While the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) doesn’t endorse candidates at any level, when Glenn Youngkin became Governor

While the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) doesn’t endorse candidates at any level, when Glenn Youngkin became Governor of Virginia, we were pleased because it meant better economic and education policies for the people and taxpayers of Virginia. We are now concerned about a bill moving its way through the Virginia legislature that would subsidize the construction of a new stadium for the NFL’s Washington Commanders. The proposed stadium has been described as a “mini city” and carries a price tag of $3 billion, only $2 billion of which will be fronted by the Commanders. The rest will undoubtedly fall on taxpayers. Despite the optimism of economic development for Loudon or Prince William County, NFL stadium projects almost always fall short of their stated developmental goals. Virginia should not make the same mistake as others before them. Gov. Youngkin needs to veto any bill that has any funding for the stadium. Using taxpayer money to subsidize any stadium is fiscally irresponsible.
Our full statement is here ([link removed]) .

Tracking More Problems at Amtrak

Dan Savickas, TPA’s Government Affairs Manager, testified before the Surface Transportation Board on a proposed new route from Mobile, Alabama to New Orleans. Amtrak already receives billions in funding from the federal government and, thus, the American taxpayer. That is because a vast majority of Amtrak’s lines are unprofitable. In fact, recent analyses show only lines in the Northeast Corridor – connecting Washington, DC and Boston – run at an actual profit. The rest typically require subsidies ranging anywhere from $81 to $417 per passenger. American taxpayers bear that burden. The proposed corridor from Mobile to New Orleans will almost certainly yield the same result. A 2015 impact study on such a route has shown that this proposed line would lose $4 million annually. It is important to note that this number is likely much higher today, given rampant inflation and the detrimental effect the coronavirus pandemic has had on ridership habits. There will be fewer riders and more required
subsidies from the taxpayers.
Amtrak has also failed to provide evidence that there is sufficient demand for such a passenger route. Driving along I-10 between the two cities does not take more than a few hours. Additionally, there exist bus routes from companies like Megabus and Greyhound that complete that trip for far less cost to consumers than Amtrak would. And, while there are no direct flights between the two cities for an even shorter trip, both cities have the airport infrastructure in place to change that reality if there is, in fact, demand for it. In fact, the existing Amtrak routes in the Gulf Coast have already demonstrated the lack of demand. Mississippi currently has a number of routes connecting New Orleans, New York, and Chicago. From 2011 to 2019, ridership in Mississippi along these routes increased by less than five percent, lagging far behind the state’s growth in median income. Cost and the potential for train delays show consumers in the area do not find Amtrak to be a suitable option.

The precedent set by allowing this expansion to go forward is potentially devastating for the future of freight rail in the United States. According to a recently completed impact study, this route would cause severe disruptions to the supply chain along the Gulf Coast if infrastructure improvements or additions were not made prior to the activation of this route. The supply chain has already been severely disrupted by the global pandemic and the economic restrictions that were tied to it. Without significant changes, Amtrak routes will disrupt freight rail lines and cause delays and congestion, only exacerbating the issues we are already seeing play out globally. This amounts to displacement of economic activity that will have a noticeable impact on the region. If Amtrak is allowed to move forward without making the necessary improvements, it will set the precedent that they may start new services and routes across the nation without first ensuring that the supply chain is not disrupted
or demonstrating that there is any pent-up demand for their service in the first place. As an organization that is dedicated to protecting the interests of taxpayers and consumers across the nation, we are understandably concerned about this project. American taxpayers will bear the cost of this new service, subsidize the lack of ridership, and feel the pains of the supply chain disruptions that will result. We urge the Board not to allow this to go forward until the necessary infrastructure improvements are made and sufficient demand is demonstrated.

No ❤️for Consumers With Sugar Subsidies

This Valentine’s Day, Americans learned there’s not a lot to love about the government’s economic policies. Trillion-dollar budget deficits, a national debt topping $30 trillion, and supply chain woes have contributed to 7.5 percent inflation. Flowers and chocolate are just the latest casualties in a volley of heartbreakingly high prices. Inflation isn’t the only reason why food prices are high. Prices on sweets, and any food that contains sugar, have been sour for nearly a century thanks to misguided protectionism shielding U.S. consumers from the benefits of the international sugar trade. It’s time for policymakers to do the right thing and end the New Deal sugar quotas and tariffs keeping confectionary prices far too high. Thanks to an obscure commodities program dating back to the New Deal, millions of Americans buying sweets for their sweethearts have little respite from high prices. Large, politically connected sugar growers have never much cared for the prospect of inexpensive,
foreign competition, and have lobbied hard to keep inexpensive sugar out of the country. And they’ve succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, as confectioners pay considerably more per pound of sugar than the global average.

Extra pennies per pound add up to a substantial sum as Americans purchase nearly 60 million pounds of chocolate each Valentine’s Day. All told, the U.S. sugar program costs American families an astounding $4 billion per year, more than enough money to buy a bouquet of flowers for every spoken-for Mrs. (or Mr.) in the country. These byzantine price controls force Americans to cut back on their purchases, to the detriment of thousands of small businesses across the country. Far from helping small and struggling sugar farmers, the system of loans and quotas accrues primarily to a handful of politically connected sugar producers. An investigation by The Wall Street Journal found, “The loans went to 17 sugar processors, including the makers of Domino Sugar, Big Chief and other brands that line supermarket shelves. Just three companies…borrowed 55% of the funds, although they produce about 20% of the country’s sugar.” Yet these companies continue to plead poverty and warn of the dire consequences
of the U.S. opening up its markets to cheap foreign competition. Under the auspices of the American Sugar Alliance, they’ve even adopted the reasonable-sounding position that the U.S. sugar program can go – so long as other countries ditch their sugar subsidization schemes first. This concept, known as “zero-for-zero,” is in fact an unattainable ideal that all-but-ensures that sugar protectionism will remain a staple of U.S. policy. Claims abound that the U.S. “unilaterally disarming” on sugar policy is only a sweet deal for foreign companies and the governments subsidizing them.

