Grover Norquist’s reply to Saxby Chambliss: ‘His promise wasn’t to me’
So it looks like we have a renewal of last year’s sniping between U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and originator of the no-tax-increase pledge that many Republicans – Chambliss among them – say will only aggravate a $16 trillion federal deficit.
Given the dearth of news on Thanksgiving Day, Chambliss’ comments on Norquist and his pledge, made to WMAZ in Macon, drew an inordinate amount of attention. Said Chambliss:
“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge. If we do it his way then we’ll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that.”
That kind of rebellious chatter could have an impact on negotiations between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans that are set to begin in earnest on Monday. Late Friday, Norquist sent us this lengthy response:
Senator Chambliss promised the people of Georgia he would go to Washington and reform government rather than raise taxes to pay for bigger government. He made that commitment in writing to the people of Georgia.
If he plans to vote for higher taxes to pay for Obama-sized government he should address the people of Georgia and let them know that he plans to break his promise to them.
The Senator’s reference to me is odd. His promise is to the people of Georgia.
In February 2011 he wrote an open letter addressed to me when he joined the Gang of Six saying he would not vote for any plan that raised taxes. He would support only tax revenue that resulted from higher growth.
That was a public letter he and co-signers Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and Idaho Senator Mike Crapo sent to the press to explain their negotiating position as they joined the Gang of Six in early 2011:
Note this excerpt, the final sentence of the letter:“If and when there is a legislative proposal to be presented to Congress and the American people, we look forward to again working with you and all interested parties to support a proposal where any increase in revenue generation will be the result of the pro-growth effects of lower individual and corporate tax rates for all Americans.”
That is certainly a position I support and the only “plan” that I have endorsed is the Paul Ryan budget that brings the budget to balance and pays down the debt without any tax hikes.
Sen. Chambliss voted for the Ryan plan. I miss his point in trying to attack me.
Raising taxes on the people of Georgia to pay for Obama’s reckless spending is not the right thing to do for America or Georgia. We have a problem because Washington spends too much, not because Sen. Chambliss has failed so far to raise taxes on the hard-working men and women of Georgia.
Sen. Chambliss mentions his fear of losing a primary if he breaks his word to Georgians and votes to raise their taxes. History reminds us that when President George H.W. Bush raised taxes in a deal that promised (and did not deliver) spending cuts he was defeated not in the primary, but in the general.
When Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska violated his pledge to the American people, he would’ve won a primary battle. But he withdrew because polling showed he could not win a general election having both lied to his state and raised their taxes.
I would urge all Senators to oppose Obama’s budget that raises taxes on the American people and sets the stage for larger taxes in the future on energy that will hit all Americans and raise the cost of living while reducing the number and quality of jobs in America.
I hope and trust that Senator Chambliss will keep his promise to Georgia and not raise taxes on the people of Georgia.
To be fair, in the WMAZ interview, Chambliss didn’t express “his fear” of losing a primary should he discard Norquist’s pledge. But he acknowledged that such an action would likely enlist Norquist on the side of a primary challenger in 2014.
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
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
192 comments Add your comment
Bob Loblaw
November 24th, 2012
3:08 pm
@Socrates:
Brilliant. We have “no tax at any cost” dolts in office because it’s a gimme in the GOP Primary and a weapon if one candidate signs and the other doesn’t. I am not sure every agency can survive “drastic” cuts, or we’ll have to amend a lot of laws that require funding certain areas.
td
November 24th, 2012
3:13 pm
If Saxby votes to raise taxes without a deal that really cuts entitlement spending at least on a 10 to 1 basis then he will have opposition in the primary and will probably lose.
Dave
November 24th, 2012
3:15 pm
Grover, bubby, you’re behind the curve on this one, I hope. Saxby may have grown up a bit, I hope. Maybe it will be a good thing if Grover and his buddies “primary” Saxby with Tom Price, now that he lost to, I hope, a rational woman in the House. I think it’s too soon here in Georgia; but, maybe, maybe rationality can prevail. Saxby versus Price and I’m rooting for Saxby. Oh my!
Joseph Wilson
November 24th, 2012
3:17 pm
Stop whining, Republicans! You lost the election and would have lost the House if not for gerrymandered districts in GOP-controlled states. Yes, MItt Moneybags Romney, you will have to pay higher taxes. You might have to sell one of your four mansions to pay your taxes. Wall Street makes more money under Democrats, so the cushion will be soft.
