18 votes

More Republicans Abandon Grover Norquist's Anti-Tax Pledge

HuffPo: WASHINGTON -- Several congressional Republicans said Sunday that they would be open to increasing the amount of money the government collects in taxes, with a senior Republican member of the U.S. Senate going so far as to say he is willing to break his earlier promise to not support tax hikes in any form.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he opposes raising income tax rates, but that he is open to increasing tax revenue by reducing the availability of deductions for things like charitable giving and mortgage interest. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also said Sunday that he would support limiting deductions.

Doing so would violate Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," which both men have signed (as have most Republicans in Congress). Under the pledge, "candidates and incumbents solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases," according to the Americans for Tax Reform site.

"When you're $16 trillion in debt, the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming Greece, and Republicans -- Republicans should put revenue on the table," Graham said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "We're this far in debt. We don't generate enough revenue. Capping deductions will help generate revenue. Raising tax rates will hurt job creation.

"So I agree with Grover, we shouldn't raise rates. But, I think Grover is wrong when it comes to [saying] we can't cap deductions and buy down debt," Graham continued. "I want to buy down debt and cut rates to create jobs, but I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/25/lindsey-graham-viol...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Change title to more

Change title to more Democrats come out of the closet.

Southern Agrarian

Don't forget that Norquist's

Don't forget that Norquist's wife is a Palestinian American. I would not put it past the neocons to hold this against him. AND he recently came out for serious "Defense" cuts.

He wants to cut defense?

I didn't know that. Got a link?

If that is true, the neocons will surely throw him under the bus.

Thanks for the memories, it has been nice knowing you, Grover. You've served your purpose. Now it is time to raise taxes.

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Here ya go:

Here ya go: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/13/grover_no...

This is why I posted to this thread. What two things do neocons hate most? Palestinians and Defense cuts. Norquist is tied to both now.

Why would anyone downvote the post above in this thread? Would the person who downvoted please explain theirself? Thanks.

Here ya go:

Here ya go: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/13/grover_no...

This is why I posted to this thread. What two things do neocons hate most? Palestinians and Defense cuts. Norquist is tied to both now.

Why would anyone downvote the post above in this thread? Would the person who downvoted please explain theirself? Thanks.

He does want to cut

He does want to cut defense.

To be fair, he mentioned a way of cutting defense by cutting veterans benefits. Yes, that is the way to balance the budget; make sure our boys who have gone crazy and shed blood for us are dieing on the streets.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

meekandmild's picture

More Republicans Abandon "we the people"

GOP chipping away at our financial freedom

My solution would be 300-400

My solution would be 300-400 billion in new taxes, 400 billion in military spending reductions, 275 billion in discretionary spending cuts, 150 billion in welfare cuts, and 75 billion in the normalization of medicare.

1.2 to 1.3 trillion/year in budget savings. I'd would increase taxes, cut discretionary spending, and balance medicare immediately. I would balance the military spending reductions and welfare cuts over time.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

If we're talking about magic wands...

...I'd use mine to cut federal spending to ~$300 billion, eliminating all functions of the federal government except national defense and the federal courts. Eliminate all federal taxes for a number of years, funding the newly right-sized government through sales of its several trillions worth of assets, and then when that's exhausted, institute a low and uniform tariff (~15% would do the trick) to fund it going forward. Problem solved, you're welcome. ;-)

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Yes! Problem solved, you're a genius! Tax increases in ...

exchange for spending cuts has two major problems. The cuts never
really happen, and the deficit keeps rising. Instead, they continue to raise spending along with taxes, so we get the worst of both.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Cyril's picture

I like that, as a good (re)start !

I like that, as a good (re)start !

Simplicity. Simplicity. Simplicity.

I like principles that fit in a few lines :

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

Now we need to find you this magic wand. :)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Alright, so what would you

Alright, so what would you cut? BTW, by eliminating the social security trust fund, you'd essentially be robbing the taxpayers of nearly 3 trillion dollars.

