Act 10 bill, Wisconsin’s union membership rate had dropped from 14.2 percent to 8.3 percent of the workforce. The impact of Janus would be less immediate but would snowball over time: Weaker, less effective unions have a harder time attracting members.
“If fair share fees are struck down, it simply won’t be possible to provide the expertise to bargain with employers to increase wages and benefits,” says John Matthews, the retired executive director of Madison Teachers Inc., a National Education Association affiliate in Wisconsin.
The erosion of public-sector unions means that public-sector jobs will pay less and become less attractive, degrading not just a source of good jobs but the critical public functions these workers serve. [THE COMMONS] The average annual salary and benefits for teachers in Wisconsin dropped by $10,843 after Act 10 was passed, a 12.6 percent reduction. The result has been a staggering shortage of teachers, including an “extreme” shortage in math and science,forcing the state’s independent Department of Education to reluctantly issue “emergency” teacher’s licenses.
For the most part, the right-wing machine’s deeply financed, organized and focused attack on workers has rolled its agenda through without meaningful resistance from Democrats. To be sure, in Wisconsin, the union-busting plan was met with one of the largest sustained mass protests in labor history and a 16-day occupation of the Capitol. Fourteen Democratic state senators even fled to Illinois to block a vote on Act 10. But too often, the Democratic Party has been asleep at the switch. First Jimmy Carter, then Bill Clinton, then Barack Obama failed to pass a national “card check” program—a measure that would have made forming a union as easy as signing a postcard—while their party controlled both houses of Congress.
If the Janus verdict goes against public-sector unions, the great challenge for Democrats will not merely be one of funding, but one of leadership. Who will step up to push for the renewal of trade unions, not just for the party’s political future, but for a country that cannot progress toward economic and social justice without a prosperous and muscular labor movement?
MARY BOTTARI is the deputy director of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). She helped launch CMD’s award-winning ALEC Exposed investigation in 2011 and is a recipient of the Hillman Prize for investigative journalism.
==
omfg biggest hypocrite since ayn rand to soc sec?!
https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/the-coronavirus-pandemic-has-exposed-what-the-gops-anti-tax-rhetoric-is-really-all-about/
Newt Gingrich is usually, and rightly, blamed for destroying American politics, even more than Donald Trump. The former House Speaker didn’t go to Washington in the 1970s to strike deals. He went there to wage soft civil war against the United States.
But if there’s a close second to the title of America’s Worst Person, it probably goes to someone you never heard of. He’s not a politician. He’s not a pundit or bureaucrat. When it comes to influencing the GOP’s attitude toward taxing, spending and budgets, however, it would be hard to find someone more influential than Grover Norquist.
Norquist is the head of Americans for Tax Reform. The name is a misnomer. It doesn’t want to “reform” taxes so much as get rid of taxes on the very, very rich. Norquist is probably most famous for saying, in 2001, that he doesn’t want to abolish government per se. “I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can … drown it in the bathtub."
while Gingrich was on the front lines of the soft civil war, armed with lies, slander and disinformation as his weapons of choice, Norquist was in the backrooms, pulling strings, pressing Republicans to pledge to never ever—never ever ever—raise taxes or be punished. The last Republican to raise taxes for the purpose of balancing responsibly the federal budget was George H.W. Bush, the last one-term president.
At some point, it’s hard to say when, Gingrich’s focus on language and Norquist’s focus on policy merged so that the Republicans always sounded like they were being responsible when calling for balanced budgets, but they were in fact being reckless. Why? Responsible budgets consider expenses as well as revenues. You can’t just ignore one if you’re being serious or responsible. Thanks to pressure from Norquist, however, the Republicans pretended revenues didn’t exist. And, alas, the Democratic Party usually went along. The result has been that for years most debates over budgets turned on the question of how much to starve a government of, by and for the people.
To be sure, this pretending was collective. Norquist’s group doesn’t care about the size of government. What it cares about is shoving the tax burden off the shoulders of the very, very rich while at the same time seeing the rich enriched with lucrative contracts. If that means huge deficits, so be it. Similarly, the Republican don’t care about deficits when Republicans are president. (Yes, Ronald Reagan raised taxes but he left office with the books well in the red.) Deficits only matter when Democrats are in charge.
All of this was clear to anyone paying close attention. Even so, Norquist in particular had plausible deniability on his side. Though budgets were swollen to bursting on account of irresponsible Republican attitudes, he and others could always say, well, we’re spending too much on wasteful expenditures. If we didn’t spend so much of what people don’t need—or on what people have grown dependent on—budgets and the government would be smaller and better. Plausible deniability meant his group always seemed to be at least somewhat principled, even to people paying close attention.
