Hope your holiday was better than Grover Norquist’s
Grover Norquist may be feeling a mite grumpy this morning.
Noting that he had signed Grover Norquist’s no-new-taxes pledge some 20 years ago, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss said last week that “times have changed significantly.”
“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge,” Chambliss said in a phone interview with WMAZ in Macon. “And I care about the country that we leave our children and grandchildren. If we do it (Norquist’s) way then we’ll continue in debt and I just have a disagreement with him about that.”
“I’m willing to do the right thing and let the political consequences take care of themselves,” Chambliss said. “If we get this country back on track, that’s the most important thing and the politics will follow that.”
On Sunday, U.S. Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, joined the bandwagon, appearing on “Meet the Press” to say that “I agree entirely with Saxby Chambliss.”
“A pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that Congress. For instance, if I were in Congress in 1941, I would have signed a declaration of war against Japan. I’m not going to attack Japan today. The world has changed. And the economic situation is different. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill realized that in the 1980s. I think everything should be on the table. I myself am opposed to tax increases. The fact is that speaker and the majority leader and the president are going to be in a room, trying to find the best package. I’m not going to prejudge it. And I’m just saying we should not be taking ironclad positions.”
And on ABC’s “This Week,” U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, joined the chorus. In doing so, he brushed aside a veiled threat from Norquist, who had argued that Graham would not dare to vote to raise taxes because he “liked being a senator.”
“I love being a senator, and I want to be a senator that matters for the state of South Carolina and the country. 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. 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 we can’t cap deductions and buy down debt. What do you do with the money? 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.
Graham, like Chambliss, is up for re-election in 2014, meaning that both men are risking primary challenges by taking such a position. But every Republican who publicly repudiates Norquist weakens the man’s grip on their party and their vote, and that’s long, long overdue.
– 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
451 comments Add your comment
stands for decibels
November 26th, 2012
12:48 pm
If our so-called “job creators” did what they are labeled as doing, we could fix social security by creating enough jobs to account for the baby boomer retirement period.
Fix SS, and the debt too, ultimately.
Lance
November 26th, 2012
12:48 pm
Too many of our Georgia General Assembly members are controlled by Grover, too. Fortunately, Chip Rogers is one that will not matter anymore!
Brosephus™
November 26th, 2012
12:49 pm
make sure that, when you move the goalposts you lift with your knees.
Also, stretch first. The worst kind of hamstring pull is one that comes from lifting those darned goalposts.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
12:51 pm
The poor can likely also deduct all of their itemized deductions and personal exemptions and the wealthy cannot. So what?
Brosephus™
November 26th, 2012
12:52 pm
Fix SS, and the debt too, ultimately.
True. However, for us to get to that point, we would need for our “fiscal conservative” party to admit their whole economic plan over the past 40 years was nothing but a wealth grab. Tax cuts don’t spur economic growth for the country, but they damned sure aid wealth growth for the wealthiest individuals.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 26th, 2012
12:52 pm
S. Ray — “Are you suggesting my suggestion that maybe 50-75% of liberals think obama is savior and messiah is heavy or light?”
Since ‘everybody knows’ that all libruls are godless atheists, your claim must be heavy.
If we’re all atheists, then by definition we can’t possibly *have* a savior or messiah.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 26th, 2012
12:53 pm
Nunna Yobinnes — “The poor can likely also deduct all of their itemized deductions and personal exemptions”
My mistake. I had thought you were serious about the discussion. I see now that I was mistaken in that apprehension.
I assure you, I won’t make that mistake again.
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
November 26th, 2012
12:54 pm
Brosephus™
November 26th, 2012
12:39 pm
As I suggested tongue in cheek earlier, IMO we should give the Dems all they want…increases on wealthy, cap gains, corporate taxes and the like…let’em have everything they promised and see if this remotely offsets deficit by a dollar…
BTW, what exactly is the difference between tax rate hike and taking the same amount dough via elimination of deductions…another example of dopes in DC thinking we are a bunch of dumbarses..
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
12:55 pm
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought everyone was stating that the rich got tax breaks that the poor didn’t. I see now that the real nature of the complaint is that the poor don’t have enough money to buy Olympic Horses.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 26th, 2012
12:56 pm
S. Ray — “BTW, what exactly is the difference between tax rate hike and taking the same amount dough via elimination of deductions…”
Who says we can’t do some of both?
Joe Hussein Mama
November 26th, 2012
12:57 pm
N. Yobinnes — “Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought everyone was stating that the rich got tax breaks that the poor didn’t. I see now that the real nature of the complaint is that the poor don’t have enough money to buy Olympic Horses.”
Amazing how you can look the crux of the issue dead in the eye and still not see it.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
12:57 pm
New Democrat Promise to US Citizens – An Olympic Horsie in Every Yard.
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
November 26th, 2012
12:58 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
November 26th, 2012
12:52 pm
Classic…I fall into the athiest bucket to be certain…or at least the rightest winged agnostic…the thing I know for sure is that we will never really know so what’s the difference?
