Grover Norquist and the GOP’s purity pledge
U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, like Senate colleague Johnny Isakson and seven of Georgia’s eight GOP congressmen, has signed a public pledge to never, under any circumstances, increase taxes.
Yet Chambliss, to his credit, has been working for months as one of six senators — three Republican, three Democrat — trying to negotiate a possible deficit reduction package.
The other two Republicans in that group, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mike Crapo of Idaho — have also signed the no-tax-increase-ever pledge. Yet all three are willing to acknowledge the reality that increased taxes would have to be part — in their minds a small part — of any workable deal to reduce the budget deficit.
In a meeting at the AJC last month, Chambliss recounted conversations with many of his colleagues in Washington, as well as many top business executives, in which they quietly encouraged him in his efforts to reach a deal. They too seem to realize that a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases will be needed to stabilize the debt.
But that response has been far from unanimous.
Just this week, House Speaker John Boehner said tax increases are “off the table,” and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell was even more point blank:
“We’re not going to raise taxes. That was decided in last November’s election. I think the American people pretty clearly believe that we have the deficit problem because we spend too much, not because we tax too little.”
Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform and as such the self-ordained organizer, marketer and enforcer of the no-new-taxes pledge, had even less reason to be pleased. Once news of their effort became public, Norquist accused Chambliss and his GOP colleagues of lying to the American people and demanded that they withdraw from negotiations.
While the senators have not bowed to that demand, hope seems to be fading that their effort will produce a deal. And it’s impossible to know what effect, if any, Norquist’s foot-stomping may have had on frustrating those negotiations.
However, there’s no doubt that Norquist takes his role as enforcer seriously, and not merely out of conviction. The pledge, which he serves as sponsor and arbiter, represents the very foundation of his political power and relevance. It is, in effect, his livelihood. If signatories such as Chambliss ever begin to abandon the pledge, if the dam begins to break, Norquist becomes a much diminished figure.
As one measure of his considerable power, earlier this year Georgia Republicans refused to move forward with their proposal to revamp the state’s tax structure until Norquist could be consulted and give it his blessing. When Norquist balked, legislators then agreed to rewrite the bill to accommodate his demands.
That’s a remarkable amount of authority to hand some unelected, out-of-state nonprofit bureaucrat from Washington. But it becomes easier to understand once you look at the list of state officials who have committed themselves to the Norquist pledge.
According to a list on Norquist’s website, Gov. Nathan Deal, House Speaker David Ralston, Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers, House Ways and Means Chairman Larry O’Neal, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Bill Heath and 50 other legislators have all signed an oath to never, under any conditions, agree to raise government revenue.
As the crotchety Coburn from Oklahoma put it, responding to Norquist:
“Which pledge is most important… the pledge to uphold your oath to the Constitution of the United States or a pledge from a special interest group who claims to speak for all American conservatives when, in fact, they really don’t?”
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
290 comments Add your comment
Left wing management
May 13th, 2011
9:08 am
Why Obama’s not a lock?
Because Mitch Daniels hasn’t said whether he’ll run or not.
Yahtzee
May 13th, 2011
9:08 am
who cares which party contributed more to the debt and who raised taxes here or there…does pointing the finger fix our problems?
we need tax code reform to end all of this crap, until we have a tax code that doesnt benefit some kind of special interest we will never get out of this mess
Southern Comfort
May 13th, 2011
9:08 am
What will it take to convince supposedly intelligent people that the more you spend, the more taxes you will need? If you don’t spend so much, you don’t need as much revenue.
Sure. However, to pay down the debt, you will need more revenue than what what you spend. THere’s no way to cut government back that much without doing damage to the country as a whole, or is this just a way of doing away with the USA and starting a new “Conservative” country by way of bloodless coup?
ty: “It is politicians who go to Washington to line their pockets instead of stewarding the peoples’ business.”
If true, then here’s an idea…stop giving them more money.
It’s not taxpayer money that’s lining their pockets. Remember how much is spent in campaign donations and such???
On topic:
Maybe we need to shrink special interest groups until they are small enough to drown in a bathtub.
Doggone/GA
May 13th, 2011
9:08 am
“THere’s no way to cut government back that much without doing damage to the country as a whole”
And even if you DO cut spending back that far, you STILL need to take in more than you spend to pay down the debt.
