In the News: Blog

Jan 04 2021

USTR Response Letter

The Honorable Ron Johnson United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Johnson:

Thank you for your letter regarding the Section 301 tariff exclusion extension process. I understand your concerns about the effects of the tariff actions on Wisconsin businesses and farmers.

In your letter, you asked USTR to provide "the specific justification for each denial of an exclusion extension request" by Wisconsin companies. I would like to clarify that the exclusion extension process, unlike the exclusion process, does not involve granting or denying individual “requests.” Rather, the extension process determines whether to extend particular exclusions based on evaluation of the factors set out in the relevant Federal Register notice, public comments, and advice from advisory committees concerning extension of the pertinent exclusion.

As we have discussed with your staff over the past few months, the factors generally considered in the extension process, as set out in the relevant Federal Register notices, include: (1) whether, despite the first imposition of the additional duties, the particular product remains available only from China, and (2) whether the imposition of additional duties on the products covered by the exclusion will result in severe economic harm to the commenter or other U.S. interests.

I appreciate your continued support for USTR’s efforts to address China’s unfair trade practices. USTR Congressional Affairs staff will keep your office apprised of any further developments on this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss this or other issues in the future.

Sincerely yours,

Robert E. Lighthizer

Today, I went to the floor and objected to another round of stimulus checks that were not reformed from the CARES Act to better target Americans who need relief.  Every Senator wants to help those who have been unable to work or have had their hours reduced due to government mandated closure to slow the spread of the coronavirus.  We’ve had nine months since the CARES Act to understand this virus and to examine if stimulus checks and other economic programs totaling $2 trillion actually served to help those who are in need through no fault of their own.  The objective data on the distribution and use of the CARES Act stimulus checks, when looking at today’s employment numbers, do not justify another broad-brushed mailing of checks paid for by our children’s futures.

In my speech objecting to Sen. Hawley’s bill for another round of stimulus checks identical to that of the CARES Act, I laid out the important data Americans and Congress should be looking at to make sure we’re spending taxpayers’ money in the appropriate way to help those in need.  My remarks below:

“I think every Senator in this chamber shares [Senator Hawley’s] concern for people who are hurting because of this covid pandemic.  Businesses have closed.  People are on unemployment.  People are in need through no fault of their own.  This is an act of God, and that’s one of the reasons why I certainly supported the CARES Act.  That was over $2 trillion.

In total, this body has passed well over $3 trillion, 15 percent to 16 percent of last year’s GDP in terms of financial relief.  My comments here are really not directed specifically at the Senator from Missouri’s proposal because he makes many good points.  We do have working men and woman.  We have households that—again through no fault of their own—are struggling, and we need to provide financial support.  I think my comments are in some respect more general from the standpoint of how we’ve done that.  And as I have explained to my colleagues in conference, by and large, the initial relief packages here were a shotgun approach.  We had to move fact.  We had to do something big.  We had to make sure that markets wouldn’t seize, that financial relief could be sent to people very quickly.  And so we passed over $3 trillion in financial relief.  I knew it would be far from perfect.  It was far from perfect.

But now we’ve had a lot more time, and anything we consider for this additional package that we’re considering now, that is being debated, that is being discussed, that’s being negotiated, ought to be far more targeted.  One of the reasons we are currently $27.4 trillion in debt, which is about 128 percent of last year’s GDP.  If we do this bipartisan deal, another trillion dollars, we will be $28.4 trillion in debt in the next three or four months.  That’s 132 percent of GDP.  When I came to the Senate, we were a little over $14 trillion. Our GDP was over $15 trillion.  We were actually below 100% of GDP. 

I know I’m using a lot of numbers right now, and I’m going to use more because that’s part of the problem.  And one of the reasons we are $27.4 trillion in debt is we only speak about need. We only talk in terms of compassion.  We all have compassion.  We all want to fulfill those needs.  We just don’t talk in numbers very often.  We don’t analyze the data.  We don’t take a look at what we did in the past and see did it work or didn’t it work.  What was spent well, what was wasted...

Let me go through some numbers.  I will go through slowly so people can understand at least my perspective of why I am so concerned about our nation’s deb, the fact that we are mortgaging our children’s future, and I think we need to be very careful about mortgaging it further then we aren’t doing it in a targeted fashion.

