On the Senate side, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) will serve on the commission, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced. Reps. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) will represent House Republicans, said Speaker John Boehner.
All six Republicans have signed a pledge to Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform that they will not vote to raise taxes.
Well, why bother to even meet. These people have sworn allegiance to Grover Norquist, whoever the hell he is. Any tax code change, and additonal federal fees is raising taxes. Increasing the Social Security ceiling is a form of ‘raising taxes.’ Making someone who currently doesn’t pay federal taxes start paying them is ‘raising taxes.’
I think that kind of ‘pledge’ should disqualify each and every one of those Republicans. You cannot come in to negotiate something with that kind of caveat. It won’t work. They either have to commit to serving the United States or Grover Norquist.
Senator Reid appointed Democratic Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to serve on the committee. If any of these Democrats have pre-existing pledges under their belt, they should be disqualified also.
Norquist founded Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) at the request of then President Reagan back around 1985 if I recall right. The main goal of ATR is to reduce the the GDP percentage the Federal Government eats up. ATR is also the folks behind the “Taxpayer Bill of Rights” legislation that never gets anywhere at Fed level…gee, that means actually overhauling the tax code. Him and ole Newt wrote “contract with America”
Last thing I read about him was the goal to reduce the size of the Federal Government by 2050…and the cyncical view I have on that date is the Boomers will be all too aged to fight the political battle. Actually, he might win by then although he is a Boomer himself.
Of course, the main goal of ATR will be forgotten since the mantra of “no raised taxes” will be the battlecry in the halls of the Domed Building.
Tea Party’s Constitutional reactions
Do you think the Tea Party is also going against their belief in strict adherence to the Constitution by signing Mr. Norquist’s pledge to no raise taxes? I don’t recall that specification in the Constitution.
– August 10, 2011 11:21 AM Permalink
A.Dana Milbank :
Allegiance to God is higher than allegiance to Constitution, and Grover is a deity.
– August 10, 2011 11:36 AM
http://live.washingtonpost.com/Austin-Scott-betrayed-his-Tea-Party-Milbank-chat.html
Yes, it’s true, the teajadis treat Norquist as a God of some sort. They must prostrate themselves and kiss his sandals wherever he walks. I do not have high hopes for this commission.
So insightful!
Beyond insight, Pokie, how can a person serve two gods, so to speak? How can those people come in and negotiate in good faith if they have taken a pledge to not raise taxes?
I hear all sorts of beefing, and it might be very justified beefing, that 40-something % of Americans don’t pay any federal tax. So…how do we fix this problem? I would say that we adjust the tax codes to include some of these people.
Well…that is raising taxes. (for some folks) Yyou can’t take items off the table when there is a problem. Sometimes things have to be done, regardless of how distasteful.
How about a pledge about no sacred cows?
@Raymond Beverage
While Grover Norquist is clearly a right wing favorite for leading the anti-tax movement, others on the right are wary of him for his alleged support of radical Islam and connections to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. David Horowitz blasted him in a speech at this year’s CPAC convention entitled “The Muslim Brotherhood Inside the Conservative Movement.”
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/02/13/the-muslim-brotherhood-inside-the-conservative-movement/2/
Mr. Norquist, who has never held an elected office, has taken upon himself to promulgate Americans for Tax Reforms’s no tax pledges to conservatives and now it is almost a rite of passage for Republicans and their Tea Party comrades if they wish to hold office at any level of government. If you are a Democrat running in a Republican district, you can be assured that not signing the ATR pledge will more than likely cost you the election. The Americans for Tax Reform have gone so far as to tailor their pledge for governors, state legislators, members of the U.S. Senate and member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
This is the pledge specified for U. S. Senators:
“I,__________________ , pledge to the taxpayers of the state of ______________ , and to the American people that I will:
ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and
TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”
Do you see any room in this unequivocal pledge to negotiate or compromise? I sure don’t.
Candidates sign pledges and make promises to groups in order to gain their support, particularly support in the form of funds to help finance ever costly campaigns. But there is a price to pay for this. Every time a candidate signs a pledge or makes a promise to some special interest group, he or she has begun to paint themselves into a corner when it comes to negotiating or compromising on anything to do with the “T” word or increases in revenue.
And should an office holder violate this pledge, it will come back to haunt him or her at the next primary election or the next time there is a fundraiser. The ATR or special interest group will, “grind his/her bones to make their bread.” The coffers will be bare and a new candidate, highly endorsed by the ATR or some interest group with deep pockets, will be the new favorite child, having sold his or her soul for a few pieces of silver.
I can find nothing in the Constitution of the United States to make such pledges or promises.