It seems to me the age of plausible deniability is over. Americans for Tax Reform, which was at the center the tea party movement that took over the Republican Party, applied for and received a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan as part of an effort to stimulate the economy as it reels from the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. The guy who wanted to drown the government in a bathtub cried to help while drowning.
You could say, well, that’s OK. Everyone’s facing hard times. But everyone faced hard times during thefinancial panic of 2007-2008, too. Indeed, Barack Obama, after winning reelection, wanted George W. Bush-era tax cuts on the rich to expire in order to fund a multi-billion dollar jobs program. After 2012, when the GOP lost seats in the Senate, some Republicans felt pressure to play along—until Norquist stepped in. “We’ve got some people,” he said, “discussing impure thoughts on national television.”
The jobs program was shelved, almost certainly prolonging the Great Recession.Yet amid another historic crisis, here we see Grover Norquist of all people with his hand out. It’s not a lot, just $350,000 in forgivable loans. It’s the principle of the thing in that there are no and never have been principles guiding the fiscal conservative project. Only the idea that government is for the very, very rich, not of, by and for the people.
Norquist isn’t alone, of course. The Republicans were so hostile toward Obama’s economic agenda that they brought the country to the brink of insolvency by refusing to lift the debt limit. And yet Republican members of Congress and the president’s family business got access this month to $660 billion in forgivable PPP money, as did 90,000 well-connected businesses that promised to save zero jobs in the bargain.
Sabotage was good politics when Obama was in charge. With Trump, it’s belly up to the trough. This should matter to white swing voters after the election. The Republicans will try reupping the con. They will say they fight for them. They don’t. They are waging soft civil war. While that was never obvious, it should be clear now.
John Stoehr is the editor and publisher of the Editorial Board, a newsletter about politics in plain English for normal people and the common good. He’s a visiting assistant professor of public policy at Wesleyan University, a fellow at the Yale Journalism Initiative, a contributing writer for the Washington Monthly, and a contributing editor for Religion Dispatches.
==
==
wa exmr BS
demint endorse; l: Derek Kan, the executive associate director of the Office of Management and Budget, has been nominated as the agency’s deputy director. He will be under Russ Vought, who moved up from deputy to director. For the past few months, Kan, a recent undersecretary for policy at the Transportation Department, has been overseeing the distribution of coronavirus funds and other key budget items. He has a reputation for bipartisanship, has worked for several GOP leaders, and has a high-tech background. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, praised Kan as “smart, competent, politically savvy, a serious economic thinker who should have been running things over at the White House several years ago.” …
720 got covid bailout $?!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/us/ppp-small-business-loans.html
no lnx
Lobbyists, Law Firms and Trade Groups Took Small-Business Loans
The Trump administration began releasing details of which businesses received Paycheck Protection Program aid.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, under pressure from Congress, is releasing data about where Paycheck Protection Program loans have gone.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, under pressure from Congress, is releasing data about where Paycheck Protection Program loans have gone.Credit...Michael Reynolds/EPA
By Jeanna Smialek, Jim Tankersley and Luke Broadwater
Published July 6, 2020
Updated July 7, 2020
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration, under pressure to reveal which companies received loans from a $660 billion program intended to keep small businesses afloat, on Monday released data showing that restaurants, medical offices and car dealerships ranked high among the top loan recipients.
The detailed information from the Paycheck Protection Program was confined to companies that received loans of more than $150,000. The administration said 86.5 percent of the loans were for less than that amount, so the snapshot captured only one sliver of businesses that tapped funds. So far, banks have made about 4.9 million loans through the program, with an average size of $107,000.
Nearly 5,000 businesses received individual loans between $5 million and $10 million, according to the data. The administration included ranges for the amounts, not specific figures.
And the figures did not include details on the roughly $30 billion in loans that were returned as companies realized that they were not eligible for the program, worried that they couldn’t meet program requirements or reacted to a public outcry about big firms getting funds.
Restaurants, medical offices and car dealerships were the top recipients of large loans from the program. More than 40,000 full- or limited-service restaurants received loans worth as much as $32 billion, according to the ranges provided by the government.
Sprinkled among the beneficiaries were businesses that are likely to attract scrutiny, including a fancy sushi restaurant at the Trump International Hotel in Washington; Kanye West’s company, Yeezy; and President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer.
Washington lobbying shops, high-priced law firms and special-interest groups also received big loans, according to the administration, the latest indication of how the government’s centerpiece effort to shore up mom-and-pop shops set off a race by organizations far afield from Main Street to secure federal money. The disclosure could further fuel outrage toward the program, which has been complicated by revelations that large, publicly traded companies were taking big loans and concerns that it might leave borrowers saddled with debt.
“My 1,000-foot takeaway is that the government was handing out free money and the line went around the corner,” said Aaron Klein, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “This is not your mom-and-pop shop on Main Street.”