300 billion on federal spending would leave about 50 billion to pay for everything, after we serviced our debt.

Some of those cuts are also unconstitutional. Congress has authority over the roads, post office, some regulatory functions, etc. Unless your magic wand gets rid of the Constittion as well.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Cyril's picture

Daydreaming... Not even of a better world...

I would :

1. fire congress

2. fire senate

3. fire the supreme court

4. reassemble the people for new elections on the houses, with :

4.1) each candidate writing an individual essay of their understanding of the Constitution and how it relates, specifically, to their economic views on money and how it works - with focus, emphasis on the Section 10's content

4.2) the people read those essays and vote for their representatives on that basis, and reappoint themselves the judges by 75% majority votes

5. loop back to bringing on the table :

5.1) repeal the 16th Amendment

5.2) repeal the Federal Reserve Act

6) present to the people the balance sheets of every single U.S. department and by constitutive agencies - making accountable every single heads past and present, since 1971

7) then, them and the people can start discussing "economics" again

...

But I fear this might seem way too heavy duty to a number... :(

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I am assuming tha tyou are

I am assuming tha tyou are president in this situation? So firing Congress and the senate could not just be done. You are not a dictator.

4.2) The idea that the vast majority of Americans really care about constitutionalism is silly.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Cyril's picture

Dictator ?

Lol.

Sorry for the confusion. Hell, no, by "I" ... I meant "the people would...", etc.

On 4.2 :

Okay. I'll trust you there, I haven't been around long enough to know that.

I believe Ron Paul is right in the end, in his farewell speech : the people only got the government they wanted. Or rather, the majority forced onto and against minorities, and against the individual to start with.

I was only daydreaming.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I also believe that even

I also believe that even though you might disagree with them, other members of Congress have been elected to their positions. They have every right to be there. There is an implied obligation to work with each other. Being stubborn gets one nowhere.

For example, Ron Paul no doubt feels that his intepretation of the Constitution is 100% correct. But Judge Napolitano also feels his interpretation, which differs from Ron Paul, is 100% correct. So does Lindsey Graham, and so does Ralph Nader.

You can scream and rant and debate about how you are objectively right and correct, but ultimately, what are you going to do to change their minds? Disregarding their opinion as illegitimate does nothing.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Cyril's picture

I hear you

I certainly ... can't disagree with this :

"You can scream and rant and debate about how you are objectively right and correct, but ultimately, what are you going to do to change their minds ? Disregarding their opinion as illegitimate does nothing."

One suggestion, though, which isn't even U.S.-specific, but applies to other so-called republics as well (e.g., France, for one I come from) :

I've always found rather odd that the people's representatives would somehow "necessarily" need to be paid by public funds, i.e., at the end of the day - tax payers (directly or indirectly) - for their mere involvement in politics and the debating of public affairs, and of important texts - such as laws.

For instance, I've been delighted from day one I heard about Ron Paul and his denouncing so seriously (in writings as much as in speeches) the various forms of moral hazard that rent seeking can generate in a society. Without so much of a stretch, I can even think quite easily of legitimate generalization of it to broader and broader classes throughout the people itself, btw, e.g., thru the wealth redistribution schemes built upon welfarism.

But I digress; so, back to the people's representatives and guardians of the texts :

Why should the people of republics feel so unquestionably compelled, every time, to remunerate their congressmen, or senators, or supreme court judges, and other servants, for their services ?

I get the idea for the postman or civil engineers ... but how can we be so sure that the stakes and benefits re: the source of compensations are comparable for lawmakers, representatives, and such ?

Where does the phrase "public servants" so necessarily implies "remunerations from the public", as well - for EVERY SINGLE public function (or so deemed), across the board ?

By the mere common presence of the adjective "public" ? Really ?

Couldn't a mechanics, or doctor, or engineer, or farmer, or etc, be already self-reliant enough, in their respective businesses, to voluntarily donate from his/her extra time to the people without having to take a penny from them, whatever the depth of his/her political involvement is ?