The current oath U.S. senators and representatives was enacted in 1884. It states:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and that I will bear truth faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
If they have pledged to the ATR or some other special interest group that they will or won’t do something, then I must ask how do they reconcile their oath of office that states they , “…take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion”? They have already obligated themselves to someone other than the constituents who elected them and have pledged to do their bidding. They are no longer free; when they raised their hand they had mental reservations and they surely will evade their responsibility to, “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office” they are about to enter.
I believe that we should demand that any candidate who seeks our support abandon all such pledges or promises and simply honor their oath of office. They need not sign a pledge; their word will be their bond. Then perhaps words like compromise and negotiate can return to the lexicons of our elected officials free of any blemish.
“I believe that we should demand that any candidate who seeks our support abandon all such pledges or promises and simply honor their oath of office. They need not sign a pledge; their word will be their bond. Then perhaps words like compromise and negotiate can return to the lexicons of our elected officials free of any blemish.”
Absolutely! As long as the words like compromise and negotiate are NOT code words for “Do it the Democrats way or be tarred with the words like “terrorists” and “obstrutionists.”
or the reverse…..do it as the republicans (tea party) way or be tarred with words like “socialis, t” “tax and spend,”and “obstructionists”
That one works both ways.
Just in time for the Sooper Squirrel Committee that will save us all: The Hello Kitty Budget Calculator
http://www.openmarket.org/2011/08/10/just-in-time-for-the-debt-super-committee-the-new-hello-kitty-federal-budget-calculator/
@Moon-howler
But those terms are accurate as terrorist is not. Progressives ARE socialist. Their philosophy descends from the Fabian Socialist movement. Tax and spend….hmmm, yep. See the President’s last speech. Obstructionist? Well, it was Reid that refused to hold votes, not the Republicans. You may not have liked what they were offering, but , at least they put it to a vote.
Obstructionist, capitalist running dog, teahadist, etc….all part of the game.
Terrorist, however, especially now, has certain connotations. Do we really want political opponents calling each other “terrorists?” Real terrorists deserve to be shot.
@Cargosquid
They are not code words for, “my way or no way”, which is what the Norquist pledge is. The pledge for state legislators is even worse:
I, ________________________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _______ District of the
state of ____________________ and all the people of this state that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.
Go here to see it all: http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge
There is absolutely no wiggle room here…
Wow! Who knew that Grover Norquist was a supported of Islamic terrorists!
@Cargosquid
I disagree. I consider myself a progressive leaning person and I am not a socialist. I have spent my entire life opposing socialism. I find being called a socialist very offensive.
I think you have listened to too much Glenn Beck and his war on progressives and his hate on towards Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
Glenn Beck doesn’t get to define modern day progressives. They get to define themselves.
@Cargo, I left off that I did think that the nay sayers over the debt ceiling were holding America hostage in exchange for their ideas. I don’t think that is the same as calling them terrorists but I suppose that depends on one’s orientation to hostage taking.
Pelosi has announced her picks. Clyburn and VanHollen. I can’t remember the other off the point at the top of my head.
I hope they haven’t signed any pledges.
Xavier Becerra
Is that all the picks, now? Do we know who’s playing shirts and skins?
Clyburn? really?
Agreed. His helping co-found the Islamic Free Market Institute and the IFMI accepting money from terrorist organizations was not a smart move and the IFMI got in a jam over that one back in the big raids of 2002. Being tied in with Abramoff didn’t help his image either.
I find it most amusing with his stand to reduce government his wife works for USAID – one organization that really needs an overhaul in my book.
@Moon-howler
You can call yourself anything you want, but the Progressive political movement is a socialist movement. Just because you don’t support socialism and name yourself a progressive, does not change that fact. That’s not from Glenn Beck, but from Political Science 101.
From Wiki: In the United States there have been several periods where progressive political parties have developed. The first of these was around the turn of the 20th century.[6] This period notably included the emergence of the Progressive Party, founded in 1912 by President Theodore Roosevelt. This progressive party was the most successful third party in modern American history. The Progressive Party founded in 1924 and the Progressive Party founded in 1948 were less successful than the 1912 version. There are also two notable state progressive parties: the Wisconsin Progressive Party and the Vermont Progressive Party. The latter is still in operation and currently has several high ranking positions in state government.
Today, most progressive politicians in the United States associate with the Democratic Party or the Green Party of the United States. In the US Congress there exists the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is often in opposition to the more conservative Democrats, who form the Blue Dogs caucus. Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold,[7] Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, John Conyers, John Lewis, and Paul Wellstone.
Socialists.
http://www.fabians.org.uk/publications/publications-news/review-spring-2010-splash
Perhaps you need to re-label yourself. From my observation, you fit the American Liberal mode quite nicely, which is different from the Progressive movement.
