The Coalition for Tax Competition this week sent a letter urging Joshua B. Bolten, the Director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, to "strongly consider eliminating or at least dramatically reducing funding" to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development:

The OECD used to focus on gathering statistics and publishing innocuous studies. Although it is doubtful that these activities were ever a particularly good use of American tax dollars, the OECD’s more recent pursuit of policies that undermine America’s competitiveness is deeply troubling.

The letter was signed by representatives of over thirty organizations, including:

Andrew F. Quinlan — President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation
Daniel J. Mitchell — Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Veronique de Rugy — Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
John Berthoud — President, National Taxpayers Union
Grover Norquist — President. Americans for Tax Reform
Tom Giovanetti — President, Institute for Policy Innovation

The letter cites a recent report by the Center for Freedom & Prosperity, The Paris-Based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Pushing Anti-U.S. Policies with American Tax Dollars.  Here is the abstract:

After decades of gathering statistics and publishing innocuous studies, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has entered the realm of policy-making. Unfortunately, even though it is heavily subsidized by American taxpayers, the OECD generally promotes policies that are contrary to U.S. economic interests. This is particularly true in the field of fiscal policy, where the international bureaucracy endorses higher taxes, more spending, and tax harmonization. These policies may be in the short-term interest of the high-tax nations that dominate OECD decision-making, but they surely are not in the interests of the United States. The OECD’s statist approach to policy is particularly disturbing since American taxpayers pay more than $70 million annually for the putative privilege of belonging to the Paris-based bureaucracy.

Update:  Dan Shaviro has more here, concluding:

If Grover Norquist is for it, I should be against it. Certainly an excellent rule of thumb, but ultimately too knee-jerk for my taste. This is a subject that could bear being debated more in tax policy circles.