The administration said the Paycheck Protection Program had helped to support more than 50 million jobs. The share of overall small-business payroll supported per state ranged from 72 percent in Virginia to 96 percent in Florida, according to the Treasury Department.
The program provides forgivable loans to companies that have 500 or fewer employees and meet certain requirements, such as using the bulk of the money to keep workers on the payroll. Lenders are responsible for reviewing recipients’ forgiveness applications to verify that they complied with the program’s rules.
More than 100 law firms received loans ranging from $1 million to $10 million, the data showed. The list included well-known names like Boies Schiller Flexner, the high-priced law firm run by David Boies, which received between $5 million and $10 million. “We don’t comment on our financials,” the firm said.
:{
}:
Kasowitz Benson Torres, founded and run by Mr. Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Marc E. Kasowitz, received a loan for between $5 million and $10 million.The firm represented Mr. Trump for over a decade before he was elected president, both in his business dealings and in other matters, such as helping him keep divorce records sealed. Mr. Kasowitz and the firm also represented Mr. Trump during Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
:{
}:
Mr. Trump later diminished the role of Mr. Kasowitz in his dealings with Mr. Mueller’s investigators. A spokeswoman for Kasowitz Benson Torres said the loan, along with cost-cutting, “enabled us to preserve the jobs of our hundreds of employees at full salary and benefits without interruption.”
:{
}:
The president also appears to have benefited from government support, at least indirectly. While the Trump Organization did not apply for loans under the program, the data showed that dozens of tenants at buildings owned by Mr. Trump or managed by his companies received funds.
One reported recipient was a hair salon in the president’s hotel in Chicago. More than 20 businesses listed at 40 Wall Street, an office building near the New York Stock Exchange that Mr. Trump has owned since the mid-1990s, also reportedly received government loans totaling at least $20 million. Among the recipients were law offices, financial service firms and nonprofit organizations.
Sushi Nakazawa, a restaurant at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, received a loan of between $150,000 and $350,000. The company did not respond to a request for comment about how it planned to use the funds.
Some loan recipients are connected to the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner. The data show that a loan of between $350,000 and $1 million was made to Esplanade Livingston, a Kushner family entity that owns the land in Livingston, N.J., where the family’s Westminster Hotel is. In 2018, Mr. Kushner divested his stake in the entity, from which he once derived income generated by that hotel.
Princeton Forrestal, a real estate entity owned by various members of the Kushner family not including Mr. Kushner, received a loan of between $1 million and $2 million.
“Several of our hotels have applied for federal loans, in accordance with all guidelines, with a vast majority of funds going to furloughed employees,” said Pete Febo, Kushner Companies’ chief operating officer.
The Paycheck Protection Program, which was included in the $2 trillion stimulus bill passed by lawmakers in March, also benefited several members of Congress.
Car dealerships connected to Representative Mike Kelly, Republican of Pennsylvania, received three loans, each between $150,000 and $350,000. Mr. Kelly, a multimillionaire, owns Mike Kelly Automotive Group, Mike Kelly Automotive L.P.; and Mike Kelly Hyundai, all of which accepted loans.
Andrew Eisenberger, spokesman for Mr. Kelly, said that the congressman had properly followed the rules of the disaster aid program and that the money would be used “to sustain the income of workers who would otherwise have been without pay or employment at no fault of their own during the coronavirus pandemic.”
Businesses associated with other members of Congress or their relatives, both Democrats and Republicans, received similar disaster aid. They included a farm and other businesses owned by Representative Vicky Harzler, Republican of Missouri, and her husband. Ms. Harzler cited the need “to ensure the continued ability to maintain the employment of all team members during this time.”
A New York shipping business owned by the family of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, the wife of the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, received at least $350,000, according to the data. A person familiar with the company, Foremost Group, said that the loan was for less than $500,000 and that no employees had been laid off during the pandemic. Ms. Chao has no formal affiliation or stake in the business. In 2008, she and Mr. McConnell received millions of dollars in gifts from her father, James, who ran the company until 2018.
Many of the biggest and most influential lobbying and political consulting firms received money — despite prohibitions intended to restrict access — most likely qualifying by highlighting lines of business that fell outside the restrictions.
Wiley Rein, which has a large lobbying practice focusing on trade issues, received between $5 million and $10 million,according to the data. Van Ness Feldman and Beveridge & Diamond, two law firms that focus on helping energy industry clients push their agendas in Washington, received loans between $2 million and $5 million, according to the administration.
A firm that raises money for Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee received a loan of more than $1 million, according to the data set, while a company that produces Mr. Trump’s political advertisements received between $350,000 and $1 million. So did a consulting firm started by President Barack Obama’s former campaign manager Jim Messina and one that Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign paid for communications consulting.
