POPVOX’s Countdown of the Top Bills in 2013

---

I frequently use POPVOX to explore information about a bill — what’s in the text of a bill, who introduced it, what other’s are saying about, who those others are (individuals and corporations/organizations) — and to write a letter of opposition or support to my elected representatives.  My observation is that the right-wing nut jobs have more of a propensity to support/oppose legislation than do reasonable folks.  Those of us who oppose the right-wing agenda need to become more active and vocal so our elected representatives in Congress understand they need to support us too — not just the very loud and radical right wing base.

Here’s a copy of an email I received today from POPVOX itemizing the top 50 bills that garnered the most activity on POPVOX during the first half of the 113th Congress:

by RACHNA on DECEMBER 31, 2013

Members of Congress introduced more than 6,600 bills and resolutions in 2013. The Second Amendment and gun control legislation dominated the top bills list, the majority of which were introduced in the beginning of the year. Not surprisingly, the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” was also a top priority among POPVOX users, and also the House has voted to repeal some or all of it nearly 50 times.  

The Countdown of the Top 50 Bills

Together, POPVOX users from every state and Congressional district sent more than 900,000 messages to their lawmakers in Washington. These are the top 50 bills and proposals that POPVOX users weighed in on with Congress in 2013, ranked by the aggregate number of combined support and opposition.

• HR 321
  

  #50 Firearm Safety and Public Health Research Act

  Would allow the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct crucial scientific research into firearm safety, according to bill sponsor, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). 

  146 Support | 3,076 Oppose

• HR 1369
  

  #49 Firearm Risk Protection Act

  Would require gun buyers to have liability insurance coverage before being allowed to purchase a weapon and imposes a fine of $10,000 if an owner is found not to have the required coverage; service members and law enforcement officers are exempt from this insurance requirement, according to bill sponsor, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY).

  99 Support | 3,157 Oppose

• HR 965
  

  #48 Banning Saturday Night Specials

  Would prohibit the possession or transfer of junk guns, also known as Saturday Night Specials.

  152 Support | 3,133 Oppose

• HR 900
  

  #47 Cancel the Sequester Act

  A one-sentence bill that would cancel the sequester, or across-the-board federal spending cuts that were implemented in 2013.

  2,406 Support | 899 Oppose

• HR 890
  

  #46 Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act

  Extends the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program through December 2013 and overturns President Obama’s efforts to waive welfare work requirements, according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). This bill passed in the House on March 13, 2013, and is awaiting consideration by the Senate.

  3,208 Support | 120 Oppose

• HR 1005
  

  #45 Defund Obamacare Act

  To deauthorize appropriation of funds, and to rescind unobligated appropriations, to carry out the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

  2,905 Support | 478 Oppose

• HR 1094
  

  #44 Safeguard American Food Exports Act

  To prohibit the sale or transport of equines and equine parts in interstate or foreign commerce for human consumption.

  2,727 Support | 707 Oppose

• HR 61
  

  #43 Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act

  Would stop the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from providing federal family planning assistance under Title X to abortion businesses until they certify they won’t provide and refer for abortions, according to bill sponsor, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

  934 Support | 2,513 Oppose

• HR 431
  

  #42 Gun Transparency and Accountability (Gun TRAC) Act

  Would once again allow ATF to use information on guns traced to crimes; it would remove the requirement that background checks be destroyed within 24 hours; and it would eliminate the ban on federally required inventory audits of gun dealerships, according to bill sponsor, Rep. Jackie Speier(D-CA).   

  102 Support | 3,348 Oppose

• HR 793
  

  #41 Firearm Safety and Buyback Grant Act

  Would establish a grant program within the Department of Justice in which grants would be eligible to state, tribal, and local units of government and law enforcement agencies to carry out anti-violence campaigns, gun safety campaigns, and firearms buyback programs, according to bill sponsor, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA).

  98 Support | 3,370 Oppose

• HR 2959
  

  #40 National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State. This bill was passed by the House in the 112th Congress, but hasn’t been voted on in this Congress.

  3,106 Support | 385 Oppose

• HR 236
  

  #39 Crackdown on Deadbeat Gun Dealers Act

  Would increase the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to: Inspect federal firearms licensees (FFLs) for compliance with recordkeeping requirements by increasing the allowable inspections per year from one to three; Increase the penalties for knowingly misrepresenting any facts about a firearms sale; and Authorize the Attorney General to suspend a dealer’s license and assess civil penalties for firearms violations, including failure to have secure gun storage or safety devices, according to bill sponsor, Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI).