If the Clinton tax rates were still in place, the country would be running a surplus. Republicans destroyed the economy under Bush and fought two unnecessary wars. The Medicare drug benefit was written by drug company lobbyists and was not paid in the budget. The GOP is no longer a serious political party nationally.
Chris P
November 24th, 2012
3:27 pm
Until the politicians in government can demonstrate that they can reduce or eliminate waste and that spending cuts can be made, I will never vote for someone to raise my taxes!!
td
November 24th, 2012
3:30 pm
Joseph Wilson
November 24th, 2012
3:17 pm
“If the Clinton tax rates were still in place, the country would be running a surplus”
Just proves how you libs do not understand basic math. You can tax the evil top 10% at 100% and still not balance the budget, much less reduce any debt. Spending is the problem and until real cuts are made then I am totally opposed to raising one cent in taxes.
Tony
November 24th, 2012
3:34 pm
This problem has been set up in the format of the classic FALSE DICHOTOMY where on the issue there are only two choices. Fortunately, Mr. Chambliss is able to see through this for what it is and acknowledge the reasonable need to look at raising revenue. Mr. Norquist and his followers are the ones perpetrating fraud on the American people. Their continued support of reduced taxes for the wealthy while the middle class bears the burden is ludicrous.
Dave
November 24th, 2012
3:35 pm
“You can tax the evil top 10% at 100% and still not balance the budget, much less reduce any debt.”
TD, assuming that’s true, and I assume you want the top ten percent to stay where they are in the pile, and knowing that we have trillions in debt, who are the people you want to suffer? Where are the cuts and what are the results?
Banderson
November 24th, 2012
3:39 pm
People change their minds on pledges all the time. Ask any of Newt’s ex wives.
Jim Frankland
November 24th, 2012
3:40 pm
Um; “9/11 was NOT an economic trauma in any way” — what the hell are you talking about? It was a huge bump in the economy, it quite possibly was the start of the financial collapse; although I don’t subscribe to ‘too big to fail’. Fail damn it, and don’t be as stupid to do it twice!
“In 1998, the US budget SURPLUS was $69 billion; in 1999, the US budget SURPLUS was $126 billion; and in 2000, the US budget SURPLUS was $236 billion” — not entirely factual. These are fictitious numbers, as they counted Social Security Taxes in the general fund. Had these been TRUE surpluses and had those SSI* taxes truly been saved and invested, we might not be facing trillions of dollars in unfunded SSI* debt today and tomorrow. PLUS! During this time would have been an excellent time to start talking and acting on future benefits of SSI* . . . Not the “I*” it was always intended and originally called INSURANCE. Not a benefit, not a retirement. Government greed and buying of voters and special interest has long been a failure in government. They saw money sitting there to spend, when it was gone, then they raised the taxing rate of SSI in order to JUSTIFY their taxing and spending, promising RETIREMENT to you ’someday’ in the future we’ll pay that.
rj
November 24th, 2012
3:42 pm
Grover, get over yourself
WAW
November 24th, 2012
3:45 pm
“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?” (Psalms 2)
Because after November 6, the Sons of the Republican Party have no flag to fly and only crow to eat.
Banderson
November 24th, 2012
3:50 pm
td – If you taxed everyone with “taxable” income of more than $200,000 per year 100%, you’d erase the deficit, except for one thing. Those people would stop working. On the other hand, if you tax them 0%, you don’t make any dent in the deficit at all. So, there’s some number in the middle, perhaps back at the rates when Clinton was president (be glad they’re not the 91% rates when Eisenhower was president) that would not hurt the economy and help close the gap in our budget over time.
td
November 24th, 2012
3:53 pm
Dave
November 24th, 2012
3:35 pm
Before I even think of raising taxes then real cuts must be made. You can either cut benefits or you can cut the size and scope of government.
We can not continue to feed and provide medical coverage to able bodied people that should work which is about 20 to 25% of the population. We can not continue to pay Federal government employees more then their counterparts make in the private sector.
Cut the number of Federal government workers by 30 to 50% and then cut in half the number of people on entitlement programs then we can talk about raising taxes.
td
November 24th, 2012
3:56 pm
Banderson
November 24th, 2012
3:50 pm
td – If you taxed everyone with “taxable” income of more than $200,000 per year 100%, you’d erase the deficit, except for one thing. Those people would stop working. On the other hand, if you tax them 0%, you don’t make any dent in the deficit at all. So, there’s some number in the middle, perhaps back at the rates when Clinton was president (be glad they’re not the 91% rates when Eisenhower was president) that would not hurt the economy and help close the gap in our budget over time.
