Time to end Norquist’s death grip on tax policy
Mitt Romney lost big on election night and has continued to take a beating from his fellow Republicans ever since. The lack of affection toward Romney is no surprise, but the post-election response has also revealed an absence of basic respect for the man among conservatives. It is hard to recall a candidate so thoroughly and quickly repudiated by those who just a few days earlier were touting him for the most important job on the planet.
Karl Rove, who wasn’t even on the ballot, has also lost big in the days since the election, suffering a hit to his reputation from which he may never fully recover. However, the biggest off-ballot loser of the season may turn out to be Grover Norquist, the one-man keeper of the GOP’s no-tax-hike-ever-ever-ever-under-any-circumstances-whatsoever pledge.
I must say, it couldn’t happen to a nicer, more deserving guy.
As Dana Milbanks reports, Norquist continues to put on a game front. Just this week, Norquist told a gathering at a Washington think tank that “he sees no chance of Republicans going squishy” and allowing tax hikes to pass as part of a budget compromise.
“The Rs are holding,” he announced at a luncheon Monday of the Center for the National Interest.
“The fantasy is that the Republicans would cave on marginal tax rates — they’re non-negotiable,” he added.
In fact, Norquist maintained, if you think there’s any erosion of support for his Pledge, which forbids any net increase in taxes, Norquist would like you to know something. “You’re mistaken,” he said. “The entire Republican leadership has been elected on that commitment in the House and the Senate.”
I think Norquist is wrong, and that he knows he’s wrong. Most of the signals coming out of Washington suggest that in the end, the final budget deal will include a higher marginal tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans. If that happens, if the Norquist pledge is broken en masse, as seems likely, his bizarre source of political power disappears as well.
That said, a lot of Americans have yet to be convinced of the GOP’s willingness and ability to compromise. According to a new Gallup poll, 65 percent of Americans believe that President Obama will make a sincere effort to reach bipartisan compromise. Only 48 percent say the same about congressional Republicans. Among independents, only 43 percent believe Republicans are sincerely willing to compromise.
As the chart above demonstrates, those numbers are down significantly from four years ago, when 62 percent of Americans had faith that Republicans were interested in compromise. Somebody out there has been paying attention, which gives Obama and the Democrats considerably more leeway in the negotiations ahead.
– 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
620 comments Add your comment
R U Kidding Me?
November 20th, 2012
3:46 pm
Any thoughts on a national 1% sales tax with 100% of the revenue going directly to retire the national debt? At the same time, actual overall federal spending would be reduced by 3% a year for each of the next 4 years.Some departments may see budget increases, and some departments may see substantial budget reductions or elimination all together, but the overall federal budget goes down at a controlled rate of 3% per year. I know sales taxes are a regressive tax that hurts the poor the most, but there are ways to lessen their burden. I like the idea that EVERYBODY pays something to solve this defecit problem.
Mama says
November 20th, 2012
3:50 pm
I have an idea, lets require those departments that you say would end up asking less money ad giving them less now without increasing the taxes on us.
If by your proposal they will have to without under a new tax then lets see how we do when they aren’t sucking up so much money as it is. And by the way we can start at the defense department
Mama says
November 20th, 2012
3:52 pm
I am using an IPad folks so I am typing with one finger.
I know I look stupid by leaving out letters but I would prefer you list hint I am stupid because I am a con not illiterate
Mama says
November 20th, 2012
3:54 pm
See it did it again I swear it looks right when I type it.
R U Kidding Me?
November 20th, 2012
3:55 pm
Mama:
So your idea is to just ignore the defecit? If we shut the entire federal government down; no military, no public works, no justice system, no anything, but we still get taxed at the present rate, it would take at least 5 years just to pay off the debt. So that’s your solution? Don’t think so Mama.
middle of the road
November 20th, 2012
3:55 pm
“Any thoughts on a national 1% sales tax with 100% of the revenue going directly to retire the national debt? At the same time, actual overall federal spending would be reduced by 3% a year for each of the next 4 years.”
First of all, if you applied the 1% to the national debt, it would change things very little because you have not addressed the DEFICIT. Even if you reduce spending by 3% a year for 4 years (a total of 12%) there will still be deficit spending. Plus a sales tax is the most regressive tax you can have – hitting those at the lowest tiers the hardest, while exempting those who buy their diamonds in Europe or buy only stocks with their money.
I like the idea that EVERYONE pays something towards the deficit – that is why I suggested a minimum 5% income tax (and get rid of the EITC) while also getting rid of the 15% capital gains tax rate and also capping deductions.
Mama says
November 20th, 2012
4:01 pm
No you just put a bunch of words in my mouth.
I say we force the cuts in the departments that don’t need the money they are getting now.
That saved money, can by law go toward reducing the debt.
The military can work off half of what it does. It historically always did.
And I would imagine a lot of other departments could as well. If we add a new tax the government will by its nature exploit it.