  184 Support | 3,319 Oppose

• Guns
  

  #38 Toomey-Schumer-Manchin Amendment

  A bipartisan group of senators — Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen.Joe Manchin (D-WV) — introduced a compromise proposal to expand background checks. The proposal would require states and the federal government to send all necessary records on criminals and the violently mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). It also extends the existing background check system to gun shows and online sales. The Senate rejected the proposal in a 54 to 46 vote on April 17, 2013 — six votes short of the 60 needed.

  197 Support | 3,343 Oppose

• S 47
  

  #37 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act

  To reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and includes measures on campus safety, tools to reduce domestic violence homicides, and protections for at-risk groups such as immigrants, tribal victims and members of the LGBT community, according to bill sponsors, Sen. Patrick Leahy(D-VT) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID). This bill was enacted into law after being signed by the President on March 7, 2013.

  573 Support | 3,008 Oppose

• S 374
  

  #36 Fix Gun Checks Act

  To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.Reported by Committee on Mar 12, 2013, and is awaiting consideration by the full Senate.

  218 Support | 3,532 Oppose

• HR 45
  

  #35 Repeal “Obamacare”

  To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. This bill passed in the House on May 16, 2013 by a 229-195 vote, and is awaiting consideration by the Senate.

  2,970 Support | 899 Oppose

• HR 238
  

  #34 Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act

  Would prohibit gun dealers whose licenses are revoked to convert their inventory to personal collections, to be sold without conducting background checks on purchasers, under current law, according to bill sponsor, Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI).

  178 Support | 3,714 Oppose

• HR 35
  

  #33 Safe Schools Act

  Would repeal federal laws mandating “gun free zones” around schools, according to bill sponsor, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX).

  3,970 Support | 185 Oppose

• HR 538
  

  #32 PLEA Act

  To protect the Nation’s law enforcement officers by banning the Five-seveN Pistol and 5.7 x 28mm SS190, SS192, SS195LF, SS196, and SS197 cartridges, testing handguns and ammunition for capability to penetrate body armor, and prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, or purchase of such handguns or ammunition by civilians.

  143 Support | 4,051 Oppose

• HR 575
  

  #31 Second Amendment Protection Act

  Would prohibit funding to the United Nations unless the President can certify that a United Nations treaty does not infringe on individual rights protected by the Constitution, according to bill sponsor, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX). 

  4,083 Support | 145 Oppose

• HR 437
  

  #30 Assault Weapons Ban

  Would ban the future sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of 157 specific kinds of semi-automatic guns and impose the same restrictions on ammunition magazines that contain more than 10 rounds. Excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model, according to bill sponsor, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).

  160 Support | 4,227 Oppose

• S 815
  

  #29 Employment Non-Discrimination Act

  To prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This bill passed in the Senate on November 7, 2013 by a 64 to 32 vote, and is awaiting consideration by the House.

  233 Support | 4,178 Oppose

• HR 227
  

  #28 Buyback Our Safety Act

  To establish a gun buyback grant program.

  134 Support | 4,292 Oppose

• S 2
  

  #27 Sandy Hook Elementary School Violence Reduction Act

  To reduce violence and protect the citizens of the United States.

  169 Support | 4,357 Oppose

• HR 25
  

  #26 Fair Tax Act

  Would repeal all Federal corporate and individual income taxes, payroll taxes, self-employment taxes, capital gains taxes, the death tax, and gift taxes – and replace them with a revenue-neutral personal consumption tax, according to bill sponsor, Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA). 

  4,219 Support | 333 Oppose

• HR 226
  

  #25 Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.

  143 Support | 4,488 Oppose

• S 174
  

  #24 Ammunition Background Check Act

  To appropriately restrict sales of ammunition.

  187 Support | 4,769 Oppose

• S 336
  

  #23 Marketplace Fairness Act

  Would give states the option to require the collection of sales and use taxes already owed under State law by out-of-state businesses, rather than rely on consumers to remit those taxes to the States—the method of tax collection to which they are now restricted, according to bill sponsor, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY).

  205 Support | 4,861 Oppose

• HR 137
  

  #22 Fix Gun Checks Act

  To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.

  522 Support | 4,595 Oppose

• S 147
  

  #21 Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act

  To establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

  215 Support | 5,017 Oppose

• S 34
  

  #20 Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act

  To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.