Several firms that advise companies on how to deal with the government, but are not officially registered to lobby, were also said to have received loans. They include companies run by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who served in the Clinton administration.
The administration listed loans worth between $350,000 and $1 million to a consulting firm started by former Senator William S. Cohen, a Maine Republican who also served in the Clinton administration as the secretary of defense, and one run by a homeland security secretary in the Bush administration, Michael Chertoff. And DCI Group AZ, a prominent political and corporate consulting firm, collected as much as $5 million.
An affiliate of Americans for Tax Reform, the influential conservative group that has been a vocal critic of government spending, received between $150,000 and $350,000, according to the government’s data. In a statement, the group said the foundation “was badly hurt by the government shutdown” and “does not engage in lobbying.”
A number of prominent private schools were listed as loan recipients, despite the controversy over whether such institutions should take the money.
In New York City, St. Ann’s School took a loan valued between $5 million and $10 million. Kent Place School, a private school in New Jersey, was reported to have received a loan worth between $1 million and $2 million.
Schools with political ties in the Washington area also received loans. Sidwell Friends, which has educated the children of presidents, received a loan worth between $5 million and $10 million, based on the data. Georgetown Preparatory School, which the Supreme Court justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch attended, received a loan worth between $2 million and $5 million.
Georgetown Preparatory’s president, the Rev. James R. Van Dyke, said, “We remain committed to doing all that we can to retain our immensely talented faculty and staff,” adding that many of them accept salaries and wages “lower than what they might earn in the for-profit sector or the public school system.”
St. Andrew’s Episcopal School, where Mr. Trump’s youngest son is a student, also received a loan.
Touring companies for rock bands also turned to the government for help as concert venues around the country went dark to prevent the spread of the virus.
A limited liability company called Eagles Touring Company II Foreign received a loan between $350,000 and $1 million. Documents filed in California show that the entity shares an agent with a similarly named company whose president is Don Henley, a founding member of the Eagles, the rock band that had to postpone its tour this spring.
Lil’ Jon Touring and Nickelback Touring 2, among other acts, received loans between $150,000 and $350,000. Lil Jon’s publicist, Tamar Juda, said that the artist had canceled over 75 shows since the beginning of the pandemic and that the funds allowed his core touring staff to remain employed.
Yeezy, which California business filings show is a holding company registered to Mr. West, received between $2 million and $5 million to support 106 jobs, based on the disclosures. The holding company appears to be linked to Mr. West’s apparel brand, having recently filed to trademark the phrase “West Day Ever” for use on clothing. Public relations firms that have worked for Yeezy did not respond to emailed requests for comment.
There was no apparent link between the amount of economic damage suffered by states and how successful the small businesses in them were at getting the loans from the program.
North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas all saw loan approvals of at least 90 percent of their eligible small-business payroll, even though they rank among the least-affected states in terms of unemployment claims during the crisis. Two of the hardest-hit states for claims, New York and California, saw loan approvals equal to about three-quarters of their eligible payrolls; by that measure, California companies would have received billions more from the program if they had seen approvals at the same rate as the Plains states.
Reporting was contributed by Kenneth P. Vogel, Eric Lipton, David McCabe, Steve Eder, Ben Protess, Stacy Cowley and Noam Scheiber.
==
new jim h
As you might expect, this quickly devolved into a system of thinly-veiled bribery, with lawmakers trading legislative favors for lobbyists’ cash. Thus, the term “K-Street Project” has now become a political pejorative, an iconic brand-name for big-money corruption in Washington. This negative PR for his pet project has mightily upset Norquist, so he is trying to trademark the phrase, “K-Street Project” – and he says he’ll sue the pants off of anyone who uses it as a symbol of unethical behavior.
new
https://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/karen-finney/173399**-norquist-history-101**
perhaps a case of selective amnesia explains the exalted platform given to Grover Norquist both in the media and among congressional Republicans. Just a few years ago, Norquist was a central figure in the GOP culture of corruption and cronyism that helped Democrats retake control of Congress in 2006.
:{
}:
From his longtime friendship with Karl Rove to leadership of the K Street Project with convicted former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) to the money-laundering scandal involving convicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Norquist has long wielded unchecked power in Washington. Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) are key players in an influential web of GOP donors, operatives and organizations working to implement a Republican agenda and consolidate power benefiting their special-interest friends.ATR funding reportedly comes from right-wing organizations like Olin and Scaife — conservative foundations set up by millionaires and billionaires like the Koch brothers — to support a set of policy goals favorable to their corporations. ATR has also received significant funding from the tobacco, gambling and alcohol industries.