Adam
May 13th, 2011
9:10 am
Normal: And before you touch social spending, reduce Congressional salaries by say, 15 to 20%. Then, at least, you’d know who was in it for the money and who was in it for the country.
To be fair, that’s useless. Nearly all of them have income independent of this.
Good little liberal
May 13th, 2011
9:10 am
Enter your comments here
Paul
May 13th, 2011
9:10 am
@@
“”For every $1.00 they take in, government will find a way to spend $1.59. History has proven that it will NOT be used to reduce the deficit.”
Democratic proposal is to cut a couple billion in subsidies for the top 5 oil companies and apply the savings directly to deficit reduction.
It’s a start.
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:10 am
SoCo 9:08 – the odds of us ever running a budget surplus for more than a year or two are between slim and none….
Once politicians see a money bucket, the only know one thing to do with it: spend…..
kayaker 71
May 13th, 2011
9:11 am
Mr. Fletcher,
I know how to get creative when April 15th rolls around. that’s not the problem. I can dodge a tax with the best of them. The reality is that the stimulus (inane government spending) was supposed to create jobs with “shovel ready projects” that “would revitalize our economy and get us back on our feet”. Unemployment is still at a reported 8.9%, although probably closer to 14%. I have said this before but it bears repeating. Bozo will not be re-elected with the present unemployment rate. No president has ever been elected with an unemployment rate above 8%. To reduce the rate to 8% before Nov 2012, he will have to “create” 187K jobs/month….. and that’s just getting it to 8%. Think that’s going to happen? My five years old grandson says no. So what does he do? He spends to create votes with programs like Cash for Clunkers to show what a fabulous economist he is. He and his gang of thieves couldn’t add two and two and get four. And for that nonsense,and other examples like this Bozocare fiasco, we need more tax revenue. Figured it out yet?
Doggone/GA
May 13th, 2011
9:12 am
“It’s a start”
According to Conoco it wold be un-American to cut that subsidy
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:13 am
Paul 9:10 –
A. The Dem proposal is balatant economic discrimination in the worst manner. What if they said “we don’t like Paul’s company, so we’re going to tax it at 50% instead of 35%”. Its ridiculous, bad government, and awful leadership.
B. Fine, its a few billion. Its smaller than a drop in an olympic swimming pool
Dave R.
May 13th, 2011
9:13 am
“Instead, you have the truly wealthy paying just 15% on capital gains, while the middle class pays 25 – 33%”
Just wait, your logic is faulty.
The middle class’ income is taxed JUST ONCE at 25 – 33%. The money as part of capital gains has already been taxed at whatever rate it was initially as income, then it is TAXED AGAIN at another 15%.
But that’s fair, right? You make money, tax it accordingly, then decide to use it to employ people or grow the economy, then tax it again – and YOU complain that it’s not being taxed enough?
The right may be greedy in wanting to MAKE money, but the left knows no bounds in wanting to TAKE money.
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:13 am
Dave R 9:13 – second that.
Peadawg
May 13th, 2011
9:14 am
“However, to pay down the debt, you will need more revenue than what what you spend.” – Which they can deal with when the debates for the next fiscal year budget start. Cut spending now, raise the debt ceiling, then deal with the tax increase issue.
“Democratic proposal is to cut a couple billion in subsidies for the top 5 oil companies and apply the savings directly to deficit reduction.
It’s a start.” – It’s a very good start. Aren’t they having a hearing today or something with top oil execs about the subsidies? It’ll be interesting/funny to hear what they say
USMC
May 13th, 2011
9:14 am
Talk about Dishonest…
Obama Lies 7 Times In Under 2 Minutes!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfu1_Scgyow
PJ
May 13th, 2011
9:14 am
kayaker 71 @9:11 am – Dodge taxes – Report this link.
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:15 am
Increasing the Credit Limit on your credit card does not solve the problem of too high a balance on your credit card for you to be able to pay back….
Adam
May 13th, 2011
9:15 am
For those who keep going “DEMS DIDN’T PASS A BUDGET!”:
It takes both parties to pass a budget. Just FYI.
The More You Know.
Jay
May 13th, 2011
9:15 am
Of course, the farmers and fishermen ALSO live within the Mississippi flood plain; they are just as dependent as the people of New Orleans on levees and the Corps for protection against the flood waters. But somehow it’s the people of New Orleans who are the fools and the villains here.