  390 Support | 4,842 Oppose

• S 22
  

  #19 Gun Show Background Check Act

  To establish background check procedures for gun shows.

  442 Support | 5,049 Oppose

• S 82
  

  #18 Separation of Powers Restoration & Second Amendment Protection Act

  To provide that any executive action infringing on the Second Amendment has no force or effect, and to prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes.

  5,728 Support | 243 Oppose

• HR 410
  

  #17 Restore the Constitution Act

  To provide that any executive action infringing on the Second Amendment has no force or effect, and to prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes.

  5,914 Support | 263 Oppose

• HR 499
  

  #16 Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act

  To decriminalize marijuana at the Federal level, to leave to the States a power to regulate marijuana that is similar to the power they have to regulate alcohol.

  5,824 Support | 420 Oppose

• S 35
  

  #15 Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act

  To require face to face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.

  308 Support | 6,558 Oppose

• S 33
  

  #14 Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act

  To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

  324 Support | 6,863 Oppose

• HR 65
  

  #13 Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act

  Raising the age of legal handgun ownership to 21.

  514 Support | 7,193 Oppose

• HR 21
  

  #12 NRA Members Gun Safety Act

  To provide for greater safety in the use of firearms.

  536 Support | 7,770 Oppose

• HR 34
  

  #11 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act

  To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms.

  362 Support | 8,402 Oppose

• HR 141
  

  #10 Gun Show Loophole Closing Act

  To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows.

  1,406 Support | 7,591 Oppose

• HR 2682
  

  #9 Defund Obamacare Act

  To prohibit the funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  9,365 Support | 307 Oppose

• S 150
  

  #8 Assault Weapons Ban

  To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.

  633 Support | 9,409 Oppose

• HR 142
  

  #7 Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act

  To require face to face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.

  617 Support | 9,508 Oppose

• HR 117
  

  #6 Handgun Licensing and Registration Act

  To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of handguns.

  553 Support | 9,619 Oppose

• HR 133
  

  #5 Citizens Protection Act

  To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.

  9,671 Support | 651 Oppose

• HR 138
  

  #4 Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act

  To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

  756 Support | 10,828 Oppose

• S 744
  

  #3 Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act

  To provide for comprehensive immigration reform. This bill passed in the Senate on June 27, 2013 and is awaiting consideration by the House.

  1,385 Support | 10,212 Oppose

• HJRes 15
  

  #2 Repealing the 22nd Amendment

  Proposing an amendment to the US Constitution to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

  151 Support | 12,984 Oppose

• S 649
  

  #1 Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act

  To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.

  304 Support | 14,110 Oppose

TPP: OF and FOR the sole benefit of Corporations—Definitely a Violation of the Public’s Trust

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)  is facing increasing scrutiny for the extreme secrecy surrounding negotiations around this sweeping new trade deal that could rewrite OUR nation’s laws on everything from healthcare and internet freedom, to food safety and the financial markets. The latest negotiations over the TPP were recently held behind closed doors in Lima, Peru, but the Obama administration has rejected calls to release the current text. Even members of Congress have complained about being shut out of the negotiation process.  Regardless of all the Congressional whining about not having sufficient time to read and understand what’s in a bill, let along a treaty, a bill to “fast-track” approval of  TPP.  Fast-tracking would allow President Obama to sign the treaty (which is massively worse than NAFTA on some seriously wicked steroids) and once signed, Congress would have limited opportunity for debate and would be required to hold an up/down vote within 90 days of the president signing the treaty.  Are you kidding me?  What are they smokin’ on the Hill?

Last year, a leaked chapter from the draft agreement outlined how the TPP would allow foreign corporations operating in the United States to appeal key regulations to an international tribunal. The body would have the power to override U.S. law and issue penalties for failure to comply with its rulings. We discuss the TPP with two guests: Celeste Drake, a trade policy specialist with the AFL-CIO; and Jim Shultz, executive director of the Democracy Center, which has just released a new report on how corporations use trade rules to seize resources and undermine democracy. “What is the biggest threat to the ability of corporations to go into a country and suck out the natural resources without any regard for the environment or labor standards? The threat is democracy,” Shultz says. “The threat is that citizens will be annoying and get in the way and demand that their governments take action. So what corporations need is to become more powerful than sovereign states. And the way they become more powerful is by tangling sovereign states in a web of these trade agreements.”