Any reasonable study of this country’s taxation history would reveal an initially valid reason for imposing taxes yet an equally invalid morph in the use of the funds and rate increases
middle of the road
November 20th, 2012
4:01 pm
“And by the way we can start at the defense department”
If you exempt Social Security, Medicare and transportation (roads) from the budget (because they have their OWN revenue streams and should be internally balanced), then ALL of defense spending equals about 40% of what is left. ALL includes DOD, Dept Of Homeland Security, war expenses, veterans benefits. Medicaid accounts for 12%. Interest on the debt is 17%. Welfare (including EITC) is around 10%. What do YOU want to cut? (hint, we would need to cut the budget by about 50% to be balanced).
R U Kidding Me?
November 20th, 2012
4:03 pm
Middle:
I like your idea better. Was just curious about a national sales tax. Doesn’t seem to ever get much discussion and maybe thats why.
middle of the road
November 20th, 2012
4:04 pm
“That saved money, can by law go toward reducing the debt.”
Maybe people don’t understand the two terms, but you have to eliminate the DEFICIT (around $1 trillion a year) before you can EVER start trimming the DEBT. (more that $14 trillion right now).
middle of the road
November 20th, 2012
4:10 pm
Kidding Me – some people put forth the Sales Tax idea (most famously the FAIRTAX people). The devil is in the details – for example – would you pay sales tax on purchase of a house (at Fairtax rates, that would SIGNIFICANTLY expand the cost). What about sales of CD’s (certificates of deposits, not compact disks) or stocks? OH, they would say, those are INVESTMENTS, not sales. What about vacations to Europe? The money spent over there would not be taxed: it is now. What about items (diamond rings) bought outside the country – again that would not be taxed where the money is now.
I am not saying it is a terrible idea, just don’t think it is time for it right now. If we had the deficit at zero and wanted to put in place a 1% sales tax for ONLY debt reduction, with a rebate back to those making less than $20,000 a year, I could probably support that.
Mama says
November 20th, 2012
4:21 pm
Cutting is subjective. The first thing we need is an audit for need.
In other words the Feds duplicate some state efforts. They do so by taxation. They take states that are less fortunate and supplement them with money from states that are more fortunate.
This gets into the Feds are to big debate. But when we are talking about the need to cut and balance the basis had to be the question of what does the federal government really need to be doing. The dept of education works the same way. Does the fed really need to have a dept of education when every state and county has one ?
After we identify the over budgeted departments and the departments that do nothing but redistribute money from state to state we can identify where the cuts need to be.
I promise you that the dems or the cons can spend the money more efficiently at the state level than the Feds can up there. Let the states keep their money.
Mama says
November 20th, 2012
4:26 pm
Middle,
You have to control the yearly debt in order to pay down the deficit.
Unless you create a revenue source by reducing needless spending, you will never have the ability to pay down the debt
middle of the road
November 20th, 2012
4:29 pm
“You have to control the yearly debt in order to pay down the deficit”
No, you have to control the yearly DEFICIT before you can control the overall DEBT.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 20th, 2012
5:21 pm
Granny Godzilla – Oh really? Seeing as how he never released a single complete tax return you got nothing to back that up.
What are you talking about? I’ve seen his 2010 and 2011 tax returns on the internet. Misleading comment, don’t you think?
Nunna Yobinnes
November 20th, 2012
5:54 pm
Granny – “Well, Ben you found a NYT error.
Good for you! 2010 taxes released without documents regarding off shore accounts.”
Granny, if you’re talking about 8621 forms, you don’t have to file them unless you recognize a gain from the disposition of a Passive Foreign Investment Company or Qualified Electing Fund. Please see instructions.
Plenty of people invest in foreign investments (I would assume these investments are real estate related (i.e. “passive”.). The real “offshore” issue is foreign financial accounts (i.e. the proverbial Swiss Bank Account, etc.) Romney did not have any of them, or so he indicated on Schedule B. He would have also been required to file Forms TDF 90-22.1 and 8938 in 2011. Do you have some secret knowledge about his accounts that he didn’t report, or are you just making blind accusations?
Ever-Ever-Ever?
November 20th, 2012
7:02 pm
The people to BLAME are the GUTLESS members of Congress
who are AFRAID of Grover Norquist and their own shadow.
If a child wants candy three times a day for meals,
you don’t give it to him because that’s what he wants.
CONS are SPINELESS WHIMPS.
Michael
November 20th, 2012
7:30 pm
Who would name their child Grover?
Joel Edge
November 21st, 2012
6:33 am
“Mitt Romney lost big on election night and has continued to take a beating from his fellow Republicans ever since.”
Sorry, Jay, haven’t seen it.
MQA
November 21st, 2012
11:33 am
Grover becomes irrelevant on January 1st, 2013. Unless a deal is reached the tax rates automatically reset on that date to their Clinton era levels. The only issue then is to decide how far and to whom to bring them back down again. The Republicans can’t win this. And they know it. Dems have the check and the checkmate. Republicans have neither.