I believe in college football, led zeppelin, pink floyd, radiohead, black underware (on of the most oft overlooked inventions), my PRS original 24 fret electric, my marshall 100 w stage amp, and excel..to name a few..
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
November 26th, 2012
12:58 pm
Sorry, I misunderstood.
Painfully obvious from the get go.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
12:59 pm
Yes, I understand that the rich can afford things that the poor cannot. Are you saying everyone should have the same amount of wealth? My argument was that there are not tax breaks specifically designed for the wealthy and their horses.
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
November 26th, 2012
1:00 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
November 26th, 2012
12:56 pm
We can and should but the dopey GOP think by not allowing the rates to increase, they are accomplishing something while generating the same dough via tax code changes is…well stupid is as stupid does eh?
Brosephus™
November 26th, 2012
1:00 pm
BTW, what exactly is the difference between tax rate hike and taking the same amount dough via elimination of deductions…another example of dopes in DC thinking we are a bunch of dumbarses..
The difference is in the households that fall victim to them. Those who don’t take advantage of the deductions that are eliminated won’t feel a thing. Those who can’t use deductions to lower their effective rates will get hit with a rate hike.
Aquagirl
November 26th, 2012
1:04 pm
The poor can likely also deduct all of their itemized deductions and personal exemptions and the wealthy cannot. So what?
When you’ve absolutely been beaten to a blog pulp, simply repeat your original assertion that the tax code is fair because dammit, poor people can deduct their dressage horses too if they were only smart enough to hire the right tax accountant.
If this type of silly nutless cut ‘n run babble is all you have you have you’re welcome to it, some folks apparently noticed it leads to election disaster. So the sinking ship is all yours, stretch out and relax. Enjoy. Send us a postcard from the bottom of the ocean.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
1:04 pm
Kamchak – I see you’ve lost none of your ability to take things out of context. You must be so proud.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 26th, 2012
1:05 pm
N. Yobinnes — “Yes, I understand that the rich can afford things that the poor cannot. Are you saying everyone should have the same amount of wealth?”
No.
“My argument was that there are not tax breaks specifically designed for the wealthy and their horses.”
And no one else was arguing that or its negation. There *were* however, persons arguing that there are tax breaks that the wealthy can take advantage of that the poor cannot. The horseduction is certainly an example of that.
Joe Hussein Mama
November 26th, 2012
1:06 pm
Aquagirl — “If this type of silly nutless cut ‘n run babble is all you have you have you’re welcome to it, some folks apparently noticed it leads to election disaster. So the sinking ship is all yours, stretch out and relax. Enjoy. Send us a postcard from the bottom of the ocean.”
This. ^^^
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
1:06 pm
Aquagirl – Try sticking to a logical debate. Twisting the subject matter around to suit your agenda just doesn’t really look good.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
1:08 pm
A passive loss is a passive loss no matter who deducts it on their return. No advantage to the rich or the poor, except that the poor could deduct more of their loss.
Get Real
November 26th, 2012
1:09 pm
If by rich/wealthy you mean millionaires and billionaires I would agree, if you mean a family making 250K then that is far from rich….
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
November 26th, 2012
1:10 pm
“Are you saying everyone should have the same amount of wealth?”
oh FFS.
“My argument was that there are not tax breaks specifically designed for the wealthy and their horses.”
no, your original argument was that we were being hypocritical by posting businessweek and forbes to support our argument (seeing as they are such liberal media publications)
there are tax breaks that the wealthy can take advantage of that the poor cannot by virtue of the fact that they are poor. Aqua pointed that out. RB called her an idiot.
THAT was the argument. sorry that your remedial reading skills don’t seem to understand that.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
1:11 pm
Get Real – that $50 loss deduction just wrecked the US economy. Turrible ain’t it?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
November 26th, 2012
1:13 pm
Kamchak – I see you’ve lost none of your ability to take things out of context.
Aquagirl – Try sticking to a logical debate. Twisting the subject matter around to suit your agenda just doesn’t really look good.
You wadded into a conversation without knowing the background, you’ve been pwned by at least three others about that, you’ve moved the goalposts so many times that you can’t keep track of the original point and now you accuse me of being out of context and AG of twisting?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
1:14 pm
USinUK – show me where I referred at all to Forbes, et al. I didn’t. That was YOUR argument, not mine. But the bottom line is this, whether Forbes or whom reports anything or not has no bearing on what the law says.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
1:16 pm
I moved the goalpost? No one has refuted, nor will they be able to refute what I said. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that there are no tax breaks for the wealthy that the poor cannot also take advantage of. No one said that the issue was one of economic investment ability or the lack thereof.
stands for decibels
November 26th, 2012
1:17 pm
This thing still on? well then–
I would agree, if you mean a family making 250K then that is far from rich….
A family making 250K won’t pay any more in taxes if Obama has his way.