Drake adds: “We question the wisdom of pursuing the TPP in the first place. We do have, for better or for worse, the World Trade Organization which has lowered tariffs around the world and has allowed us to increase our exports as Mr. Froman was explaining in his speech. So what the TPP is about is all these other things around the tariffs, so it is about the investor state, dispute tribunals, it’s about harmonizing rules for food safety, it’s about harmonizing rules for intellectual property, a lot of rules that if citizens aren’t really participating in the formation of those rules, they’re not necessarily going to work out to the benefit of working people and American citizens. So we’re very active in following the negotiations and advocating for better rules that will help workers, real farmers, small businesses, because our past trade agreements starting with NAFTA and on down the line have basically been big packages that benefit the 1 percent and if anybody else benefits it’s really only by accident and not really by design.”

You will not see a more honest assessment of the threat to democracy posed by TPP than on DemocracyNow:

In Major Blow To Consumers, Supreme Court Protects Mega-Corporations From Liability

By Nicole Flatow on Jun 20, 2013 at 12:10 pm

In case it wasn’t clear already, the U.S. Supreme Court hammered home Thursday morning that it will protect the rights of corporations to force arbitration over the individuals’ access to the court system at any expense.

 In a 5-3 ruling with Justice Sonia Sotomayor recused, Justice Antonin Scalia eviscerated almost any opportunity small merchants have to challenge alleged monopolistic practices by American Express in their credit card agreements.

Sound familiar? Earlier this term, the court turned back on procedural grounds a lawsuit alleging monopolistic practices by Comcast. A week after that, they turned back the claims of workers to challenge employer practices as a class. And in 2011, they issued one of the worst blows to consumer rights in years when they held that consumers challenging $30 fees could not sue together as a class. In each of these cases, the court’s procedural rulings mean the parties may never get to argue about whether these corporations actually violated the law. And as a consequence, these corporations may never be held accountable.

With Thursday’s ruling, the court added small businesses to the list of aggrieved parties whose access to the courthouse has been foreclosed by boilerplate contracts that prohibit parties from filing their challenge as a class, or from otherwise alleviating the immense cost of filing their claims individually. This time, the litigants were small businesses taking on American Express, and their lawyer was none other than conservative powerhouse Paul Clement. Clement has argued many of the major conservative court wins of the past few years, and his argument on the side of the plaintiffs was probably the last best shot at curbing the Roberts Court’s total perversion of the Federal Arbitration Act.

As in the AT&T case, the plaintiffs here argued that the only way they could challenge the policy of mega-corporation American Express was by banding together as a class and pooling their resources. But consumers’ claims in AT&T were struck down on a different rationale, that their state law claims were preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. This time, the plaintiffs argued that because their antitrust claims are federal , they are protected by the principle of “effective vindication,” meaning that where an arbitration clause effectively immunizes otherwise meritorious federal claims, plaintiffs are entitled to vindication of their actual rights. To show that that the arbitration clause would make any challenge prohibitively expensive, they deployed formal affidavits by economists attesting to the immense cost of these claims — “’at least several hundred thousand dollars, and might exceed $1 million’,” while the maximum recovery for an individual plaintiff would be $12,850, or $38,549 when trebled,” meaning they could not afford to launch their claims without the ability to file them together.

No matter, said the majority. In AT&T, “[w]e specifically rejected the argument that class arbitration was necessary to prosecute claims ‘that might otherwise slip through the legal system’.” This case is about federal law vindication and AT&T was about state law preemption, but as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, “to a hammer everything looks like a nail.” Joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, Kagan explains the case this way:

Here is the nutshell version of this case, unfortunately obscured in the Court’s decision. The owner of a small restaurant (Italian Colors) thinks that American Express (Amex) has used its monopoly power to force merchants to accept a form contract violating the antitrust laws. The restaurateur wants to challenge the allegedly unlawful provision (imposing a tying arrangement), but the same contract’s arbitration clause prevents him from doing so.

That term imposes a variety of procedural bars that would make pursuit of the antitrust claim a fool’s errand. So if the arbitration clause is enforceable, Amex has insulated itself from antitrust liability—even if it has in fact violated the law. The monopolist gets to use its monopoly power to insist on a contract effectively depriving its victims of all legal recourse.

And here is the nutshell version of today’s opinion, admirably flaunted rather than camouflaged: Too darn bad.That answer is a betrayal of our precedents, and of federal statutes like the antitrust laws.