And if the choice was yours, what would you choose: Flooding fields and farmlands, or flooding a major city? The rational choice is easy; those arguing for a choice of another kind, well…
Good little liberal
May 13th, 2011
9:15 am
Left wing management
“Why Obama’s not a lock?”
Because after two years of failure, a horrible economy, more people going on welfare than ever before in history, his ramming a Insurance Company benefitting health policy that helps almost no one and pushing everyone’s rates higher, gas prices through the roof, inflation killing us when so many don’t have jobs, no leadership skills, a chip on his shoulder as big as a house, his overt racism, his embracing of Islam while turning his back on all other religions and his disastrous foreign policy decisions, everyone is learning what his version of Hope and Change really meant.
I hope this helps.
Mick
May 13th, 2011
9:16 am
George will?
From the brilliant Dr. Krugman:
“This has to be one of the funniest political stories of recent weeks: On Tuesday, 42 freshmen Republican members of Congress sent a letter urging President Obama to stop Democrats from engaging in “Mediscare” tactics — that is, to stop saying that the Republican budget plan released early last month, which would end Medicare as we know it, is a plan to end Medicare as we know it.”
Now, you may recall that the people who signed that letter got their current jobs largely by engaging in “Mediscare” tactics of their own. And bear in mind that what Democrats are saying now is entirely true, while what Republicans were saying last year was completely false. Death panels.”
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:16 am
Adam 9:15 – well, the Dems didn’t pass a budget. It doesn’t take 2 parties, in particular when the Dems controlled the House and the Senate with a 60 vote supermajority.
Dave R.
May 13th, 2011
9:16 am
As a member of the EOI club, I was required to point out the weak point in my Chairman’s logic.
NIght Train
May 13th, 2011
9:17 am
Raising taxes SHOULD be off the table until substantial spending cut are implemented. Government (both parties) always claim that we will get to cutting spending, but first, to get out of this crisis, we have to raise taxes NOW. Guess what? The cuts NEVER come.
If the GOP wants back in power, they better stick to cutting spending. After we see some serious cuts, then consider raising taxes. But if they don’t make the big cuts, the GOP better not support raising any taxes.
PJ
May 13th, 2011
9:17 am
Good little liberal – What do you use for carfare, Charmin?
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:17 am
Mick, Krugman’s a hack. Fact.
AmVet
May 13th, 2011
9:18 am
Peadawg, thanks for the link to ML’s.
getalife will love it…
I’m sure Mr. Norquist’s heart is in the right place. His resume is impressive, if not a mixed. But the problem is obvious; his intractability and absolutism DO NOT WORK in this country. At least for the we the people in this country.
We used to have true leaders in the United States of America. Men who were statesmen. men who understood that since we are all int his together, the only solution’s involve give and take. Reasoned and reasonable compromise.
No more.
(And the aforementioned getalife is right – for proof, just look what disgraced, favorite son from Georgia is running for POTUS!!!)
And why so many see this new and unimproved GOP for what it truly is – hijacked, dogmatic, unresponsive. And manipulated by misguided mental midgets to the point of being dangerous.
BTW, one of the more “interesting” efforts of Grover?
The Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution is a proposed change to the United States Constitution. The amendment’s advocates say that it will allow parents’ rights to direct the upbringing of their children, protected from federal interference and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(What is it with neo-cons and their demented, incessant desire to get their filthy hands all over the US Constitution?)
Jay
May 13th, 2011
9:18 am
Because after two years of failure, a horrible economy, more people going on welfare than ever before in history, his ramming a Insurance Company benefitting health policy that helps almost no one and pushing everyone’s rates higher, gas prices through the roof, inflation killing us when so many don’t have jobs, no leadership skills, a chip on his shoulder as big as a house, his overt racism, his embracing of Islam while turning his back on all other religions and his disastrous foreign policy decisions, everyone is learning what his version of Hope and Change really meant.
Apparently the Internet is now available even on planets other than this one.
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:18 am
Night Train – amen. The revenue increases will happen but the spending cuts never will….