European progressives are not the same as American progressives. Those who would identify as progressives in this country are somewhat liberal but more on the social side. That is why I say I am somewhat progressive because I am pro-choice and feel that birth control is a right.
Cargo, you don’t get to define a movement. I read the same list in Wiki–not the definitive work on all things in political science.
I think you are wrong. And you don’t get to label me. I am not a liberal. I can tell you about 10 glaring reasons why I am not.
You have been Becked. You are also looking at the definition that is 100 years old. Do you think the Republicans are the same party as Lincoln or the Democrats are the same as they were under Jefferson? Of course not.
@Cargo, next thing I know you will be telling me I am not an Episcopalian or a Christian.
@Moon-howler
Well, I may be many thinks, but for this, I’m not “Becked.” I understood this definition 30 years ago when I was taking Political Science. The term “progressive” is defined as a certain socialist movement. If you want to call yourself a Progressive and define it another way, go ahead. But you will be pigeonholed as a socialist by those that don’t know you.
As for liberal, why shouldn’t you be considered a liberal, if you are a “progressive?” I’m curious. And when I mean liberal, I’m talking about those that were Democrats in the 70’s and 80’s. Tip O’Neil type of liberal. The kind that would have a beer with Reagan.
Being pro-choice is not all that defines you as a progressive, is t? You seem to be in favor of the standard Democrat platform. You agree more often than not with the Democrat actions in government. You seem to support more gov’t centralization in many things. You feel that someone has to be “in charge” in the government and politics.
Actually that does sound progressive….
Episcopalian OR a Christian? Aren’t those equal?
Besides, I’m Roman Catholic. You’re an evil heretic that needs to repent and rejoin the Holy Mother Church. 😈
That’s right….the one true faith as I was once told.
And no, E and C aren’t equal, as you just pointed out.
@Cargosquid Anyone who believes that the government knows best what to do with your money, that more and more of it should be pulled out of the economy and put into the hands of ideologically-driven spendthrifts who refuse to rein in any other spending, is a socialist. As Morris Davis says, there is no wiggle room here.
I don’t know of anyone who is suggesting that. How about some specifics.
@MH. In your view, what distinguishes a progressive-leaning person from a socialist?
I have always viewed a socialist as being to the left of a progressive, but basically adhering to the same world view, which is that the purpose of government is to level the playing field and re-distribute money from those with “excess” wealth to those who are needy.
A socialist is someone who adheres to socialism.
what distinguished a progressive person from a socialist? What distingusihes a conservative learning person from a fascist?
@Cargosquid
I suspect you wouldn’t know a socialist if you bumped into one. it is simply a term you read somewhere in a Political Science book written by some nerd who didn’t know what one was either. Maybe you’re not an Episcopalian or a Christian, but is it possible you are a Communist?
I think Cargo is a Muslim. His hero, Mr. Norquist, supports Islamic terrorists.
A socialist is one who adheres to the philosophy: From each according to ability, to each according to need. This is not all that different from what modern progressives advocate or what is pushed by many on this blog who want to make the rich “pay their fair share”.
I think that is a rather simplistic version of what being a socialist means in today’s times, no disrespect to Karl Marx.
Well …. I asked you what your definition was, but you gave a smart-@ss answer.
@Moon-howler
A fascist is a socialist. A conservative, of the American sort, is one that wants LESS government and an adherence to the Constitution and supports more traditional social mores.
@George S. Harris
@Starryflights
Well, since I have worked with socialists and know socialists of the “dyed in the wool” sort, yeah,…I know socialists. I’ve even had experience with real communists. As for Norquist being “my hero.” EEEEEEENNNNNNNNNCCHHH. Wrong answer. I don’t follow him or read his material. He’s just another talking head.
And the question “maybe your’re not an Episcopalian…..” is directed at whom? Me? Makes no sense……
So, George, Starry, Why do you two support political philosophies that redistribute wealth through force?
Many years ago I ate dinner with what felt like half the communist party if KBG is any measure. Our state dept was there also so don’t make that phone call. I had to go to dinner with Russian fossil fuel scientists. Their KGB was …I still remember it all to this day…memorable.
Why were you working with communists, Cargo?
I wasn’t working with them, I just knew them. We’ve had very long involved discussions over beer. It was while I was working in NATO. They were Italian communists. One of my wife’s friends identifies closely with communists.
Anyway….
I have a question for those that want “balanced revenue increases.” Do you expect those taxes to be dedicated to paying down the deficit or to be used for even more spending? The candidates are against increased taxes because increased taxed are never used to pay down the deficit or debt but leads to increased spending.