So again, before the covid recession hit, in December 2019, we hit a record number of people employed in this country.  It was a record.  Our economy was humming because of President Trump’s administration putting forward a reasonable level of regulation and a competitive spirit that supercharged our economy.  We were at 3.5 percent unemployment.  When I took econ, five percent was considered full employment.  We were at 3.5 percent unemployment.  Then covid hit.  And by April, we’d gone from almost 159 million people employed in this country to just a little over 133 million people.  So that was a reduction in employment of a little more than 25 million people.  Again, from 159 million to 133 million, 25 million people less employed in this nation.

Now, the good news.  Even though the pandemic is still not over, but the vaccine is being administered.  It is being administrated.  I think the end is in sight.  We’ve already gained 16 million people employed.  So now employment stands at 149.7 million people.  150 million people are employed, down about 9 million jobs.  9 million. Okay? So I want you to keep those numbers in mind because they’re important.  And our unemployment rate stands at 6.7 percent.  By the way, the number of people unemployed according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics is about 10.7 million.

Now, in the CARES Act, again, payments, what Senator Hawley wants to duplicate. No changes, no modifications, no further targeting.  What those economic impact payments were is about $275 billion to 166 million people.  Again, remember, 25 million people lost their jobs.  We sent out checks to 166 million people, averaging about $1,673 per person. What’s more relative is how many households do you send those checks to? We sent them out to about 115 million households, about $2,400 per household.  So again, $275 billion to 115 million households.  That was about 4.5 times more than the number of households than the number of jobs lost.

Today, with only 9 million jobs lost. Not only, I mean, that’s a big number.  I’m not minimizing that.  But with nine million jobs lost, if we just repeated, sent it out to another 115 million households, that’s 12.6 times the number of jobs lost.  And if we double it, it goes from $275 billion to $550 billion.  That’s half a trillion dollars.  I know a trillion dollars doesn’t sound like much anymore.  It seems like hundreds of billions, seems like more.  But now we’re dealing in one to two trillion dollars.  It’s pocket change, apparently.

How is that money spent?  Did it really, was it really spent on essentials?  Was this money really needed?  Was there any hope of actually that money being stimulative to our economy?  Well, we have one study from the Federal Reserve Bank in New York.  They issued it on October 13, 2020.  What they did is they, since 2013, they’ve been sending out an internet national survey to 1,300 households called the Survey of Expectations.  They sent out one in June and one in August.  And here’s what those survey results said.  Of the $2,400 sent out, 18 percent was spent on essential items, 8 percent was spent on nonessential, 3 percent on donations, for a total of 29 percent spent, is what they call the marginal propensity consumed.  The other 71 percent equally divided, 36 percent of that was saved, so our nation’s savings rate has increased, and 35 percent went to pay off debt, credit card debt.  They also asked the question of what happened to the unemployment payment?  Very similar results, 24 percent of the plus-up, the $600 per week to state unemployment benefits, 25 percent was spent on essential, 4 percent on nonessential, 1 percent on donations.  29 percent was the marginal propensity to consume from the unemployment payment.  71 percent for savings and for debt repayment.

Now, they also looked ahead, assuming that we’re going to do another round of stimulus checks.  This time they asked their respondents, how would you spent if you got $1,500, if you got a check.  This time they said they’d spend about 14 percent on essential, 7 percent on nonessential, 3 percent on donations.  A total of 24 percent would be the marginal propensity consumed.  76 percent on savings and debt repayment.  So I don’t think you can take a look at these direct payments to individuals as stimulative.  Obviously, 18 percent to 24 percent is spent on essential items.  We ought to figure out how to provide that money so that people can spend it on essentials.  Again, that’s only 18 percent to 24 percent. 

I do want to talk a little bit about past stimuluses.  I personally don’t believe they do much to stimulate the economy.  I think the best way to stimulate the economy is again what this administration has done—lower regulation to a reasonable level.  Nobody argues for no regulation.  We need a reasonable level and have a competitive tax system.  I fear the next administration we may just repeat the mistakes of their Obama-Biden administration, and here’s the proof of their mistakes.  Again remember those employment numbers.  A record of 159 million.  Currently 150 million people being employed.  Back in the Great Recession, we did have an employment of about 146 million people in January of 2008.  By December 2009, that this dropped to 138 million people employed.  But when President Obama took office, he had total control of Congress, a filibuster-proof majority here in the Senate.  And within a month, they enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, $787 billion of proposed spending.  In February of 2009, there were 141.6 million Americans working.  The unemployment rate was 8.3 percent.  Again, it continued to dip to December 2009 when it got down to 138 million.  It took us three years from February of 2009 to get back to 141.6 million Americans working.  And that’s with a $800 billion stimulus package that did not work, but it further mortgaged our children’s future by another $800 billion.