Doggone/GA
May 13th, 2011
9:18 am
“when the Dems controlled the House and the Senate with a 60 vote supermajority”
They had a supermajority in the Senate, but as long as the filibuster and “hold bill” rules still exist they don’t have control of it.
ty webb
May 13th, 2011
9:19 am
Paul,
Why bother asking that questio?. The characteristics of a “true conservative” have been established by many great political scientists here on this very blog:
white(those that are non white, are merely “sellouts”, and don’t count)
racist(those that are nonwhite are simply self hating)
Anti-helping anyone who needs it(forget charity, gov’t does real good)
Anti-paying their “fair share”(you know the whole “give an inch…”thing)
Warmongering(unlike the “humanitarian mongering” done by the other side)
Anywho, that’s just a few. Hope it helps.
Irwin M. Fletcher
May 13th, 2011
9:19 am
Kayaker – “Bozo will not be re-elected with the present unemployment rate. No president has ever been elected with an unemployment rate above 8%. To reduce the rate to 8% before Nov 2012, he will have to “create” 187K jobs/month….. and that’s just getting it to 8%. Think that’s going to happen? My five years old grandson says no. So what does he do? He spends to create votes with programs like Cash for Clunkers to show what a fabulous economist he is. He and his gang of thieves couldn’t add two and two and get four. And for that nonsense,and other examples like this Bozocare fiasco, we need more tax revenue. Figured it out yet?”
Not sure what your question is. You seem to be under the impression that I’m a supporter of Obama or the Democratic party. I’m not. In regard to the issue of taxes, as I stated previously, I pay what’s required. Do I always agree as to where the money is being spent? No. Do I feel that as a citizen of this country part of my responsibility is to contribute to the overall common good? Yes. Would I like to never pay taxes ever? Absolutely. However, reality is that taxes will always be levied, not everyone will agree on where they are spent and neither the Democrats or the Republicans will ever move beyond that.
Adam
May 13th, 2011
9:19 am
Now I know Dave R gets his news from primarily conservative sources:
Disrespect the office of the President by inviting a rapper to the White House who threatened to burn my predecessor? No problem. Really. He’s just a “poet”.
You might want to check your FACTS on this one, Dave.
I am not paying attention to any subsequent part of any of your posts that involve this subject. Find the facts, use the scientific method. Get the facts for your own benefit, not talking points for the benefit of everyone else.
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:19 am
“Apparently the Internet is now available even on planets other than this one.”
Or at least FOX is. The Jon Stewart show must not have Jupiter syndication yet….
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:20 am
Doggone 9:18 – are you this clueless? The 60 vote supermajority overrides the filibuster. That’s why the 60 vote count matters…. duh.
And the Dems had 60 votes for over a year.
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:21 am
“Sometimes, people here amaze me.”
Likewise, the libs here are generally off their rocker. SoCo, you, not always….. (no BS)
Southern Comfort
May 13th, 2011
9:21 am
So to save the dump, disgusting city that is New Orleans, they are going to flood farms and fish camps? Nice….
Sometimes, people here amaze me. You complain that the Army Corps of Engineers are trying to save NOLA and other large cities by flooding smaller areas. If they let those large areas flood, then y’all would be bitching about how much it’s costing to rebuild the infrastructure and stuff. I really think there are people on this planet who are not happy regardless to what decision is made.
Dave R.
May 13th, 2011
9:21 am
“And if the choice was yours, what would you choose: Flooding fields and farmlands, or flooding a major city? The rational choice is easy; ”
Yeah, Jay. It is. Flood the damned city and leave it that way. Stop spending billions of dollars trying to keep a city 25ft below water dry. Flood it, pay the property owners one time for their losses, and move on.
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
May 13th, 2011
9:22 am
The obvious strategy is to keep the ball in the Dem’s court to make real and significant steps to cut spending. That’s a must do before looking into increased tax proposals. The Democrats want their cake and eat it to, that can’t be allowed to happen.
AmVet
May 13th, 2011
9:23 am
Dave,
How to make mo money without using yo money…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jukQX2pl2Q
Mick
May 13th, 2011
9:23 am
usmc@9:14
I think you’ve gone to the well a bit too many times with that. You could also make a comparible video with every politician ever elected..
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:23 am
SoCO 9:21 – weird. How did my response to your post end up before yours….
Jay, IT is toking up in the server room….
Dave R.