If you raised the rates back to the Clinton era rates then you would only raise $80 billion per year and we are running over a $1 trillion deficit. Tell us again how this is going to help?
Dave
November 24th, 2012
3:56 pm
Okay, Feds (that does mean the military, right, or are you making exceptions already?) down the tubes everyone else getting the dreaded entitlements even worse, doesn’t balance the budget, much less reduce the deficit. Next?
Dennis
November 24th, 2012
3:58 pm
Saxby has been/is nothing but a game player.
Given Republcian’s unpopularity at presennt, what Chambley’s trying to do with this move is to lay the ground work for another run and hope moderates will support him.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
Larry Merriam
November 24th, 2012
3:58 pm
It’s a bunch of crap that Saxby Chambliss made his promise to the voters. Like a pledge signers he signed out of fear that Grover would use his considerable financial resourses to defeat him. Now he has come to the realization that the only oath he really took was to “protect and defend the contitution of the United States. Congratulations Senator Chambliss for your honesty.
Visit http://www.groverno.com and add your name to encourage others to break away from Grover and restore sanity to America.
Jim Frankland
November 24th, 2012
4:06 pm
“Stop whining, Republicans! You lost the election” — “Because after November 6, the Sons of the Republican Party have no flag to fly and only crow to eat.” —– This last election was by no means a ‘mandate’ or ‘majority’, Obama had over 5 million less votes than in 2008. With Romney getting 2 million less votes than McCain, a lot of people stayed home; many switched from voting Democrat to voting Republican. This election was very tight. People don’t like how government is being run, PERIOD. Look at the approval ratings. “If the Clinton tax rates were still in place, the country would be running a surplus” — “perhaps back at the rates when Clinton was president (be glad they’re not the 91% rates when Eisenhower was president)” No, we have way more entitlement spending now than under Clinton. The 91% rates had so many tax loop holes and write offs, nobody actually paid those rates anyway. That is why the loop holes were eliminated and the rates made more reasonable. FINALLY, you all know that the “Bush” tax cuts were not for just the wealthy? When they expire in January the average joe who makes $10/hr will also see his taxes increase $1,000 to $2,000 a year too.
Banderson
November 24th, 2012
4:13 pm
td – I wouldn’t sneeze at an additional $80 billion. It’s more than we spend on food stamps($75 billion).
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/index.htm
Dave
November 24th, 2012
4:14 pm
Jim Frankland, just a minute ago, what’s your point? Let the tax cuts expire on everyone? Keep them and cut spending? Somewhere in the middle? In any event, what do you you cut? I’m kinda tired of the cut before you increase taxes mantra. Cutting or increasing alone won’t get it done. Someday, I want to hear someone speak intelligently about getting it done. That said, I’ve often been disappointed in life.
Banderson
November 24th, 2012
4:23 pm
Jim F. – I’m pretty sure that even the Dems want all the tax cuts to expire. It would be a dumb thing to do while trying to recover from a recession. Of course, if both parties decide let it happen, then that’s what we’ll have, by law, until they work something out. BTw, cutting spending will hurt the economy too. That gov. spending, whether it’s going to Haliburton or to some poor family, goes into the general spending by the public. I’m not saying we can continue to go deeper in debt, but the government spending was a reason the recession wasn’t worse.
Jim Frankland
November 24th, 2012
4:24 pm
Well Dave, you can be tired of hearing the mantra of cut before tax; but it is just talk. You reverse it, then your taxing without cutting and the people being taxed might be a little tired of watching others burn their money for no good reason. This is not the American way, taking handouts. Someone earlier compared other countries in their taxation. Fine, good for them, hope their socialism works, but as we’ve seen, when they run out of money, and then try to cut benefits; you tend to get public riots and property destruction. I hope we turn around long before it comes to that.
Dave
November 24th, 2012
4:46 pm
Jim Frankland, Who said I want to reverse it? But, handouts and Socialism? Please, you take shots and then worry that the economy won’t be turned around before there are riots in the streets. Yet you offer no more than that the “taxed” are weary of their taxation. Damned poor people, I don’t want to help and they’re going to riot because they’re starving!