Instead of increasing existing taxes, lets invent a new tax. Everyone pays. It will be dedicated to paying down the debt. 1% of income. You get a dollar from anywhere, you pay one penny. Only fair, right?
I am not sure that I do want across the board tax increases. If we had some sort of national sales tax to pay down the deficit then yes, I would want it dedicated.
I don’t like the word ‘spending’ because it is vague, ambiguous and also code. If the ceiling were raised on FICA then I would want those funds to go into the SS fund and not used like an ATM anytime there was a shortage. If the tax codes were adjusted so only 30% of the population didn’t pay taxes, I would not necessarily want that dedicated. I might want it to go so a disproportionate amount of MY taxes weren’t used to take up the slack that person wasn’t paying.
I suppose my answer would be, ‘depends.’
Spending means outgo. Period. And if we raise taxes, more spending programs will be created. Doesn’t matter what they are spending on…..social programs, “stimulus”, defense, etc.
The politicians are trying to get a VAT tax added to the code. Of course, if they succeed, prices will skyrocket. And that tax income will not be dedicated to paying down any deficit/debt. The government has NO plans at this time to reduce spending and the debt.
That is some prognostication, Cargo. It also might mean fund that which is already there.
I don’t like blanket statements. It allows one to paint one’s self in the corner.
What if we tweaked the tax code to pick up a low-end 15% more taxpayers? Would that be adding taxes?
@Moon-howler
I rely on history. When was the last time we actually cut spending since 1949? Yes that would be adding taxes. An I don’t think that we’ve ever had a tax dedicated to paying off debt.
I don’t have a problem with expanding the tax base. I want to lower the tax rates and expand the base.
WWII is almost paid for. How did that debt get paid off? I don’t believe it just happened.
OMG–I wish I had Cargo’s crystal ball. At the very least I would be a political advisor or perhaps I could set up shop in a side show with Ringling Brothers.
As to the last time we cut spending, I don’t know how Bill Clinton did it but he left Bush 43 with a surplus which he immediately pissed away with tax breaks for his rich buddies–nice going Bush. I wish Cargo had looked in his crystal ball, he might have been able to advise Bush not to do that. But alas, the ball was fogged up that day with male bovine merde or something.
WWII’s debt is paid off? Really? When did we have a surplus? If you mean that we’ve paid that much money towards the debt…yeah. But that debt is still there, part of the entire debt.
As for that surplus, it was paid for by taking the money from the SS. I’m sorry, you’re right. We had a 2% drop by Dec 31, 2000, after rising during the rest of his term.
12/31/1993 CLINTON $4,535,687,054,406 9%
12/31/1994 CLINTON $4,800,149,946,143 6%
12/31/1995 CLINTON $4,988,664,979,014 4%
12/31/1996 CLINTON $5,323,171,750,783 7%
12/31/1997 CLINTON $5,502,388,012,375 3%
12/31/1998 CLINTON $5,614,217,021,195 2%
12/31/1999 CLINTON $5,776,091,314,225 3%
12/31/2000 CLINTON $5,662,216,013,697 -2%
36% increase over term of Presidency.
What I was talking about was the fact that we paid 90+ billion in 1945 and were paying 38 billion in 1949. REAL cuts.
Of course, “Bush’s pissing away” the surplus….had nothing to do with enacting programs developed with bipartisan support like the Prescription drug plan or the wars AUTHORIZED by Congress. And the jobs created by Bush,who had an average 5.6% unemployment rate,even though he came in with a recession, exacerbated by 9/11 and then had Katrina, were, in part, BECAUSE he cut taxes. Like Obama is fond of saying, the current tax rates are SAVING jobs…..just think out bad it would be if Obama had allowed the taxes to jump on all Americans. That’s what allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would do. Of course, raising them on small business owners that make $250,000/year would have not hurt, right? And where’s your condemnation now? Obama reenacted them. If it was so bad, he should have vetoed the bill and let them expire.
But, hey, you get a second chance to kill the economy come the end of 2012. And you’ll get all those nice Obama…sorry, HCR taxes kicking in, along with the new CAFE rules on all vehicles, including a 25% increase on fuel efficiency on big rigs. AND they want to force farm vehicles to be registered as commercial vehicles so they can be regulated. The drivers will need CDL’s and fall under the laws concerning commercial vehicles.
You like more taxes? Here ya go: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576443893352153776.html
Get ready for 70% marginal tax rates.
And the sad part? We could tax the “rich” at 100% and not affect THIS year’s deficit, much less the planned spending coming up.
I just realized something. I wrote this: “and the jobs created by Bush”
Bush did not create jobs. He provided an environment that allowed business to grow.