March 16^th marks the 13^th anniversary for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA). What an incredible 13 years it has been. This Weekly Update started out with only a few dozen recipients and how has grown to thousands. Thank you to the ones who have been here from the beginning and thank you to the new folks. It would take way too much space to detail every victory, but I do want to mention three victories. TPA was instrumental in getting tax reform passed in 2017. We had numerous meetings with House and Senate leadership, did a massive amount of media, and mobilized our grassroots. Tax reform was a shot in the arm to the economy as workers received bonuses and companies relocated to the U.S. TPA led a massive grassroots effort in 2017 to get onerous Title II regulations removed from the internet. This freed the internet from heavy-handed government control and ushered in a new era of broadband investment and closing the digital divide. Just this past month, TPA was at the
forefront in stopping a taxpayer-funded arena in Virginia, the most expensive proposed deal of its kind in U.S. history. So many victories, and quite frankly, none of these victories would have been possible with your support. So, a big thank you for 13 amazing years. And, as the Carpenters song goes, “We’ve only just begun.”


The FCC’s Racial Blunder

The third time’s the charm, says the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Having twice failed to sneak inducements to racial discrimination past courts, the agency has chosen a subtler (though nearly as pernicious) ploy. Ostensibly a communications regulator, the FCC has crept into ideologically driven social activism. In February, the FCC re-upped its requirement that broadcasters submit annual reports concerning their employees’ racial and sexual demographics. Congress authorized this data collection (known as Form 395-B) in 1992, but the FCC suspended it in 2001. The suspension followed two adverse rulings in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the agency, to promote racial diversity among employees, had impermissibly influenced broadcasters to adopt racially discriminatory hiring practices.

In reviving Form 395-B, the FCC attempted to avoid the sort of regulation that fell before the D.C. Circuit. For the moment, at least, it disavows any intentional use of these disclosures nefariously to influence whom broadcasters hire. But the FCC’s Democrats voted not only to collect demographic data but to publicize broadcasters’ disclosures. This creates a publicly available “race and gender scorecard for each and every TV and radio broadcast station in the country.” Knowing itself to be constitutionally barred from pressuring broadcasters to hire whatever number of minorities sates progressive sensibilities, the FCC has in effect outsourced the task to left-wing activists and journalists.

Cultural pressure and social-media pile-ons — playing on corporate insecurities — will likely achieve a similar outcome as would state action. As FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr noted, commentors on the proceeding have pledged openly to employ Form 395-B disclosures to ensure adherence to left-wing racial pieties. Carr and Commissioner Nathan Simington (another Republican dissenter) did not object to the mere collecting of Form 395-B data. They noted that the FCC has the requisite statutory authority. However, both argued that the agency could do so without publishing them — or could publish them in an anonymized or aggregated fashion, which guard individual companies against activist harassment. As Simington’s dissent asked, “So, as regards the publication of attributable demographic employment data: what policy good is left other than ‘name and shame’ for station owners?” This disclosure regime will likely produce similar legal challenges to those the FCC lost a quarter century ago. Racial
diversity is a beautiful thing and should be encouraged. Indeed, Simington’s dissent began by condemning the broadcast industry’s current dearth of it (though he doesn’t attribute this to discrimination). However, the FCC’s chosen remedy will virtually ensure many broadcasters face significant pressures to discriminate on the bases of race and sex. Congress authorized the FCC to collect Form 395-B data. It ought not wait for courts to rebuke FCC for a third time — but make clear immediately that the agency has abused its authority.

Culture Change at the FDA

To the millions of Americans who gulp down daily spoonfulls of yogurt, the dairy product’s health benefits are a no-brainer. Until now, though, yogurt manufacturers have been unable to make even basic claims about the healthiness of their products. On March 1, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finally announced that food makers can make a “qualified” (i.e., limited) claim that regularly eating yogurt can reduce the risk of Type 2 diabetes. It took the agency an astounding five years to arrive at a conclusion that has been common sense for decades. And, unfortunately, this is not the first time the FDA has flubbed basic health messaging. The agency needs to do better and give consumers the information they need to live a healthy lifestyle. It’s not exactly rocket science that yogurt is a healthy food (in moderation) and may prevent chronic health issues. As University of Toronto nutritional scientist Dr. Thomas Wolever noted in 2017, “High yogurt intake is associated with a reduced
risk of type 2 diabetes (T2DM)...There is evidence that low–glycemic index (GI) and low–glycemic load (GL) diets are associated with a reduced risk of T2DM. The 93 GI values for yogurt in the University of Sydney's GI database have a mean ± SD of 34 ± 13, and 92% of the yogurts are low-GI (≤55).”