I wish these things worked. A quick aside, part of that American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, against Democrats had total control, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  Do you know how much they plussed-up state unemployment benefits to help the unemployed, those 8.3 percent of Americans?  They plussed it up by a whopping $25 per week.  Now they’re arguing that $300 per week, which I believe is the current proposal, isn’t enough.  Kind of makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

So, in summary, kind of reviewing these numbers, we currently are at 6.7 percent unemployment.  I don’t recall ever in the United States history where we’ve even begun to think that we should even spend $100 billion to stimulate an economy at 6.3 percent unemployment.  But this is different.  We have underemployed,  We have families in need.  There’s no doubt about it.  I completely support some kind of program targeted for small businesses so they can reemploy, so they can reopen, to restore capital.  Their life savings have been wiped out.  I have proposals.  They have been ignored.  So what I fear we’re going to do with this bipartisan package and what the Senator from Missouri is talking about is the same thing—a shotgun approach.  We will not have learned the lessons from out very hurried, very rushed, very [phrase] earlier relief packages.  We’re just going to do more of the same, another $1 trillion.  It takes our debt from $27.4 trillion to $28.4 trillion in a couple months.  Doing virtually no revisions, no improvements. And certainly what the Senator from Missouri is talking about with respect to these economic impact payments, no revisions at all.  Just spend another $275 billion.  Sent it out to 115 million households when we are currently at about nine million jobs less than we were in a record economy before the covid recession. 

So for all those reasons, I not only object to what Senator Hawley is proposing here, but I’m certainly lodging ,y objection to what’s barreling through here.  The train has left the station on the package that’s being negotiated right now that is way too big, that authorizes more money even though we’ve got $600 billion that’s there just for repurposing—no reauthorization required.  52 Republicans supported it.  But that’s not good enough. We’ve got to add another $300 billion to $400 billion on top, which is more that we are mortgaging our children’s future, wihout reforms, without targeting.”

On June 4, 2020, the Senate committee I chair granted me the authority to issue subpoenas for records and testimony to certain agencies and individuals relating to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the “unmasking” of U.S. persons affiliated with the Trump campaign, and allegations of the political corruption of US agencies.

What we actually told NBC News before they trotted out a Democrat group’s smear

An NBC News reporter, Heidi Przybyla, was used as a conduit July 29 for a new Democrat attack on Sen. Ron Johnson after he didn’t cave in to earlier Democrat pressure to stop looking into possible foreign interference in the 2016 election.

In it, Przybyla amplified Democrats’ recycling of previously debunked claims around Senator Johnson’s sale of his last interest in his family’s Oshkosh manufacturing company. She cited a short dossier of talking points from a new Democrat dark-money group calling itself the Congressional Integrity Project, and Przybyla quoted from the group’s top operative, Kyle Herrig, who insinuated that there was something untoward about the senator selling his 5% share in the manufacturing company.

There wasn’t anything untoward, even according to people often critical of Senator Johnson. “I criticized WI Sen. Ron Johnson after reports tonight of his large stock sale were lumped in with reports of other senators selling in dubious circumstances. But the details of Johnson’s sale are different from those of the others. I withdraw the criticism; it’s unfair to him,” wrote journalist John Nichols of the Nation on Twitter. Dan Primack wrote on Axios that it “was a vanilla private equity deal that was negotiated before almost anyone had heard of coronavirus.”

The deal, announced Feb. 11, 2020, had been in the works since 2018. Under it, a private equity firm, Gryphon, invested in Senator Johnson’s company, in the process buying the senator’s share. Other members of the senator’s extended family will remain significant owners. They will continue managing it, as they have done since Senator Johnson gave up any managerial role after being elected to the Senate in 2010.

Przybyla asked questions about the sale and about the senator’s other assets — which are publicly disclosed in accordance with Senate rules — and the senator’s staff provided detailed answers and a follow-up briefing to Przybyla. In the interest of transparency, those details are provided here for the public.

