The Great State of New Jersey, from which I hail, has quite the taxing reputation. Not only does it have the worst business tax climate in the country, but it also has the highest property taxes. Within the past month, New Jersey lawmakers have decided that such an onslaught of tax hostility is not enough. At the municipal level, there are efforts, encouraged by a recent court ruling, to collect property taxes from until recently tax-exempt non-profits, including hospitals. In Trenton, state legislators are seeking to raise the gas tax in an effort to fund the Transportation Trust, which always seems to be short on cash no matter how many times taxes are raised. Voter frustration has hit a new high in New Jersey, partisanship, no longer matters, the State government at large has become the bane of New Jersey residents’ existence.  Perhaps an explanation for how the Garden State has gotten this bad is in order.

Such is the oppressive state of well, the state, that a more suitable title is The People’s Republic of New Jersey. I spent the first 18 years of my life in New Jersey, and in all that time I have failed to comprehend how the state that taxes its people into oblivion can still bleed its coffers dry and suggest more taxes are the solution. While the Governor has done his best to keep the Democrats at bay in Trenton, conservatives are losing battles at the municipal level. Teachers unions rule local politics, and while the days of Christie doing battle with the unions is largely behind us, their efforts to raise property taxes at the local level year after year have certainly not ceased. Hurricane Sandy only brought about more corruption and government waste, not to mention tax increases to pay for recovery expenditures. Most of all, the damage done by former Gov. Corzine’s tax and spend free-for-all was never undone, leaving New Jersey residents to face the fallout of failed policy.

There was hope when Governor Christie came to office, he promised to cut property taxes by at least 10% and usher in a new age of prosperity to an ailing state, and maybe, just maybe New Jersey would return to its red state roots. No such relief is in sight, almost 6 years later, and Democrats have not slowed down their efforts to pillage the wallets of taxpayers. Now the Governor cannot be blamed for all of New Jersey’s woes, as the Democrat-controlled legislature has set Trenton at a standstill, and only so much can be done to compromise without violating one’s principles. And the failure for tax reform lies in the deafness of Democrats, who know that New Jersey residents abhor the thought of paying more to the state government, but clearly think they know better than those whose wallets are most hurt by progressive policies. Governor Christie has vetoed every effort to raise taxes during his time in office and that is certainly commendable, but to suggest that the Governor is a tax reform champion is a bit off the mark. At best his victories are pyrrhic.  Many New Jersey residents agree with Republicans on taxes, but the high profile governorship of Christie, and the legislative failures and broken promises associated with him (and criminal accusations), have led to a lack of faith in either party to help out the common citizen.

Of course, morale has not improved, only a quarter of the voting public has faith in their own parties to fix The People’s Republic, thus the beatings will have to continue. And how could it? When the only solution to the problems of New Jersey, in the eyes of many lawmakers, is to take more of our money. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result; well I guess that makes New Jersey an asylum. But don’t tell NJ lawmakers that, they may try to tax that, too.

Photo Credit: Photo Phiend

ATR’s effort to advance sugar reform was recently featured in a segment by One America News Network, a nationally broadcasted news channel available in over 15 million households. In the segment, One America News reporter Neil McCabe interviewed Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), one of the leading voices for sugar reform in Congress. Additionally, McCabe interviewed ATR Federal Affairs Manager Justin Sykes. In the interview, Justin provided his expert analysis of the costly, antiquated U.S. Sugar Program.

Originally conceived during the Great Depression in 1934, the U.S. Sugar Program has evolved into a thicket of complicated government interventions. Currently, the U.S. Sugar Program encompasses numerous benefits, including generous subsidies, import quotas, marketing allotments, and the “feedstock flexibility program”, in which the government must buy excess sugar and re-sell it at a loss to ethanol plants. In order for sugar producers to reap these generous handouts, taxpayers, consumers, and businesses are subjected to unnecessary economic burdens.

This generous corporate welfare package raises the price of U.S. sugar to more than twice the world price. Expensive sugar greatly harms American consumers with higher food prices. This program costs American consumers up to $3.5 billion every year in higher prices for sugar-containing food, and of course sugar itself. For an individual family, the sugar program adds an extra $40 on their grocery bill every year.

In addition, the sugar program costs thousands of good-paying jobs in food manufacturing. Many food manufacturers simply cannot compete with foreign competitors with access to cheaper sugar, which forces many businesses to leave the country. This pain is especially felt in the candy industry, where numerous companies have moved their businesses abroad in order to survive.