It was Norquist, working with then-Majority Whip DeLay, who launched the scheme known as the K Street Project in 1995. Run out of ATR offices, it controlled access to key government figures and rewarded GOP cronies by pressuring Washington lobbying firms to hire Republican operatives. Those who were loyal and willing to “pay to play” were granted access. As part of this cozy relationship, corporate “friends” were able to participate in the drafting of legislation affecting their industries. (Can you say Dick Cheney energy task force?) The Senate liaison to the project who met regularly with Norquist to review openings and candidates at lobbying firms was none other than former Pennsylvania Senator and current GOP presidential contenderRick Santorum.
During this time, Norquist worked with Abramoff, Ralph Reed and Abramoff’s partner Michael Scanlon in a money-laundering scandal that bilked millions of dollars from Indian tribes. Abramoff and Scanlon grossly overcharged the tribes for work on casino gambling issues, using Norquist’s ATR and the ATR Foundation as a pass-through to support their lobbying effort. Contributions were made to ATR, which then skimmed a fee off the top before passing the money on to Ralph Reed and other anti-gambling activists.
In one example, the Choctaw Indian tribe in Mississippi paid Americans for Tax Reform $1.1 million in 1999. Norquist passed the money to Reed, who ran the powerful Christian Coalition and a for-profit political consulting company. Reed used the money to run a religious-based anti-gambling campaign with the veiled purpose of preventing a rival tribe from cutting in on the Choctaw casino business.
This allowed Norquist, Reed and Abramoff to disguise the fact that the money used to fund anti-gambling activities was generated through Indian gambling. Abramoff utilized Norquist’s cachet and access, referring to him once in an email as a “hard-won asset.”
Investigations in 2006 by the Senate Indian Affairs and the Senate Finance committees (then chaired by Republican Sens. John McCain, Ariz., and Chuck Grassley, Iowa, respectively) found that Norquist not only used ATR as a cash “conduit” for Abramoff’s clients, but that ATR and four other conservative nonprofit groups “appear to have perpetrated a fraud” on American taxpayers.
Which raises the question: Just what is it that 236 GOP House and 41 GOP senators fear from an operative known to be involved in illegal activity involving taxpayer fraud and influence peddling?
Karen Finney is a political analyst for MSNBC and Democratic consultant
...Again, Bernie McKay, the lobbyist who had joined Intuit in the late 1990s and outlasted multiple CEOs, led the company’s campaign. In response to the Obama threat, McKay and Intuit’s small army of outside lobbyists turned to Congress, where lawmakers friendly to the company introduced a series of bills that would elevate Free File from a temporary deal with the IRS to the law of the land.
Republicans have historically been the company’s most reliable supporters, but some Democrats joined them. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the California Democrat whose district includes part of Silicon Valley, has introduced or co-sponsored five bills over the years that would codify the Free File program, with names like the Free File Permanence Act. Lofgren’s spokesperson told ProPublica that the congresswoman believes the IRS, because of its role as tax collector, should not also be the tax preparer.
Hedging its bets, the company also sought to make sure the IRS could not spend a single dollar creating a public filing system. One internal document says Intuit would “advance legislative language in House Appropriations for ‘No Funds’ restriction on IRS spending” on such a system. It worked. Within a few years, Congress passed a 3,000-page appropriations bill that included a single sentence crucial to Intuit’s financial future: “No funds,” the law decreed, could be used “to provide to any person a proposed final return or statement.”
Another important aspect of Intuit’s influence strategy during the Obama years was covertly enlisting minority and women’s groups to press its case.
The internal 2014-15 “encroachment strategy” document discloses plans to “leverage trade groups to support House/Senate Free File bills.” It goes on to list the groups Women Impacting Public Policy, The Latino Coalition and the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
Intuit has given money to all of those groups over the years. All have signed letters urging Congress to make the Free File deal permanent. “The Free File program has been a clear success,” said one letter signed by The Latino Coalition and the Hispanic Leadership Fund.
A spokesperson for Women Impacting Public Policy said it has received $70,000 from Intuit. The amounts given to the other groups are unknown, and they did not respond to requests for comment.
Company documents also outline plans to “mobilize” a “coalition” that included think tanks and academics, who published op-eds.
Will Marshall, president of the pro-business Progressive Policy Institute, opposed return-free filing in an op-ed in The Hill because doing one’s taxes is “a teachable moment [that] prompts us to review our financial circumstances.”
Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, the most consistent champion of Intuit’s policy positions, warned that “big spenders in Washington, D.C. want to socialize all tax preparation in America.”
It is unclear whether they were paid by Intuit or the Free File Alliance. Norquist didn’t respond to a request for comment, and a Progressive Policy Institute spokesman declined to say whether Intuit gave the group money.