Today’s ruling was yet another point in the Chamber of Commerce’s remarkable tally of wins before the Roberts Court, and another chance for the most business-friendly justices in 65 years to side with their friends.

---

This material [the article above] was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe.

Related articles

• U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Class Waiver in Arbitration Agreement (calwages.com)
• In Major Blow To Consumers, Supreme Court Protects Mega-Corporations From Liability (12160.info)
• Court to Consumers: Drop Dead (acslaw.org)
• The Supreme Court Just Made It Easier for Big Business to Screw the Little Guy (motherjones.com)
• Worst Supreme Court Arbitration Decision Ever (acslaw.org)
• About the High Court Becoming a ‘Wholly Owned Subsidiary’ of Big Business, Read its Latest Arbitration Opinion (acslaw.org)
• AFJ: Roberts Court again expands corporate power to deny access to justice (afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com)
• Finally, the Supreme Court Stands Up For the Poor Major Corporations Who Just Want to Break the Law a Little (lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com)
• The big corporations own the place (makethemaccountable.com)
• FOCUS | Elizabeth Warren: Supreme Court Is Becoming ‘A Subsidiary’ of the Chamber of Commerce (readersupportednews.org)

Transplanting Taxes from Corporations to the Rest of Us

American taxpayers are increasingly picking up the tab for unpaid corporate taxes.

— by Scott Klinger

Today, corporate profits are setting all-time records while middle class families continue to struggle financially. These trends are intertwined.

Whether you’ve clicked to send your tax forms to the IRS along the cyber-highway or dropped your return in the old-fashioned blue mailbox, you’ll be paying extra to cover the growing amount of taxes that the nation’s clever corporations are shunting onto individual taxpayers.

Officially, the U.S. corporate tax rate stands at 35 percent, but in practice it’s far lower. Corporations have lots of tricks in their box of tax-avoidance tools.

Consider Pfizer’s track record. The drugmaker increased its offshore profits by $10 billion in 2012, boosting its offshore stash to $73 billion — all of it untaxed by Uncle Sam. Like most pharmaceutical companies, Pfizer registers its patents in a low-tax offshore haven, and then charges a high price for the use of this “intellectual property.” Doing so, it shifts all of its U.S. profits offshore, avoiding U.S. taxes and bloating its overseas bank account.

Pfizer’s tax dodging prowess has earned it a gold medal in the sport, but it has also drawn unwanted attention from the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC wrote to Pfizer last year asking them to explain four years of large losses in their U.S. operations despite reporting about 40 percent of their sales on American soil. Undeterred by the SEC investigation, Pfizer added a fifth year of U.S. losses to the string in 2012.

Imagine for a moment one of the physicians that prescribes Pfizer’s products taking their diploma off their office wall, carefully packing it up, and shipping it to a bank vault in the Cayman Islands. That diploma represents the doctor’s intellectual property. Without it, they would not be able to practice their profession.

After each visit, patients approaching the check-out desk would be given their bill and an envelope to mail their check to a post office box in the Cayman Islands. Faced with confused looks, the receptionist cheerfully explains, “Well, we have to pay for the use of the skills represented by the diploma, which is housed in the Caribbean.”

The corporate offshore tax dodge that shifts $90 billion of tax expenses onto individual taxpayers this Tax Day is just that crazy. Just like having a doctor’s diploma parked in the Cayman Islands does nothing to improve the quality of care, having corporate profits transferred from America to tax haven nations provides no enhanced benefits in terms of product quality or service. In other words, there is no economic value. It only serves to add more to already-overflowing corporate coffers.

Taxing Economics: Tax havens put the corporate cart before the individual horse by Khalil Bendib

In the 1950s, corporations paid nearly a third of the federal government’s bills. Last year, thanks to the antics of Pfizer and other examples of overly creative accounting, corporate income taxes accounted for less than a tenth of Uncle Sam’s total revenue. This dramatic shortfall shows up in two ways — federal budget deficit growth and the growing trend of individual taxpayers paying an increased share of the costs of government.

Only about two in every thousand American businesses are even eligible to play this game, and far fewer actually do. Most business owners are proud to pay taxes they know support schools, good infrastructure, and national security.

If tax-dodging corporations were people, they might say thanks to the responsible taxpayers who are picking up their share of unpaid taxes. But since they aren’t human, allow me to say on their behalf, “Have a Nice Tax Day.”

Scott Klinger is an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.  Distributed via OtherWords. OtherWords.org