Also, allocated time and effort-wise : in this information age, does the people REALLY need full time public servants to flood them with hundreds of thousands pages of new laws and regulations every year, that nobody (or almost, but the interested lobbyists) really has the material time to even read thoroughly enough ?

Or wouldn't it precisely be a principal cause for another set of very unfortunate side-effects, such as, e.g., "The Law Perverted" ?

Analogy. Am I not a software engineer BUT ALSO a father, husband, and head of household, like most of us (well, the married men anyway) ? Why would I expect my spouse and kids to "compensate me" (in money) for these additional responsibilities ? That would be eerie, wouldn't it ?

What am I missing ? Is this idiotic "thinking-out-of-a-chimeric box" from me ?

But I am very naive politically, anyway. Granted.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Part of the reason you pay

Part of the reason you pay people is that the goal is not to just get people who are willing to donate their time, but to get people that are very talented. You want highly talented people in charge of the military, the deparments, the justice system, Congress, etc.

Another reason, which of course a goal that has failed miserably, was to prevent bribery. A policeman who is getting well-paid is more likely to not take a bribe, because he wants to keep his job; the risk of getting caught is too much. A policeman who is getting paid poorly (like they do in China and India) is more liable to look away if he gets paid well. If he loses his job, well, it was a bad job anyways.

Of course, there was a long period of American politics where people did freely give their time. A time when people who retired from politics did not immediately go join a corporation.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

It's too late.

They can raise the tax rate to 100% on rich Americans and they will not be able to recover this thing. Heck they can raise the tax rate to 100% on everyone and it wont work.

Cyril's picture

100% ? An extremely low estimate.

100% ? An extremely low estimate.

What is debt you never wanted (or even, really knew about) to go into, if it's not wealth taken away from you ?

What is wealth taken away from you, if not taxation... that is, theft ?

So, indeed, them central planners and disguised collectivists thieves did pretty good already, way past 100% taxation.

The people has already been taxed in the thousands percents, actually, i.e., altogether :

1. the USD has lost 95% of its value

(anyone has a grand grand pa who put 10 bucks in gold in 1910 ? lucky you !)

2. U.S. gov't debt / GDP now over 100%

3. oh, and the Dow Jones Industrial Avg. has crashed, too, btw

Granted, though ... it took them such a very long time ! ... a hundred years for (1), 60 years for (2), and 10 years for (3)

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-deb...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv7H7iiyBsw

As we know : an eternity, on all 3 accounts.

I guess we just were born on the wrong end of the first time range.

Ah. Life.

:/

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I know, why is that so hard to understand for some people??

Am I missing something?

It's too late.

They can raise the tax rate to 100% on rich Americans and they will not be able to recover this thing. Heck they can raise the tax rate to 100% on everyone and it wont work.

If possible..

I'm going to help make war on these evildoers. More taxes now should bring about a tax revolution.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

It's highly possible that Lindsey Graham...

...is the biggest piece of crap in government today.

Although McCain and LIEberman give him a decent challenge for that position.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Limiting deductions

was Mitt Romney's tax proposal. He said he would cut taxes 20% but would limit deductions so taxes would essentially remain the same. All on the same page at the GOP.

We are in another war for our Independence.

The only candidate who had a solution was Ron Paul

Shut down whole government departments, cut one trillion the first year, end the military aggression and we all know how well that was accepted. The Grover Norquest tactic was to attempt to starve the beast by ending the revenue stream, well guess what? The beast started eating itself by means of the fed buying treasuries and printing money. Now we can see there is no interest in restraining spending by either party, like Paul has said, it will end by destroying the dollar.

Sorry, but Gary Johnson had a

Sorry, but Gary Johnson had a good plan, Rand Paul had a good plan.

Except that Ron Paul's budget

Except that Ron Paul's budget didn't actually save one trillion. There were mathematical errors on his budget; he actually only saved 727 billion IIRC.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Bill Kristol Wing

Bill Kristol Wing of the Party showing their true colors...