Cherokee
November 24th, 2012
4:47 pm
td, like so many others, yells ‘cuts’, but can’t suggest any that are really viable.
Cut entitlements? Medicare and Social Security? First, most of the people collecting from those have paid money into the programs, and secondly, Bush II tried it, and now Romney Ryan ran on the idea – and didn’t fare so well. So what’s your next suggestion? Cut federal employees? Again, which ones? The military? Research scientists? Law enforcement? Food safety enforcement personnel?
Sure, let’s cut the waste, but until cons man up and identify specific areas to cut, and tell how they’re going to sell those ideas to the American people, you’re spitting in the wind.
td
November 24th, 2012
4:53 pm
Cherokee
November 24th, 2012
4:47 pm
Here is two areas you could cut at least 25% out of the budget (excluding Medicare) and save about $500 billion per year. You could then cut about another $200 billion from doing away with the Federal DOE:
” Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs – Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) – together accounted for 21 percent of the budget in 2011, or $769 billion. Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $486 billion, went to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 48 million people who are over the age of 65 or have disabilities. The remainder of this category funds Medicaid and CHIP, which in a typical month in 2011 provided health care or long-term care to about 60 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.
Two other categories together account for another fifth of federal spending:
Safety net programs: About 13 percent of the federal budget in 2011, or $466 billion, went to support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2010 and 2011 as the economy continued to improve and initiatives funded by the 2009 Recovery Act began to expire.
These programs include: the refundable portion of the earned-income and child tax credits, which assist low- and moderate-income working families through the tax code; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income families and individuals, including food stamps, school meals, low-income housing assistance, child-care assistance, and assistance in meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.”
Dave
November 24th, 2012
4:56 pm
td, before I call you an idiot, you are kidding, right?
td
November 24th, 2012
4:58 pm
“Should federal workers get a raise? With salaries and benefits paid to the government’s civilian workers totaling $271 billion in 2011″
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-truth-about-federal-salary-numbers/2012/11/18/08acd084-293e-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html
Cut this workforce down by at least 1/3 and you can save another $80 to $100 billion per year.
td
November 24th, 2012
5:00 pm
Dave
November 24th, 2012
4:56 pm
td, before I call you an idiot, you are kidding, right?
So do you think we should be providing insurance, food and other day to day subsistence for 20 to 25% of our population?
Jim Frankland
November 24th, 2012
5:02 pm
Dave, you bring up a good point; everyone here is stuck in their idealism (party line or brainwash); and in government nobody wants to stick their neck out and come up with a plan or idea; although that is exactly why we elected these idiots — DO THEIR JOBS! But both sides are NO TAX and NO CUTS; but NO SOLUTIONS either. That is why in my first post, I suggested the people of Georgia, “look at his decisions very closely”. If he’s just jumping party lines to get votes in two years; the hell with him! If he’s willing to jump lines saying, I’m open to taxes if you cut spending 3 to 1; 4 to 1; or some other number; maybe there is merit there. But raising taxes alone isn’t “American”. What would *I* cut in spending? 1.) Unemployment benefits back to original terms. You can’t continue unemployment for YEARS. Reality check – get a job. 2.) Welfare. Consider $600/mo housing allowance, $200/mo adult and $100/mo per child. So a mother and two kids costs $12,000 a year; why is the government paying out $50,000 a year? There is way too much overhead in government workers and red tape; we need a simpler system. We need a cheaper system. We also need a system with incentives to get people OFF the system. It is actually SHAMEFUL and IRRESPONSIBLE to have a system which keeps (FORCES) people to stay on it. I’ve heard conversations with those on section eight; “oh be sure your income doesn’t go beyond $12,000 a year or you’ll loose your benefits” REALLY?! Is that what we all strive for?! How about a system that actually gives bonuses if you increase your income, then expiration times on benefits; say 18 months beyond the income cut off limits. By then those people should be EARNING enough money to be substantially back on their feet. Enough so they wouldn’t want to take a CUT to go back on the system, unless bad times forced them back there. Say, $100/mo bonus for 18/mo if you DO earn more than $12,000; $250/mo if you earn $15,000. What the hell, a $2,500 bonus check if you get off the system and sustain yourself for the next 12 months. What about healthcare? We’ve now seen the finalized insurance plans for 2014. Some of these cheap policies will require the insured to cover up to 40% of their costs out of pocket. Sure these plans will have cheap premiums and satisfy the health insurance requirement. BUT HOW ON EARTH does this new system help anyone? Are these 50,000 un-insured (now insured) now going to come up with $20,000 to cover their $50,000 heart attack bill? There’s no malpractice caps or other cost cutting in this grand healthcare law. There are actually death panels, although they don’t actually exist, cause the aren’t called “DEATH” panels. There is so much that could be done, that isn’t. Finally, Banderson; “That gov. spending, . . . goes into the general spending by the public” NOT REALLY. The difference between you spending $50 into the economy and being taxed $50 to be put back into the economy is choice and freedom. YOU decide if it will be Walmart or your neighborhood grocery. With government you’ve got approved lobbied businesses, they decide who fails and succeeds, they decide if you live or die, they decide. But when you add inefficiency as government is good at; they tax you $50, spend $100 for the same thing; only today it isn’t China who pitches in the other $50, Mr. Bernanke is now PRINTING it, so your NEXT $50 you spend is worth 2% less every year because he’s diluting (by printing more dollars) your buying power. That equals a 2% TAX that is now hidden. That’s also 2% for 2013; but will be 5% by 2020 due to increased debt.