Sweethearts suffered enough this Valentine’s Day due to sky-high inflation. Policymakers should show them some love by repealing this deeply misguided protectionist program.

BLOGS:
Monday: Op-Ed: Lawmakers should show some love to consumers and end sugar program ([link removed])

Tuesday: Testimony before the Georgia House Committee on Health Human Services Regarding Expanding Access to Eye Care via Telemedicine ([link removed])

Wednesday: Testimony Before the Surface Transportation Board Regarding Gulf Coast Passenger Service Between New Orleans and Mobile ([link removed])

Thursday: Taxpayer Watchdog Urges Governor Youngkin to Veto Wasteful Stadium Bill ([link removed])

Friday: Op-Ed: Bans on Life-Saving Harm Reduction Products Leads to More Problems ([link removed])

MEDIA:

February 12, 2022: The Bryan Times (Bryan, Ohio) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Broadband providers use new FCC program to close digital divide ([link removed]) .”

February 12, 2022: Townhall.com ran TPA’s op-ed, “Pharmacy Reform Needed to Lower Prices for Patients ([link removed]) .”

February 13, 2022: The Santa Barbara News-Press (Santa Barbara, Calif.) mentioned TPA in their editorial. “Reform’ spells trouble for U.S. Postal Service ([link removed]) .”

February 14, 2022: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me about sugar subsidies.

February 14, 2022: Center Square ran TPA’s op-ed, “Lawmakers should show some love to consumers and end sugar program ([link removed]) .”

February 14, 2022: I appeared on 93.1 WACV (Montgomery, Ala.) to talk about the $1.7 trillion reconciliation bill and the Taxpayer Tricks and Treats.

February 14, 2022: Inside Sources ran TPA’s op-ed, “Philanthropists Who Do More Harm Than Good Need To Be Held Accountable.” ([link removed])

February 15, 2022: I appeared on KRC 550 AM (Cincinnati, Ohio) to talk about the infrastructure bill and vaccine mandates.

February 15, 2022: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, “Baltimore's City Hall remains closed as masking and COVID-19 restrictions roll back ([link removed]) .”

February 16, 2022: KATV ABC 7 ([link removed]) (Little Rock, Ark.) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: KUTV CBS 2 ([link removed]) (Salt Lake City, Utah) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: KFOX Fox 14 ([link removed]) (El Paso, Texas) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: KCBY CBS 11 ([link removed]) (North Bend, Ore.) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: WCYB NBC5 ([link removed]) (Bristol, Va.) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: KFDM Fox6 ([link removed]) (Beaumont, Va.) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: WBFF Fox45 ([link removed]) (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: WOAI NBC 4 ([link removed]) (San Antonio, Texas) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: WKRC CBS 12 ([link removed]) (Cincinnati, Ohio) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: WBMA ABC 33/40 ([link removed]) (Birmingham, Ala.) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: KSNV NBC 3 ([link removed]) (Las Vegas, Nevada) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: KBOI CBS 2 ([link removed]) (Boise, Idaho) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: WRGB CBS 6 ([link removed]) (Albany, N.Y.) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: Dayton 247 NOW ([link removed]) (Dayton, Ohio) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: KOKH Fox25 ([link removed]) (Oklahoma City, Okla.) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: KTXS ABC 12 ([link removed]) (Abilene, Texas) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: WTVC ABC 9 ([link removed]) (Chattanooga, Tenn.) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: KMPH Fox 26 ([link removed]) (Fresno, Calif.) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: WCTI ABC 12 ([link removed]) (New Bern, N.C.) quoted TPA in their story, “White House request for a new round of COVID relief money prompts some pushback.”

February 16, 2022: Patrick Hedger joined ‘Stacy on the Right’ on SiriusXM The Patriot Channel (National) to discuss wholesaler inflation and the state of the economy.

February 17, 2022: I appeared on ‘Springfield’s Happy Hour’ with Nate Lucas on KWTO (Springfield, MO) to talk inflation.

February 17, 2022: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me about suspending the gas tax.

February 17, 2022: I appeared on WBOB 600 AM (Jacksonville, Fla.) to talk about suspending the gas tax.

February 17, 2022: Real Clear Markets ran TPA’s op-ed, “Let's Stop Amtrak From Adding Routes Few Want ([link removed]) .”

February 18, 2022: I appeared on The Will Anderson Podcast to discuss inflation.

February 18, 2022: I appeared on the Scott Beason Radio Show 1260 AM and 92.5 FM (Birmingham, Ala.) to talk about inflation.

February 18, 2022: Patrick Hedger joined ‘Wake Up Springfield’ on 93.3 KWTO with Tim Jones to discuss record inflation.

February 18, 2022: Townhall.com ran TPA’s op-ed, “Bans on Life-Saving Harm Reduction Products Leads to More Problems ([link removed]) .”

February 18, 2022: Patrick Hedger joined The Steve Gruber Show (Michigan) to discuss rising inflation.


Have a great weekend!
Best,

David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
1101 14th Street, NW
Suite 1120
Washington, D.C. xxxxxx
www.protectingtaxpayers.org ([link removed])

============================================================
** ([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])