Whatever external challenges to the status quo Intuit has faced, the company has been able to rely on the IRS’ continuing enthusiastic support of the Free File program. Every few years, the IRS and the industry got together to renew the deal....[long]
==
==
https://www.axios.com/climate-change-is-finally-getting-political-cred-821fab52-254a-4620-b84d-c303b7b22c27.html
Climate change is starting to become a political worry for some Republicans.
The big picture: For years, Republicans could ignore the issue or outright question mainstream climate science without political worry. That’s starting to change. Some congressional Republicans are beginning to find it in their political interest to at least acknowledge climate change and oppose efforts to weaken existing policies.
Between the lines: The small number of GOP crossovers shows there are still massive political hurdles facing the movement to get Republicans to change their stance on climate policy.
What’s next: A Republican lawmaker — Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida — intends to introduce legislation actually creating a tax on carbon emissions on Monday. Curbelo told Axios Thursday that he expects to have at least one fellow GOP co-sponsor.
Curbelo said in an interview right after the vote that he sees the six no votes from Republicans — along with another who opted to vote present — as success, a “small victory” that should be celebrated.
“We went from zero to seven. That’s how you measure progress in this institution. There were many more who thought about it long and hard,” said Curbelo, who helped create a bipartisan caucus that acknowledges climate change.
Rep. Fred Upton (R.-Mich.), who is a member of Curbelo’s caucus, told Axios going into the vote he was going to vote yes, though he paused before answering.
The big picture: The symbolic vote is an outlier in Washington as attention is largely focused on bigger and more impactful issues, like Russia, immigration and the farm bill.
Why it’s coming up now:
- It reflects the importance of the issue to lawmakers hailing from states producing fossil fuels, such as Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Rep. David McKinley of West Virginia, who are both sponsoring the measure.
- It also shows the influence of right-leaning groups, notably Americans for Tax Reform, which has been highlighting its opposition to a carbon tax in recent weeks.
- The vote comes a few weeks after a new advocacy group, funded by nuclear and renewable energy companies, formed to push Congress to support a carbon tax whose revenue is sent back to Americans in the form of a dividend check.
“I don’t judge any of my colleagues for their vote today, this is kind of a question in a vacuum. Had they had a time to review my proposal — timing didn’t work out — you would have gotten more no votes,” Curbelo said. “With a resolution that had consistently received unanimous support to the result today, it is not insignificant.”
==
voodoo tax cut --> austerity:
https://www.alternet.org/holy-grail-republican-tax-cuts-about-paul-ryans-parting-gift-rich
yet another Tax Day in America. Eager to deliver another so-called win ahead of the midterm elections, Republicans are using the occasion to roll out even more tax cuts for the rich.
With fewer than half of Americanscomplaining that their personal tax obligation is too high — the smallest percentage in more than five years — and the recently passed GOP tax bill still significantly underwater, Republican lawmakers somehow think the best way to fend off building Democratic momentum is to reward wealthy GOP donors all over again.
Standing next to anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist (he of "drown government in the bathtub" fame), Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, recently announced his plan to ease the tax burden paid by America’s wealthiest citizens. Mind you, those people have already been helped out tremendously by the GOP’s tax law, which made a 40 percent reduction in the top corporate tax rate permanent while setting a 2025 expiration date on cuts to individual taxes and rates.:{
}:
“When you’re investing more capital in businesses it means you’re hiring more people, it means you’re buying more equipment, it means you’re raising wages and that you’re driving economic growth,” Cruz said of his new proposal to index capital gains for inflation. The Texas Republican's push for a second part of the GOP tax cuts is certain to exacerbate already growing concerns about budget deficits.
Just last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the Republican tax cuts will fuel historic deficits. In March the federal deficit was $208 billion, an increase of $32 billion from last year. The Treasury Department had already said that the deficit increased 18.4 percent in February compared to 2017. GOP tax cuts are estimated to add $1 trillion or more to federal budget deficits over a decade, even after economic growth is taken into account.
Nevertheless, Republicans have stayed calm and carried on with tax cuts.
On Monday, President Donald Trump traveled to Florida where he praised the GOP tax law for driving one of the "greatest booms" to the U.S. economy. But job growth has actually slowed since Trump took office. Introducing his bill to discount capital gains taxes, in effect, to account for inflation, Ted Cruz claimed, “We’re seeing the economic benefits of this tax cut, even just a few months into it. Over four million Americans have already gotten pay raises or bonuses directly as a result of the tax cut.” But most Americans have not noticed a larger paycheck since the law was enacted, according to a CNBC poll released in March. A recent analysis from the pro-reform group Americans for Tax Fairness found that 433 corporations out of the Fortune 500 have not offered any bonuses or wage increase to employees since the passage of corporate tax cuts. Instead, the analysis found, companies spent 37 times as much on stock buybacks.