Babs
November 24th, 2012
5:04 pm
Who is this Grover Norquist anyway? Sounds like a made up name!
Dave
November 24th, 2012
5:06 pm
Okay, td first. Why not? Most societies have been doing that for the past few thousand years. People that are dying of curable disease and starving tend to have an unpleasant disposition towards the people doing their best to see that they don’t have health care and food. See for example Arab Spring,
curt
November 24th, 2012
5:07 pm
Norquest says Chambliss lied to the people of this country? No he was bullied by an arrogant know nothing who is only one very loud self important voice among many. I will never forgive Saxby for the lies he told about Max Cleland to get elected but it’s time someone stood up to the Norquest, the Krotch Brothers and all of these clowns who put their pocketbooks above they country they pretend to love. The Bush tax breaks were a poisoned pill designed to take away the pain of a trumped up war, unlike WW2 where everyone sacrificed, and now they’ve become ingrained in our expectations. Where were all of these folks when Bush was turning a surplus into a deficit? The rabid right sure does have a short and convenient memory.
I’m with you on this one for a change Saxby. If Norquest is so smart how about he run for elected office instead of ranting like a spoiled brat and perform that anatomically impossible act that Dick Cheney once suggested to Patrick Leahey on the senate floor.
Josh
November 24th, 2012
5:11 pm
If they put tax increases on the table, we’ll get the tax increases immediately but the spending cuts will be some convoluted cuts that occur over years…. i.e. end up get wiped out by additional spending increases voted on during those years.
What we need to do is put hard wired controls in that don’t allow the deficits/debt to get out of control. That doesn’t mean we wouldn’t allow for short term deficits for certain emergency circumstances but it would require that the cost be dealt with in a reasonable time frame. We’re kicking the can down the road to disaster because we can now.
Dave
November 24th, 2012
5:12 pm
Now Jim Frankland: You are now talking specific cuts which need to be considered and implemented. But, you are being unrealistic about much of what your write. Health care? Who do you think pays for it now, via a terribly inefficient system? Do you, like td think the have nots should waste away in the gutter? If you do, you are in need of a reality check. I think it is in the Bible, “the poor will always be with us.” Back then they had gleanings and jubilees. These days we have welfare and other public assistance programs. The aren’t going away unless you want more than riots. The question is how do we deal with the reality of costs.
Skip
November 24th, 2012
5:12 pm
How many votes did Grover get in the last election?
Jim Frankland
November 24th, 2012
5:20 pm
Sorry, Dave; now I’m going to have to throw the “idiot” flag. “Okay, td first. Why not? Most societies have been doing that for the past few thousand years.” I say FIRMLY — NO! For those 25% of the population who don’t want to improve themselves and get off the government teat — 1 First Class Ticket to another country of their choice. Yes, sorry you have to give you your USA card. I’m not talking about the physically handicap or mental disability which is really only 1 – 2% of the population. I’m talking the able bodied – unwilling to support themselves. Dave, I have to assume your comment 5:06pm is either joking or your one of the occupiers who’s actually be supported by the rest of the country. (btw your 1% is a myth. There isn’t a 97-98%. In fact the majority is middle to lower class in this country and soon they will tire of paying for the lazy; as you’ll never — ever — tax the 1% enough to pay for everything you want. You can’t mandate productivity, not even under socialism; so productivity and taxable income will suffer to the extent that the end result is zero.)