May 13th, 2011
9:24 am
“You might want to check your FACTS on this one, Dave.”
I did, you yappy little tea cup poodle. Discussed last night and thoroughly debunked all the defenses of this major disrespect for the office of the President.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
May 13th, 2011
9:24 am
I really think there are people on this planet who are not happy regardless to what decision is made.
We have a winner!
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:24 am
Dave R – global warming is going to doom that city to oblivion. It really would make sense to do a wholesale relocation….
Peadawg
May 13th, 2011
9:25 am
“They had a supermajority in the Senate, but as long as the filibuster and “hold bill” rules still exist they don’t have control of it.”
A budget never made to the Senate so your argument doesn’t hold here.
Paul
May 13th, 2011
9:26 am
jm
“The Dem proposal is balatant economic discrimination in the worst manner.”
That’s a new ‘don’t cut my subsidy, bro” line that is, of course, gaining traction. It’s another case too, of the underlings defending the perks of their betters.
Hint: tax advantages vary tremendously by industry and within industry. Congress has always used the tax code to engineer favors and paybacks for various groups.
Try this out. Currently, homeowners can take mortgage interest deduction, even for million-dollar vacation homes. If Congress moves to revise the tax code so homeowners don’t get to deduct vacation home interest, will you cry ‘don’t do it! Unfair! Discrimination!”
Dave R.
May 13th, 2011
9:26 am
“They had a supermajority in the Senate, but as long as the filibuster and “hold bill” rules still exist they don’t have control of it.”
They did for budgetary bills, as the filibuster doesn’t apply to those. Nice try.
ty webb
May 13th, 2011
9:26 am
“It’s not taxpayer money that’s lining their pockets. Remember how much is spent in campaign donations and such???”
Soco,
Good point, but I must ask you if you think that those “campaign donations” don’t come with expectations from their donors? I believe it does in many cases, and that the donors get a pretty good ROI.
Doggone/GA
May 13th, 2011
9:27 am
“The 60 vote supermajority overrides the filibuster”
You’re assuming all 60 Dem senators would actually vote in lockstep. They don’t. And even that won’t override a hold bill.
Southern Comfort
May 13th, 2011
9:28 am
jm: Once politicians see a money bucket, the only know one thing to do with it: spend…..
Quit electing jackasses then! We have nobody but ourselves to blame for the crap that goes on in DC. All I can see at this point is what will become a bloodless coup to overthrow the government. Sounds far fetched, but when you have idiots wanting to cut government back to 1980 levels with a 2010 population, there’s not many other motivations. There’s no way possible that we can keep spending down while we are increasing our population, increasing our military activities across the world, and increasing our attempts to secure the border. That sh*t costs money. Once the American people realize we’re getting played for fools, maybe we’ll see real serious people getting elected instead of the crop of jackasses that parties parade before us each year.
kayaker 71
May 13th, 2011
9:29 am
Off topic but one that we might want to see….
The last veteran of WW I died yesterday at the age of 110. He was in the Australian navy, was married to the same woman for 76 yrs who died at age 98. They had three children, all still living, the oldest at age 84. He wrote his first book at age 108 about the war which was just published this year. We should all be fortunate to live such a life.
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:32 am
Paul 9:26
“That’s a new ‘don’t cut my subsidy, bro” line that is”
No its not, singling out 5 companies for higher tax breaks is illegal. First, the proposal’s never going to pass. But if it did, the Supreme Court would overturn it in a heartbeat. Point is Dems are playing politics instead of getting the people work done.
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:32 am
Paul 9:26 “tax advantages vary tremendously by industry and within industry.”
No sh-t. The Dem proposal is actually to just single out those 5 companies.
Dave R.
May 13th, 2011
9:32 am
AmVet @ 9:23:
ty webb
May 13th, 2011
9:32 am
Jay,
Seems the moderator of your blog has fixed your flux capacitor, and people are responding to comments that haven’t been made yet. If anyone cares to post next year’s score for the Superbowl, please feel free to do so…I’ve got to make a call to Vegas.
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:33 am
Doggone 9:27 – not my fault the Dems don’t have their act together
Paul
May 13th, 2011
9:34 am
Dave R.
“The middle class’ income is taxed JUST ONCE at 25 – 33%. The money as part of capital gains has already been taxed at whatever rate it was initially as income, then it is TAXED AGAIN at another 15%.”