Even as GOP groups pour money into efforts to sell their tax cuts for the donor class to the voting base, the law remains massively unpopular. (A group linked to the Koch brothers has spent about $30 million in ads focusing on the tax law since August, and plans to run $400 million worth of ads in vulnerable GOP districts leading up to this year’s midterms.) Just 27 percent of Americans think the GOP tax cuts were a good idea, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Monday. In other words, the Republican tax plan has actually gotten less popular with voters over time.
ut popularity was never really the goal, was it? The point was to starve the federal government of tax revenue in order to justify slashing the social safety net — something Republicans in Congress and the White House began to address in earnest last week.
Just one day after the CBO released its forecast of a ballooning federal deficit, Trump ordered federal agenciesto conduct a broad review of so-called welfare programs to identify new work requirements to place on recipients. Right on time, House Republicans then introduced the 2018 Farm bill, featuring a stringent new proposal to mandate that adults between the ages of 18 and 59 work part-time jobs or be enrolled in at least 20 hours per week of job training in order to receive food stamps under the SNAP program.
Aside from the fact that SNAP spending is already down — from $79.8 billion in 2013 to about $70 billion in 2017 — the CBO estimates that as many as one million people could be kicked off the program as a result of Republicans’ proposed new rule. Most working-age SNAP recipients who don't receive disability benefits already work, especially those able-bodied, childless adults who House Republicans claim abuse the system.
Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled Congress followed up their corporate tax cuts with a massive omnibus budget that boosts spending past previous budget caps by $300 billion over two years....
==
==
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#Taxpayer_Protection_Pledge
Grover Glenn Norquist (born October 19, 1956) is an American political advocate who is founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, an organization that opposes all tax increases. A Republican,[4] he is the primary promoter of the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge",a pledge signed by lawmakers who agree to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, as well as net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate.[5] Prior to the November 2012 election, the pledge was signed by 95% of all Republican members of Congress and all but one of the candidates running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.[6]
- :{1:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Early life:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{2:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Political career:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{2.1:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Early career:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{2.2:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Americans for Tax Reform:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{2.3:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Taxpayer Protection Pledge:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{3:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Other political activities:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{3.1:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{National politics:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{3.2:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Involvement with Jack Abramoff:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{3.3:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{State and local politics:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{3.4:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Statehood for Puerto Rico:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{3.5:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Boards and other activities:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{4:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Views on government:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{5:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Personal life:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{6:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Writings:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{7:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{See also:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{8:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{References:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{9:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{External links:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
Early life
Norquist grew up in Weston, Massachusetts. He is the son of Carol (née Lutz) and Warren Elliott Norquist (a vice president of Polaroid Corporation),[7][8] and is of Swedishancestry.[9][10] His brother, David Norquist has served in senior posts in Republican administrations at both the United States Department of Defense and the United States Department of Homeland Security.[11] Norquist became involved with politics at an early age when he volunteered for the 1968 Nixon campaign, assisting with get out the vote efforts.[12] He graduated from Weston High School and enrolled at Harvard University in 1974, where he earned his A.B. and M.B.A. degrees.
At college, Norquist was an editor at the Harvard Crimson and helped to publish the libertarian-leaning Harvard Chronicle.[13] He was a member of the Hasty Pudding Theatricals. Norquist has said: "When I became 21, I decided that nobody learned anything about politics after the age of 21."[12] He attended the Leadership Institute in Arlington, Virginia,[14] an organization that teaches conservative Americans how to influence public policy through activism and leadership.[15]
Political career
Early career
Ronald Reagan meeting with Jack Abramoff and Grover Norquist in connection with the College Republican National Committee, 1981
Early in his career, Norquist was executive director of both the National Taxpayers Union and the national College Republicans, holding both positions until 1983. He served as Economist and Chief Speechwriter at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from 1983 to 1984.[16]