RGB
November 24th, 2012
5:34 pm
Norquist is 100% correct. If Chambliss is intent on governing as a Democrat, he should switch parties and run as such. We should not have to expend effort keeping Chambliss on the reservation. Just switch parties and the liberal elites can laud him for his “integrity” and “putting his country above party” when neither would be the case. At his age, if he doesn’t grasp rudimentary economics, then he never will.
Dave
November 24th, 2012
5:43 pm
Jim, it must be sad to be afraid of most of society. I didn’t saying anything about percentages, 1, 99 or 47. If you think you can export what you consider problem folks, have at it. Start with the folks from south of the border and work your way to the 25% you don’t think are pulling their weight, then see how the economy is doing. My demographic? I don’t pay much attention to that kind of stuff; but, probably right about the 90% mark. I’ve paid my way in life and I’m pretty sure I can get to death without becoming a burden on society. I just want most, not only a few people to get there with me – I don’t think that should be a function of independent wealth.
clem
November 24th, 2012
5:49 pm
td stick to something you know about….last election proved you quite wrong. your side lost on prez, senate, and house if you counted total votes not gerrymandered districts. if dems put forth some real cuts in neighborhood of 1 t to go with tax hikes for rich than a deal should be struck. then move on to entitlement, tax and health care cost reform.
burntgrassroot
November 24th, 2012
5:52 pm
The United States does not have a $16 trillion deficit. We have a $1 trillion deficit. $16 trillion is the public debt. The deficit is what we lack to pay the debt. The $16 trillion is debt because it’s what we’ve already spent. Seems to me that at this point conservatives are better called contrarians, since it was liberal to implement the Bush tax cuts that benefit a minority of American taxpayers, and it isn’t clear what they’re conserving. In my opinion, the Southern strategy has morphed into a powerful delusion to convince middle-class wage earners that we have more in common with the rich than with each other, so we’ll vote to our country’s detriment. To my mind, if there’s any mandate from November’s elections, it is that our president continue in his executive role, and congress begin to legislate in a competent, responsible manner. (Somewhere it says that faith without works is dead–one shows one’s faith by efficiently and consistently doing good work.)
I didn’t vote for Sen. Chambliss, but as one of his Georgia constituents, I’m glad that he seems to want to serve the interests of Georgia in this fiscal matter. (I do wonder why our other Senate representative, Sen. Isakson, has been silent throughout.) I’m not a lawyer, but it seems that this Norquist oath that our representatives signed is unenforceable under Article 6 of the US Constitution, and in direct contravention of Article 1 Sections 7 and 8.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
LAW
November 24th, 2012
5:56 pm
QUOTE:
“Common Sense
November 24th, 2012
12:56 pm
“n 1998, the US budget SURPLUS was $69 billion; in 1999, the US budget SURPLUS was $126 billion; and in 2000, the US budget SURPLUS was $236 billion.”
There was never a surplus. The total budget deficit did not decline in the years you stated. This is another democratic myth.”
Response.
The person who wrote that is a pathetic liar. The facts can be found by anybody. The public debt declined under Clinton from approximately 1995 through 2001 – but don’t let NO SENSE pretend that Bush did anything but take credit for Clinton’s leadership.
He or she can cry, whine, plead, snivel, P&M, … but a lie is a lie.- And this person is a liar.
This is what is wrong with conservatives. They are pathological liars who are incapable of facing reality.
And stupid liars. Caught in a lie about the budget SURPLUS, he tries the old “change the topic” gambit – pretend that “SURPLUS” is the same as “deficit”. If he believes that (doubtful) he’s stupid as well as a liar.
Which is it NONSENSE? Are you a liar or a fool?
Buckhead Boy
November 24th, 2012
6:01 pm
Jim, does that mean that all Georgians have to go since this state has benefited more through the federal government than contributed for the past seventy-five years? We’re all “takers” here. And, how about those shiftless South Carolinians who reap $1.93 for every dollar paid in? They certainly shouldn’t be given a first class ticket. Come to think of it, are you are calling for self-deportation from all the dependent states? If so, the Republicans won’t like that as the dependent states are preponderantly red. However, you may be right — that the people in the blue donor states will tire of our unwillingness to support ourselves, and want us gone.