In 2018, Danone North America petitioned the FDA to end this madness and allow for simple marketing that yogurt may reduce the risk of Type 2 Diabetes. The company, which manufactures major yogurt brands including Dannon, Activia, Wallaby Organic, and Silk, submitted a thoroughly researched, 100+ page petition backing up this qualified claim. The risk-averse FDA hemmed and hawed, insisting on more evidence. The FDA finally got what it was looking for, more than 5 years following Danone’s petition. Given the above-cited studies and meta-analyses that had already been published at the time of the petition, the FDA could have simply approved the messaging and reserved the right to change its mind if new, contradictory evidence came to light. Consumers would have been in a better place to make informed decisions about their health. Too often, regulators value near-absolute certainty over pragmatism and flexibility. This was not the FDA’s first foray into botched health messaging. In 2015, the
agency sent a warning letter to the snack manufacturer KIND LLC to cease marketing its products as healthy. The agency argued that KIND’s Fruit & Nut and “Plus” Dark Chocolate bars are too high in saturated fat to be considered “healthy” as per 21 CFR 101.65(d)(2). The FDA did not dispute KIND’s claims that their products are a significant source of fiber, protein, and antioxidants, but neglected a holistic view to focus solely on fat content. In 2016, the FDA partially reversed course and allowed KIND to market its products as “healthy and tasty” but only in the context of its “corporate philosophy” rather than any specific claim about the healthiness of its products. These perplexing caveats only confuse consumers rather than providing clarity on health claims. Instead of the FDA endlessly hedging over health claims, the agency should green-light messaging if a company can show basic, peer-reviewed evidence backing up their claims.

The FDA can always reverse course later, but only after firm evidence showing no or negative health benefits. Flexibility rather than fear is key to helping consumers make informed choices about the foods they buy. It is time for the FDA to end the culture of bad science.


BLOGS:

Monday: As the United States Looks to Grow Tech Regulations, EU May Cut Back on Rules ([link removed])

Tuesday: Credit Card Policy Fights Reveal Two Visions for the American Economy ([link removed])

Wednesday: TPA Joins Coalition Letter Opposing USDA Funding of Adversaries’ Animal Lab Testing ([link removed])

Thursday: Taxpayers Protection Alliance Endorses Cruz-Lee Rollback of FCC’s Digital Discrimination Rule ([link removed])

Friday: TPA Submits Comments on the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act ([link removed])

Media:

March 7, 2024: Regional Media News quoted TPA in their story, “Biden, in State of the Union, to call for wealth tax and higher taxes on businesses.”

March 7, 2024: The Baltimore Post (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in theory as saying story, “Biden, in State of the Union, to call for wealth tax and higher taxes on businesses.”

March 7, 2024: MSN Money Canada quoted TPA in the article, “What Biden's tax on billionaires and big corporations could mean for YOU: Experts tell Daily Mail how the president's hikes on the mega-rich may impact all Americans.”

March 7, 2024: MSN India quoted TPA in the article, “What Biden's tax on billionaires and big corporations could mean for YOU: Experts tell Daily Mail how the president's hikes on the mega-rich may impact all Americans.”

March 7, 2024: Mogaznews.com ([link removed]) quoted TPA in their story, “What Biden's tax on billionaires and big corporations could mean for YOU: ... trends now.”

March 7, 2024: States News Service mentioned TPA in their article, “170+ Endorsements Roll in for Cassidy’s Bipartisan CRA to Overturn Biden’s New Joint Employer Rule.”

March 7, 2024: ALXnow mentioned TPA in their article, “Gov. Youngkin ‘befuddled’ as Potomac Yard arena plan is in death throes in Richmond.”

March 8, 2024: WTKG 1230AM (Grand Rapids, Mich.) quoted TPA their airy about President Biden’s State of the Union speech.

March 8, 2024: MSN International Edition quoted TPA in the article, “What Biden's tax on billionaires and big corporations could mean for YOU: Experts tell Daily Mail how the president's hikes on the mega-rich may impact all Americans.”

March 9, 2024: Targeted News Service mentioned TPA in their story, “Taxpayers Protection Alliance and National Taxpayers Union Weigh in on House Passage of Spending Bill With Concern About Earmarks.”

March 9, 2024: WJLA ABC7 (Washington, D.C.) quoted TPA in their article, “Proposed bills in Annapolis could have you paying more for everyday things.”

March 11, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me about a shortfall in revenues for Maryland.

March 11, 2024: The Detroit News (Detroit, Mich.) ran TPAs’s op-ed, “States call out Biden’s heavy-handed AI regulation.”

March 14, 2024: I appeared on WBOB 600 AM (Jacksonville, Fla.) to talk about SEC Mission Creep and tax reform.

March 14, 2024: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me about salaries for superintendents in Maryland.

March 14, 2024: Townhall.com ([link removed]) ran TPA’s op-ed, “With Youth Vaping Down, Lawmakers Are Once Again Ignoring Adults.”

March 14, 2024: The Las Vegas Review Journal (Las Vegas, Nev.) quoted TPA in their article, “ Empty federal office space costing American taxpayers.”

March 14, 2024: Malaya Business Insight quoted TPA in their story, “Consumer groups urge inclusivity in fight for smoke-free society.”

March 14, 2024: The Blaze ran TPA’s op-ed, “Consumer loss looms with the Credit Card Competition Act.”

March 15, 2024: Patrick Hedger appeared on KZIM radio (Cape Girardeau, Missouri) to discuss SEC Mission Creep.

March 15, 2024: Florida Daily ran TPA's op-ed, "Can the U.S. Post Office Be Turned Around?"

============================================================
** ([link removed])
** Like Us On Facebook ([link removed])
** ([link removed])
** Follow Us On Twitter ([link removed])
Our mailing address is:
1101 14th Street NW
Suite 1120
Washington, DC xxxxxx

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])