Brosephus™
November 26th, 2012
1:17 pm
Aquagirl…
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
November 26th, 2012
1:18 pm
No one has refuted, nor will they be able to refute what I said.
Not intended to be a factual statement.
Moving upstairs for good now.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
1:20 pm
Kamchak – Already understood that none of your remarks are intended to be factual statements.
Get Real
November 26th, 2012
1:20 pm
Sfd; not my understanding…..perhaps every dollar beyond the 250K the incremtal will increase but then again that is based in the agi or just gross…educate me oh learned one…seriously
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
1:22 pm
The $250k issue is taxable income, not gross income or AGI.
Aquagirl
November 26th, 2012
1:27 pm
I was trying to draw attention to the fact that there are no tax breaks for the wealthy that the poor cannot also take advantage of.
I have made a terrible mistake….Nunna is a public servant, who else would spend so much energy alerting the working poor that they’re missing valuable tax deductions?
We should admire his tenacity and dedication to the underprivileged dressage horse owners of America.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
1:27 pm
Allow me to rephrase. I believe that the $250k issue is probably AGI related. My bad.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
1:28 pm
You can’t educate those who want to remain in their blissful ignorance Aquagirl.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
1:31 pm
What about duh po folks who make up they own deduckshuns on they tax retuns, but ain’t really telling the trooth?
USinUK_also
November 26th, 2012
1:35 pm
“You can’t educate those who want to remain in their blissful ignorance Aquagirl.”
Quite accidentally a factual statement.
rich chrappa
November 26th, 2012
1:37 pm
Who or wha is this grub called Grover Norquist and what pile of slime did he crawl out of? Why are supposedly rational people grovelling at his appendages?
stands for decibels
November 26th, 2012
1:37 pm
perhaps every dollar beyond the 250K the incremtal will increase
Yes, that’s how it works. And I guess your point is that a family making 250K aren’t exactly Masters of the Universe, and I get that. However, I really don’t think a small percentage increase on the income above that level is likely to throw our economy into a tailspin. Cutting back social programs will.
Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
1:39 pm
No difference in the Romneys deducting a loss on their horses than a lower income person deducting a loss on their Avon sales. (Nothing against Avon, but I don’t recall having ever seen an Avon seller reporting a profit.)
stands for decibels
November 26th, 2012
1:39 pm
USinUK_also, your name is going to spawn confusion.
Might I suggest “USinUK_also-too”?
USinUK_also-too
November 26th, 2012
1:42 pm
I promise to think up something better for next time.
Don’t want to mistakenly take credit from the master
Rabbit
November 26th, 2012
1:53 pm
Grover, the sideshow clown that somehow made it to center ring. Time to leave the tent.
Grover Norquist and “Papa John” have seen better days | A View From The Middle (Class)
November 26th, 2012
2:17 pm
[...] Hope your holiday was better than Grover Norquist’s (blogs.ajc.com) Share this:TwitterFacebookMoreRedditStumbleUponTumblrDiggGoogle +1EmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]
Sandy
November 26th, 2012
2:34 pm
Medicare and Social Security are not entitlements. Medicare is health insurance and Social Security is a pension plan. We are paying into them both with every pay check and when we enroll in them we will be using programs that we paid into, not that we are somehow entitled to. Social security is not part of the budget and not part of the deficit. Just like any private pension plan, if it is underfunded then premiums must be raised. This can be accomplished by removing the cap on income that is assessed, the social security wage base. If I earned the max (something like 100,000K/year) I would pay about 6000 into SS and my employer would pay the same. But if I earned 1,000,000/year, I would pay the same 6000. So if we need to raise the cap to 200K it would be just fine with me. Medicare is different but to me we should treat it like any other health insurance. If too much is being paid out then premiums need to be increased.
The primary difference between Medicare and private insurance is that private insuranc3e must make a profit, so a portion of what we pay in premiums is removed to become someone else’s profit and is not available to pay for health care. This alone is enough reason to make Medicare available to all. Some have said to me, Medicare is too expensive e now, what would happen if we gave it to everyone? Medicare is expensive because it only covers the elderly and the disabled. Healthy people like me are paying insurance premiums to companies who are using my money for profit. If I was allowed to join Medicare, my premiums would be going into the system, balancing the poll of risk.
To summarize: stop calling Medicare and social security entitlements. Change the names to “the United States Pension Plan” and “the United States health insurance plan.” And then run them like they are funded by premiums, just like private insurance.
@eidsonb
November 26th, 2012
2:52 pm
Grahaministy and Chambliss are both RINO’s anywoo and need to go….
"Expired by", "Use by" or "Best before"
November 26th, 2012
7:27 pm
@Nunna Yobinnes
November 26th, 2012
1:31 pm
What about duh po folks who make up they own deduckshuns on they tax retuns, but ain’t really telling the trooth?
==============================================
It takes ONE to know ONE.
Offshore account here I come, residency to follow
November 26th, 2012
7:52 pm
Fred,
You called my bluff! Heading to the Delta gate for Costa Rico!