The U.S. Sugar Program is a relic of the past, and should be swiftly and deftly overturned. Luckily, Rep. Pitts is building momentum within Congress to reform this archaic depression-era corporate welfare package. ATR strongly backs Rep. Pitts’ effort to free the American people from unfair crony capitalism. Just this week, ATR sent a letter to member of Congress and Speaker Paul Ryan urging them to take action to repeal this program.

The IRS is up to its old tricks. The agency recently announced a proposed regulation to have 501(c)3 charitable organizations collect the Social Security numbers of many of their donors. Given the agency’s proven disregard for political speech and non-profits, and its past inability to safeguard taxpayer data, this new rule must not be implemented.

Under the proposed rule, charitable organizations would have the option of collecting the Social Security numbers of donors who contribute more than $250 a year. This will create another tool the IRS can use to intimidate and harass individuals that do not agree with this administration.

Taxpayers can help put the brakes on this latest power grab by leaving a comment in opposition before the December 16 deadline. Comments can be left here.

This proposed regulation could very well give the IRS lists of donors who contribute to causes they disagree with. Even worse, the agency has a record of failure when it comes to protecting confidential taxpayer information.

Earlier this year, hackers breached an IRS application exposing the taxpayer data of over 330,000 individuals.

In hindsight, this hack was entirely preventable. Since 2007, the IRS has been warned at least seven times by watchdog groups that it needed to strengthen its protections of taxpayer information. Despite these warnings, the IRS had 44 outstanding watchdog recommendations they had failed to implement at the time of the hack.

Not only could this proposed rule leave taxpayer information at risk, it is ripe for abuse by the IRS. The agency has already been caught going after the donors of non-profits in the past.

In a blatant intimidation attempt, the IRS was caught applying the gift tax to individuals who have donated to a 501(c)4 social welfare organization. The agency justified this interpretation by designating c4s as “persons” under the tax code. No serious tax expert agreed with this interpretation, but that did not stop the IRS.

The agency can still be stopped from implementing this new rule but taxpayers need to quickly voice their opposition.

The bottom line is the IRS should be given less, not more power.

Just as thousands of birds migrate every year in search of better weather, thousands of jobs in food manufacturing, such as those in the candy-making industry, migrate out of the country in search of cheaper sugar. Who is to blame behind the mass exodus of jobs? The culprit is none other than the federal government. Through the U.S. Sugar Program, the federal government artificially raises the price of sugar in the U.S. to double the world price, just to benefit a small number of sugar farmers.

The U.S. Sugar Program is a relic of Depression-era policy. Its origins start when the federal government passed The Sugar Act of 1934. The original program sought to protect U.S. sugar farmers with generous protectionist policies and special treatment. Since then, the sugar program has ballooned in size, thanks to the efforts of special interests.

Currently, the U.S. Sugar Program encompasses numerous benefits, including generous subsidies, import quotas, marketing allotments, and the “feedstock flexibility program”, in which the government must buy excess sugar and re-sell it at a loss to ethanol plants. In order for sugar producers to reap these generous handouts, taxpayers, consumers, and businesses are subjected to unnecessary economic burdens.

Because of these protectionist policies, the price of sugar in the U.S. is twice the world price. The high price of sugar costs American consumers up to $3.5 billion every year in higher prices for sugar-containing food, and of course sugar itself. For an individual family, the sugar program adds an extra $40 on their grocery bill every year.

Above all industries, food manufacturers that use sugar are harmed the most. The sugar program forces certain manufacturers to seek cheaper sugar abroad, costing thousands of jobs. For instance over the past decade 22% of candy-making jobs have migrated out of the country, three times more than in other manufacturing industries. Food manufacturers such as those in the candy industry must often make these decisions in order to survive. One such candy-maker is the Atkinson Candy Company, which moved 80% of its peppermint-candy business to Guatemala.

Other candy-makers that have been forced out of the country include the Jelly Belly Candy Co. and candy-cane maker Bobs Candies Inc. In regard to the decision to move Bobs Candies, company president Greg McCormack remarked that eliminating candy-making jobs in the U.S. left "a bad taste in your mouth, but it was the medicine you had to take to stay in business."

Simply put, the U.S. Sugar Program is the epitome of crony capitalism, akin to the Export-Import Bank. Since the Depression, this program has caused immense economic harm at the benefit of a small number of sugar farmers.

Above all, the biggest casualty of the sugar program is jobs – the Sugar Program has forced the migration of thousands of good-paying jobs in the food manufacturing industry. Yet unlike the thousands of migrating birds, however, these jobs do not return to the U.S. As ATR President Grover Norquist and Congressman Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) recently wrote in the National Review, we must finally put an end to this expensive, insider sweetheart deal.

Photo Credit: Camille Iman