Przybyla asked for comment to her claim that “Johnson’s stake in the company increased by millions from 2017 to when he sold it in 2020.” She’s referring to the disclosure of the sale — available here — as being “between $5,000,001 and $25,000,000.” Senate disclosure forms require asset values and sale prices to be reported as within broad brackets, not in exact amounts. The senator’s share of the company had been reported every year as being worth between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000 — the applicable category. When the senator sold the share, its value had risen enough to push it over the line into the next higher category.

Przybyla was told that when the senator’s full 2020 disclosure is made public, the sale will not result in an increase in his net worth — because the proceeds will not be sufficient to increase the money market account into which he deposited them into a higher bracket. The likely effect is a drop in reported net worth as the share in his family’s company comes off the tally.

Przybyla didn’t include this. But because of the breadth of the categories, she was able to get a source to assert, without evidence, that it was “a very big sale.”

Przybyla asked why, if the share sold for more than $5 million, it had been reported as worth between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000 for years. She was told the simple reason: It was a share in a privately held family company — one without regular sales of shares to reveal any change in the value of the company. The value of companies with publicly traded stocks are discovered daily by the price at which shares trade. But Johnson’s company had been held since he bought it back from an outside owner in the 1990s, so there had been no market test of what the share was worth. The $1-$5 million figure was a best estimate according to disclosure rules’ requirements.

Przybyla asked why the senator hadn’t put his share of the company in a “blind trust,” and she claimed without evidence in her story that he had promised to do so in his 2010 campaign. She cited only a July 9, 2010 press release from Johnson’s campaign saying he “is taking steps to move financial assets” to such a trust.

Przybyla was directed repeatedly to the step the senator took instead in 2010 and 2011 to sell off all publicly traded stocks he owned and shift the proceeds into cash forms, such as money market accounts. A blind trust conceals from its holder the identity of the shares in it so that a politician cannot know he has an interest in policy affecting a company. Not having shares in publicly traded companies but only in cash form goes a step farther, although it came at the cost of lower returns: The Dow Jones index opened in 2011 at 11,671, and closed at 24,719 at the end of 2017. By staying in cash over that period, Senator Johnson knowingly and willingly missed out on the 112% market increase.

Przybyla then asked why Senator Johnson didn’t put his share of his family’s company, which he no longer managed, into a blind trust. It was explained to her that his knowing that the trust contained a known share of his own family’s company would defeat the fundamental point of a blind trust. She seemed not to grasp the point.

Przybyla asked about the senator’s small share in DP Lenticular, an Irish company; she seemed to have been told by Democrats that it was suspect. Johnson’s staff informed her that the senator’s share, worth between $250,000 and $500,000 every year he’s been in the Senate, was an investment to establish a sales agency for products that his company manufactured in Oshkosh and exported to Europe. “I have small investment, primarily so I can see the financial information,” he told a reporter in 2016. Far from serving as a “shelter” for income, as Przybyla insinuated, the senator earned no returns on his investment or any income aside from a de minimus dividend that amounted to less than $5,000 in 2018.

One of Przybyla’s most remarkable questions stemmed from her reliance on the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets website, which attempts to calculate politicians’ net worth off their public financial disclosure forms. Przybyla asked how Senator Johnson’s “net worth, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, (jumped) from $24 million when he was elected in 2010 to $78 million in 2018? (considering he sat out the market?)”

She was given the straightforward answer: It didn’t. Open Secrets was wrong when it reckoned the senator’s net worth, and wrong when the Democrat attack group fed Przybyla the story idea.

Remember that financial disclosures report the value of assets as falling with ranges. Open Secrets adds up the minimum values of each asset and the maximum values, reports the totals and estimates a politician’s net worth as the average of the two. Przybyla’s claim about how much Senator Johnson’s net worth “jumped” is based on Open Secrets’ erroneous estimate of his assets’ value (see it here) as “totaling $28,202,028 to $128,732,000 in 2018.” The midpoint of these figures is $78 million, the figure Przybyla asked about.

But Open Secrets’ tally of the senator’s assets was wrong: The Center for Responsive Politics double-counted many of his assets, using slightly different names. The center, or Przybyla, could have seen this if they compared the tally to the senator’s filed disclosure forms, which Open Secrets even offers, here.  

But they didn’t.

The result of Open Secrets’ screw-up, which they quietly have corrected, was to overstate the senator’s net worth by a factor of two. The website did the same double-counting mistake on at least some of his assets in 2017 (see here), and has quietly corrected that, too.  