James
November 24th, 2012
6:02 pm
It’s about time some politician somewhere stood up to Goober Norquist. No one in the General Assembly seems to be man enough to.
Jim Frankland
November 24th, 2012
6:13 pm
Dave, “I didn’t saying anything about percentages, 1, 99 or 47″; well my apologies then, I thought you were in a conversation with td, when (at 5pm) he asked if you were good with, “…providing insurance, food and other day to day subsistence for 20 to 25% of our population?” That being said; I don’t think you’ve answered the question. You’ve paid your way in live, and don’t plan on becoming a burden to society in the future. Don’t you think that is something we should all still strive for? Don’t you think our grandparents policy of “I would feel bad asking someone else to pay my way” is a good value to still live by, to still teach our children and grand children? See, I’m not “afraid of most of society” YET, but I do see the writing on the wall, this past election and the occupation of some of the least of us who feel someone else should pay their way. I know you haven’t been paying attention, but your not the 90% anymore, there is a growing percentage that feels government must be their Robin Hood. I’m not against those Mexicans who illegally crossed the border seeking to work hard to better their families. I am against the corporate farmer using cheap slave labor (piece work rates) provided by these Mexicans, rather than raise the cost of a head of lettuce 50 cents. I am against brushing off borders; in fact, it is treasonous for our government to be running ads on Mexico television and radio informing people how to apply for aid. As for the Bible, even Jesus drew a line between “give your money to the poor” and “shall not covet your neighbor”. As I said before, it is wrong (no, scratch that — evil) to offer to sustain the poor in poverty for eternity. I’d rather grow a system which supports teaching those to fish rather than a system which requires we constantly provide the fish.
Jim Frankland
November 24th, 2012
6:22 pm
Clem @ 5:49pm: “Stop whining, Republicans! You lost the election and would have lost the House if not for gerrymandered districts in GOP-controlled states” Joseph @ 3:17pm “Stop whining, Republicans! You lost the election and would have lost the House if not for gerrymandered districts in GOP-controlled states”
IDIOT — TROLL — Go spread your crap somewhere else, we are tired of hearing your bull — say something productive — get a life — looser.
Dave
November 24th, 2012
6:27 pm
Jim it would seem to me that we aren’t that far apart given your last post. We should all strive to be where I, and I assume, you are. There are people who are takers, always have been and always will be – at the top and the bottom of the economic ladder. Taking care of those that can’t do it on their own is not wrong; and, it isn’t evil to support the poor, short term or for eternity. It is dumb to create a system that supports rich folks making the risk public and the profit private, their private profit – then blaming the poor for their profligacy.
Dave
November 24th, 2012
6:31 pm
Though Jim, it would seem that your last diatribe at 6:22 would make it doubtful that we could ever be simpatico. I’m off to dinner.
Jim Frankland
November 24th, 2012
6:38 pm
Hi Buckhead Boy, It’s actually funny that of all my posts you keyed in on the one where the discussion was in regards to TD’s question to Dave; when he asked if it ok that 20 to 25% of the population relied upon the rest to support them in full. That being said, let me respond to your point. I think we need to question the sustainability of reaping $1.93 for every $1.00 paid, for seventy five years. We are the “united” states because together we should be able to pull each other up when needed. Help each other out, if that is no longer the axiom, then really, what is the point of the “United” States? This “blue donor states will tire of our unwillingness to support ourselves” is also quite funny to me, how many “blue” states actually support themselves and have a surplus in which to share? California just VOTED another tax increase, when most of their productive society is fleeing to other states. When Government is the biggest employer and your running a deficit, when does it all come crashing down. So let me turn the question around to you: Are we all good to go, raise taxes upon the rich nation wide and problem solved? Continue as usual until the system fails like Greece?
Atlantan
November 24th, 2012
6:40 pm
Chamblis is a joke. The problem is there are no real cuts, but only “revenues” – for the love of humanity call it taxes you crooked politicos. How much more of my life should I give up so Obama and company can hand out goodies. I’m not a millionaire technically, but definitely come in under Obama’s term – households with $250k a year. Last year my family paid over $100k in income taxes. Why do Obama, libs and Saxby believe that someone who makes under $250k has more value and a right to liberty and freedom to me and others at my level? Atlas will shrug and it won’t be pretty…..