Dave, some may read this to mean “If I get $1000 in capital gains, I have to include it as ordinary income and have it taxed, then report it as capital gains and have it taxed again.”
You may want to clarify.
ty webb
I’m more interested in how a group sees themselves, not in how others define them.
Jay
“Apparently the Internet is now available even on planets other than this one.”
Bosch and I’ve been tryin’ to tell ya’ – they’ve also got Sixes and reformed Borgs…..
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:34 am
Soco 9:28 – as has been pointed out, the bulk of the budget, and the bulk of the problem is not discretionary, or, to a lesser extent, entitlements. The meat of the matter is the entitlements….
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:35 am
typo
“or, to a lesser extent, entitlements. ”
should have been
“or, to a lesser extent, defense. “
PJ
May 13th, 2011
9:35 am
I don’t know why rich people bother to pay lobbyist or buy off elected officials. There are enough apologist here alone to save them billions.
Paul
May 13th, 2011
9:37 am
jm
“No its not, singling out 5 companies for higher tax breaks is illegal. First, the proposal’s never going to pass. But if it did, the Supreme Court would overturn it in a heartbeat.’
You may want to consider retaining another legal advisor…
Doggone/GA
May 13th, 2011
9:38 am
“not my fault the Dems don’t have their act together”
“I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat”
Will Rogers
Personally, I prefer to have legislators who might think for themselves, instead of signing purity pledges and letting someone else do their thinking for them
shawny
May 13th, 2011
9:39 am
Spin, spin, spin.
You can increase revenue by not “raising taxes”, or at least tax rates.
Close loopholes, reduce deductions, etc. and revenue will increase.
Make companies like GE that pay no taxes get in the game with individuals and most other businesses. Get rid of the 100% interest deduction on home loans and ‘Home improvement’ loans which encourage more debt than needed.
It can be done but will take a president and legislative body with some serious stones to make it happen.
DO not raise the tax rates, though.
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:40 am
I am virulently sick of Democrats. If I was a completely charitable person, I’d give all my money to the RNC right now…..
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:40 am
Paul 9:37 “not intended as a retort”
Dave R.
May 13th, 2011
9:40 am
“Personally, I prefer to have legislators who might think for themselves, instead of signing purity pledges and letting someone else do their thinking for them”
Your legislators would first have to have the capacity to think, which hasn’t been proven to any certainty.
Mick
May 13th, 2011
9:43 am
jm
George will is a blustering nabob of expandible hot air, who listens to him anyway? I guess that would be you…
PJ
May 13th, 2011
9:43 am
Let’s see if we can make anyone else sick. HeeHee.
AmVet
May 13th, 2011
9:44 am
So Dr. Paul is in the race for 1600 Pennsylvania again..
Good.
He is a singular voice of reason in a GOP ocean of madness.
And it is always big fun to watch him embarrass the apparatchiks in his own political party.
Other than McCain, he was the only non-laugher last time, so good luck again to the thinking man from Texas…
Southern Comfort
May 13th, 2011
9:44 am
jm
Sometimes I’m off my rocker, and sometimes I’m completely off the porch…
ty
I KNOW those campaign donations come with expectations. That’s why I want them to end completely. I believe in full public financing for election campaigns with no outside money at all.
Yahtzee
May 13th, 2011
9:45 am
SoCo,
We do have public financing for election campaigns already, our tax dollars go to public unions, then the majority of that money goes to one party.
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:47 am
Mick – the guy has plenty of historical perspective. I’ll let you go read his resume for yourself. Its called The Google.
Left wing management
May 13th, 2011
9:47 am
Doggone/GA: “Personally, I prefer to have legislators who might think for themselves, instead of signing purity pledges and letting someone else do their thinking for them”
Yeah, and to see what withering storms of abuse await someone who actually dares attempt to think — i.e. to refrain from merely carrying out a movement mechanically, according to programming — just look at the bile poured on Mitt Romney yesterday by Ms. Rigor Mortis at the WaPo, Jennifer Rubin:
Who thought up the idea of this sort of speech? I imagine the candidate did. No professional campaign adviser who knows the tiniest bit about GOP politics would have advised him to take this route.