The result? The Center for Responsive Politics’ estimate of Senator Johnson’s net worth is not far above what it was the year he first took office. It is in fact in the same range it has been since he was elected. This means that Przybyla’s claim that the senator “is likely to have increased his wealth anywhere from 50 percent to 100 percent since he took office” is simply wrong according to the source she goes on to cite.

Przybyla was misled by the Democrats’ dirt-digging group that fed her the story.

This should not be surprising. Senator Johnson and his partner in investigating possible corruption surrounding the 2016 election, Sen. Chuck Grassley, called out this week the Democrats’ concerted smear campaign meant to derail the investigation.  

Johnson told the Washington Examiner that the attacks won’t deter him. “National Democrats and the Biden campaign have now escalated their rhetoric in what appears to be an attempt to silence our investigation,” he said. “These attacks will not deter me, but serve to only increase my curiosity. What are Democrats afraid I might find?”

###

As seen in the Wall Street Journal.

No More Blank Checks From Congress for Coronavirus

By U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson

A near-record 158.8 million Americans were employed in February, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Then the novel coronavirus brought parts of the economy to a screeching halt. As of June, 142.2 million people were employed, a reduction of 16.6 million, or about 10.5%. Recent economic forecasts have predicted a decline in gross domestic product of between 4.6% and 8% for 2020. The damage from Covid-19 has been significant, but not catastrophic.

Congress authorized $2.9 trillion of Covid-19 relief, which represents 13.5% of 2019’s U.S. GDP. No one knows exactly how much of the Covid relief has been spent or obligated, but 60% ($1.75 trillion) seems to be a consensus figure in Congress. Let that sink in. We’ve authorized enough spending to replace 13.5% of annual economic output, and more than $1 trillion of it hasn’t yet been spent or obligated.

So why is Congress rushing to pass at least $1 trillion more? For Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats, $1 trillion isn’t enough. The House has passed an additional $3 trillion in Covid-19 relief, which would bring the total to $5.9 trillion, 27.5% of GDP. Again, employment has declined 10.5%, and respected estimates of GDP decline are 8% or less. Why should Congress provide financial support greater than the reduction in GDP?

When President Obama entered office, the total national debt was $10.6 trillion. I was elected as part of the tea-party movement, which was concerned that debt had grown to $14 trillion during his first two years as president. Nine years later, the debt stands at $26.5 trillion and will be close to $28 trillion by the end of this fiscal year. Is no one concerned about how much of our children’s future is mortgaged?

When Congress passed the $2.9 trillion in March, there was a great deal of uncertainty and a danger of economic collapse. Congress had to act quickly and demonstrate that sufficient financial support would be provided. But we’ve weathered that storm and now have much more information.

For example, a recent study in JAMA Internal Medicine based on serological testing showed that the number of Covid-19 cases could be six to 24 times the number reported. Applying these estimates to the most recent U.S. case fatality rate (CFR) of 3.6% yields an infection fatality rate (IFR) between 0.15% and 0.6%. Oxford’s Center for Evidence-Based Medicine has been predicting an IFR for Covid-19 between 0.1% and 0.41%.

The nine-year average IFR for seasonal flu in the U.S. is 0.13%, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. The IFR in a bad flu season (2010-11) was 0.176%. I am not playing down the tragedy of the coronavirus. But there is no need to continue broad economic shutdowns with fatality rates in these ranges.

Treatment is improving, as evidenced by the reduction in case fatality rates. With a growing list of better therapeutics and the development of a possible vaccine, one can imagine a more optimistic economic future that doesn’t require another $1 trillion in debt-financed spending.

And just because Congress has waited until the end of July doesn’t mean the new proposed relief package has been properly deliberated. Possible elements of the package are only now being discussed publicly.

Since the Small Business Administration has disclosed recipients of Paycheck Protection Program loans greater than $150,000, news reports have revealed that the PPP lacked basic controls that any future program and expenditures must contain. Loan forgiveness shouldn’t be granted to organizations that have the ability to repay. A simple fix would require repayment of PPP loans to the extent a taxpaying entity has taxable income for 2020, or a tax-exempt organization has increased net assets.

There is no doubt the PPP was a lifeline to many organizations and their employees. But there’s also no doubt many groups that received loans—and will almost certainly have those loans forgiven—didn’t need them. As the largest single expenditure of the Cares Act, the PPP deserves more scrutiny. The Main Street Lending Program should also be reviewed carefully.