Norquist traveled to several war zones to help support anti-Soviet guerrilla armies in the second half of the 1980s.[citation needed] He worked with a support network for Oliver North's efforts with the Nicaraguan Contras and other insurgencies, in addition to promoting U.S. support for groups including Mozambique's RENAMO and Jonas Savimbi's UNITA in Angola[13] and helping to organize anti-Soviet forces in Laos. In 1985, he went to a conference in South Africa sponsored by South African businesses called the "Youth for Freedom Conference", which sought to bring American and South African conservatives together to end the anti-apartheid movement.[17] Norquist represented the France-Albert Rene government of The Seychelles as a lobbyist from 1995 until 1999. Norquist's efforts were the subject of Tucker Carlson's 1997 article in The New Republic, "What I sold at the revolution." [18][19]
Americans for Tax Reform
Norquist is best known forfounding Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) in 1985,which he says was done at the request of then-President Ronald Reagan.[20] Referring to Norquist's activities as head of ATR, Steve Kroft, in a 60 Minutes episode that aired on November 20, 2011, claimed that "Norquist has been responsible, more than anyone else, for rewriting the dogma of the Republican Party."[21]
The primary policy goal of Americans for Tax Reform is to reduce government revenues as a percentage of the GDP.[22][23] ATR states that it "opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle."[24] Americans for Tax Reform has supported Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) legislation[25] and transparency initiatives,[26] while opposing cap-and-trade legislation[27] and efforts to regulate health care.[28]
In 1993, Norquist launched his Wednesday Meeting series at ATR headquarters, initially to help fight President Clinton's healthcare plan. The meeting eventually became one of the most significant institutions in American conservative political organizing. The meetings have been called "a must-attend event for Republican operatives fortunate enough to get an invitation", and "the Grand Central station of the conservative movement."[4][13] Medvetz (2006) argues that the meetings have been significant in “establishing relations of…exchange” among conservative subgroups and “sustaining a moral community of conservative activists."[29][30]
As a nonprofit organization, Americans for Tax Reform is not required to disclose the identity of its contributors. Critics, such as Sen. Alan Simpson, have asked Norquist to disclose his contributors; he has declined but has said that ATR is financed by direct mail and other grassroots fundraising efforts. According to CBS News, "a significant portion appears to come from wealthy individuals, foundations and corporate interests."[4]
Taxpayer Protection Pledge
Prior to the November 2012 election, 238 of 242 House Republicans and 41 out of 47 Senate Republicans had signed ATR's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", in which the pledger promises to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."[31][32]
The November 6, 2012 elections resulted in a decline in the number of Taxpayer Protection Pledge signatories in both the upper and lower houses of the 113th Congress: from 41 to 39 in the Senate, and from 238 to "fewer than ... 218" in the House of Representatives.[33] According to journalist Alex Seitz-Wald, losses in the election by Norquist supporters and the "fiscal cliff" have emboldened and made more vocal critics of Norquist.[34]
In November 2011, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blamed Norquist's influence for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction's lack of progress, claiming that Congressional Republicans "are being led like puppets by Grover Norquist. They’re giving speeches that we should compromise on our deficit, but never do they compromise on Grover Norquist. He is their leader."[35] Since Norquist's pledge binds signatories to opposing deficit reduction agreements that include any element of increased tax revenue, some Republican deficit hawks now retired from office have stated that Norquist has become an obstacle to deficit reduction.[36][37] Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), co-chairman of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, has been particularly critical, describing Norquist's position as "[n]o taxes, under any situation, even if your country goes to hell."[4]
Other political activities
National politics
Norquist speaking at FreedomFest 2013 in Las Vegas.
Norquist was listed as one of the five primary leaders of the post-Goldwater conservative movement by Nina Easton in her 2000 book, Gang of Five.[38] Working with eventual Speaker Newt Gingrich, Norquist was one of the co-authors of the 1994 Contract with America, and helped to rally grassroots efforts, which Norquist later chronicled in his book Rock the House.[13] Norquist also served as a campaign staff member on the 1988, 1992 and 1996 Republican Platform Committees.
Norquist was instrumental in securing early support for the presidential campaign of then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, acting as his unofficial liaison to the conservative movement.[13] He campaigned for Bush in both 2000 and 2004.[39] After Bush's first election, Norquist was a key figure involved in crafting Bush's tax cuts.[citation needed] John Fundof the Wall Street Journal dubbed Norquist "the Grand Central Station" of conservatism and told The Nation: "It's not disputable" that Norquist was the key to the Bush campaign's surprising level of support from movement conservatives in 2000.[40]
He has long been active in building bridges between various ethnic and religious minorities and the free-market community through his involvement with Acton Institute, Christian Coalition and Toward Tradition.[citation needed]
He has also "announced his plan to assemble a center-right coalition to discuss pulling out of Afghanistan to save hundreds of billions of dollars."[41]
Norquist is active in Tea Party politics. Talking at a Florida rally he said "tea party groups should serve as the 'exoskeleton' that protects newly elected Republicans" from pressures to increase government spending.[42]
Comprehensive immigration reform is an interest of Norquist's, who believes that the United States should have "dramatically higher levels of immigration" than it currently does.[43]
Involvement with Jack Abramoff
According to a 2011 memoir by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Norquist was one of Abramoff's first major Republican party contacts.[44] Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform were also mentioned in Senate testimony relating to the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal which resulted in a 2006 guilty plea by Abramoff to three criminal felony counts of defrauding of American Indian tribes and corrupting public officials. Records released by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee allege that ATR served as a "conduit" for funds that flowed from Abramoff's clients to surreptitiously finance grass-roots lobbying campaigns.[45] Norquist has denied that he did anything wrong, and has not been charged with any crime.
State and local politics
==