In other words, anyone who dares buck the rule of cynical political operatives with their formulas and charts is an idiot. Guess it never occurs to Ms. Rubin that the roots of any new blood in the tired system of ours, when it does come, is going to come first by bucking the encrusted establishment of the political bureaucracy itself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/romneys-speech-he-digs-deeper/2011/03/29/AFf3qB1G_blog.html
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:47 am
AmVet 9:44 – Ron Paul is unhinged. His son, maybe less so. The fact that you think Ron Paul is the voice of reason pretty much means you’re so far on the wingtips, you’re back where the run into one another.
Southern Comfort
May 13th, 2011
9:49 am
jm @ 9:34
I know that entitlements are a big part of the fuss. I also know the defense budget is pretty damned big too. Compare our population now versus when those entitlement programs were enacted and I’m sure you’ll find a significant uptick in population. With the increase in population, we would need an increase in employment to genereate the income to support the population. However, our employment opportunities have not increased as our population has, hence the overall revenue problem. We don’t have a spending problem in this country, it’s because of revenue. We don’t have a large enough job base to generate the basic revenue needed to sustain the current population. It’s not taxes or the tax rate, it comes down to the tax base. Minimum wage jobs at McDonalds don’t hurt, but service sector jobs will not keep this country afloat.
Doggone/GA
May 13th, 2011
9:49 am
“Your legislators would first have to have the capacity to think, which hasn’t been proven to any certainty”
They can think well enough not to sign purity pledges.
Paul
May 13th, 2011
9:50 am
jm
Thanks. Another weakness of having just written words to go on. But the posts together made a pretty good point, as I’d imagine some read your line and thought “that’s right, jm, you got it right!”
Don't Forget
May 13th, 2011
9:51 am
Norquist is an example of a total d bag. Case in point, the ethanol subsidy. He opposed the ethanol subsidy because he thought that it was a mistake to use a major food source for fuel. I’ll add to that, the fact that ethanol is pretty bad in greenhouse gas emission and say that I agreed with him. But now that some want to repeal that subsidy, Norquist is balking because it conflicts with his ideology to not raise taxes for any reason, even if it was a bad idea to begin with. What a d bag.
TaxPayer
May 13th, 2011
9:51 am
Poor Republicans have done boxed themselves in. Grover on one side and Medicare recipients on the other side. What will they do. They cannot raise taxes and they must give the wealthiest another tax cut in order to stay in their favor but the Medicare recipients are not to happy with the GOP’s plan to throw them under the bus either. Well, the Medicare recipients will quit complaining once they’ve been thrown under the bus so just pass out the earplugs.
Mick
May 13th, 2011
9:51 am
jm
I was listening to george will when you were in diapers my friend, every sunday morning with david brinkley. He is way past his prime and pretty irrelevant…
TaxPayer
May 13th, 2011
9:53 am
I am virulently sick of Democrats. If I was a completely charitable person, I’d give all my money to the RNC right now…..
You been eating that Georgia peanut butter.
AmVet
May 13th, 2011
9:53 am
jm, not that I give a tinker’s damn about your opinion of him, of me, or about much of anything else, but thanks for sharing.
And no worries, you’ll have plenty of chances to support some hard-core, Party Pure GOP stooge, who is hinged!
Doggone/GA
May 13th, 2011
9:54 am
“Guess it never occurs to Ms. Rubin that the roots of any new blood in the tired system of ours, when it does come, is going to come first by bucking the encrusted establishment of the political bureaucracy itself. ”
Amen to that…and I would add “of the electorate too”
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:55 am
SoCo 9:49 I agree defense needs to be significantly smaller. but again, the bulk is in entitlements.
yes, the tax base is too small…… why is that? Well, mainly because of our deficits and the largesse of our government (through the variety of trade mechanisms by which China then manipulates their currency and the uncompetitive taxing and legal practices in the US)
Mick 9:51 – you sound well past your sell by date. Spoiled milk you are. And irrelevant. (If we’re going to insult intelligent thoughtful people like George Will, I just figured I’d return the favor on his behalf)
getalife
May 13th, 2011
9:55 am
Keep yelling at them for voting to steal your Medicare and cons need to stop bowing down to the wealthy to force shared sacrifice.
Yell at the gop when they vote no on ending big oil welfare while they try to steal your Medicare.