Remember, we don’t know how much of the $2.9 trillion allocated for economic relief has been spent. Congress hasn’t conducted sufficient oversight of its previous handiwork. Doesn’t it make more sense for Congress to evaluate what has been spent, determine what worked and what didn’t, and then redirect the balance based on what Congress finds? We shouldn’t authorize another dime until we do so.

As we find solutions to the humanitarian crisis at our southern border, it’s important to ask how many unaccompanied minors and, primarily, adults and children presenting themselves as families we could see crossing our southern border illegally if we do nothing to change the situation.

 

Earlier this year, media in Guatemalan reported the results of a poll that asked Guatemalan citizens about migration.

  

The answer: 25.3 percent of Guatemalans surveyed told pollsters they intend to migrate out of the country in the next three years. In another question, 85% of those asked to name a country they had thought to emigrating to picked the United States.

Guatemala has about 17.6 million people. If 85 percent of that quarter of them planning to emigrate indeed do choose to move here, that implies that about 3.7 million Guatemalans may come to the United States – more than a fifth of that country’s population.

 

You can see the results of the survey, in Spanish, on slides 38 and 39 here

It isn’t just Guatemala. The Gallup organization reported in December 2018 that 158 million adults worldwide -- 21% of those polled -- desire to immigrate to the United States.

 

Gallup reported that 750 million adults worldwide (that is, 15%) told pollsters they want to move permanently to another country. The United States is the most-named destination. Gallup said 27% of adults in Latin America and the Caribbean say they want to move to another country, and that total reaches 52% of adults in El Salvador, 47% in Honduras.

 

Gallup doesn’t say what share of those large percentages specifically want to emigrate to the United States. But the polling organization estimates that if all adults worldwide could migrate as they wish, the U.S. adult population would rise by 46%. You can see Gallup’s result here.

One of the great successes of the Trump administration has been to reduce the regulatory burden on American job creators and spur economic growth like we haven’t seen in years. The numbers are startling – as I mentioned during an interview with "Meet the Press" Sunday, Republican policies have led to business investment growth that’s 10 times faster than what we saw under President Obama. That seems hard to believe, but the numbers don’t lie.

 

During the final two years of President Obama’s second term, real business investment growth increased by just 0.6 percent annually. Under the Trump administration, business investment has increased by more than six percent. That is a 10-fold increase made possible at least in part because we’ve cut red tape and gotten the federal government out of the way.

 

Check it out for yourself. You can find the data here. You want to look at table 5.3.1, and the figure you need is “private fixed investment, nonresidential.”

Sen. Johnson spoke on the Senate floor Wednesday about the harm Obamacare's failures have caused Wisconsinites, notably with the unsustainable levels of Medicaid spending. During his remarks he outlined an amendment he is offering to preserve traditional Medicaid for future generations.

Video of Sen. Johnson's remarks can be found here.

Graphs that were used during his remarks are below:

Senator Johnson recently sat down with The Wall Street Journal for an interview regarding his ideas for tax reform. Simply put, “this entails cutting taxes on corporations while raising them on shareholders. Citing studies that find corporate taxes are partly borne by a company’s workers, Senator Johnson says that ‘Rather than make the employees pay the tax, let the owners pay the tax,’ he says, referring to it as ‘a true Warren Buffett tax’.”

“Senator Johnson would like corporate shareholders to be taxed at the same rate as ‘pass-throughs,’ entities such as limited-liability corporations, whose profits are taxed in the hands of the owners at individual rates. The corporation itself wouldn’t owe tax. Instead, it would notify each shareholder of its share of annual profits and then forward that shareholder’s estimated tax to the Treasury.”

 

To read the article in its entirety, follow the link below.

A Plan B for the GOP: Raise Warren Buffet's Taxes

Wall Street Journal

March 8, 2017

Read the story here.

During Sen. Johnson's Feb. 16 teletown hall, a constituent asked a question about the existence of voter fraud. Below is a link to a piece in the Wall Street Journal on the issue, as well as a compilation of cases of cases of prosecuted and convicted voter fraud. 

Voter Fraud a Myth? That's Not What New York Investigators Found
Wall Street Journal
February 7, 2017

Read the story here.

A Sampling of Election Fraud Cases From Across the Country

Read about the cases here.