You will prevail in this argument.
ty webb
May 13th, 2011
9:55 am
jm,
I don’t think Ron Paul is unhinged. He’s a conservative, and though I may disagree with some things he says(mostly with regard to defense, killing Bin laden), he’s makes consitent conservative/libertarian points. I don’t think he can win the election, but I’m just glad he’s out there “spreading the word”.
Southern Comfort
May 13th, 2011
9:55 am
We do have public financing for election campaigns already, our tax dollars go to public unions, then the majority of that money goes to one party.
Wrong. Taxpayer money does not go to public unions. You would be correct in stating that taxpayer dollars go to public union members. Once the labor is produced and paid for, that money belongs to the person performing the labor. What they decide to do with that money then is for them to decide, and not the taxpayer.
Also wrong because there are public sector union members who don’t donate to campaigns. By law, union dues can not be used to finance campaign donations. Unions have PAC’s just like the Chamber of Commerce, the Tea Parties, and everyone else. If you want the unions to stop donations, then stop everyone. Otherwise, you can bury that false rhetoric.
TaxPayer
May 13th, 2011
9:56 am
Is jm turning shades of green. Someone hand the poor guy a voucher so he can buy a barf bag.
TaxPayer
May 13th, 2011
9:59 am
jm must have been on the losing end of some commodities trades. He sounds more angry than usual.
jm
May 13th, 2011
9:59 am
Jay, a very interesting education article. Jonix should consider reading too…
http://www.economist.com/node/18678925?story_id=18678925
Mick
May 13th, 2011
9:59 am
jm
Well I’ll take that as a compliment coming from a broken record, one trick pony. Time to get a new song and dance, your theatre is empty…
Southern Comfort
May 13th, 2011
9:59 am
why is that? Well, mainly because of our deficits and the largesse of our government (through the variety of trade mechanisms by which China then manipulates their currency and the uncompetitive taxing and legal practices in the US)
It has nothing to do with our deficits. It’s because a group of people in a boardroom somewhere saw the potential to increase profits by exploiting cheap labor overseas. That plan would work only if they could get Congress to repeal tarriffs, hence the numerous “free trade” agreements that the US has with other countries. Had Congress not decided to tamper with existing laws, it would still be cheaper to manufacture here, and we would still have SOME jobs instead of NONE of the jobs that were exported.
Jack
May 13th, 2011
10:00 am
Raise the social security tax on income up to $250K annually and impose a jail sentence on those that abuse the EITC: this abuse is widespread and the IRS does very little to discourage it other than to issue guidelines.
Dave R.
May 13th, 2011
10:01 am
“Once the labor is produced and paid for, that money belongs to the person performing the labor.”
Really? Then why don’t I ever see all my paycheck before the money I earned is confiscated by the government?
jm
May 13th, 2011
10:04 am
ty webb – he’s consistent. but some of his ideas (going back to the gold standard, to name one) are insane. immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq Afghanistan, also insane (a swift judicious drawdown, that we’re overdue for)
Taxpayer – haven’t lost a nickel. Though I am shifting the portfolio to a more conservative stance. I got out of oil and gold weeks ago.
SoCo – it has much to do with our deficits. The easiest and best way for China to fix (undervalue) the exchange rate is by purchasing newly issued treasuries. But for our deficit, it would be much more difficult for China to undervalue its currency.
AmVet
May 13th, 2011
10:04 am
Haven’t done any research yet, but I would presume that corporate contributions (historically slanted very heavily to the GOP) exceed labor’s contributions (historically heavily slanted to the Democrats) by a factor of 20 or so…
Yahtzee
May 13th, 2011
10:06 am
SoCo,
Taxpayer money pays union dues for union members, and that money goes to the unions…and then the unions contribute to political campaigns. Easy to follow right?
Dave R.
May 13th, 2011
10:07 am
“Taxpayer money pays union dues for union members, and that money goes to the unions…and then the unions contribute to political campaigns.”
Yahtzee, even I don’t buy that foolish argument. Move on to something of substance.
Left wing management
May 13th, 2011
10:07 am
Jack: “Raise the social security tax on income up to $250K annually and impose a jail sentence on those that abuse the EITC”
No jail sentences on those who make under $250K.
What’s the total number of days served in jail so far by financial industry employees and executives who were responsible for nearly destroying the economy?