A Conversation with Grover Norquist
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-07-14/conversation-grover-norquist
Time is running out for Democrats and Republicans to negotiate to raise the federal debt ceiling. The U.S. will default on its loans in nineteen days, unless politicians reach agreement. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell warned the Republican brand could be “destroyed” if congress allows the government to default.. But many in his party have dug in against a compromise. And anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist is holding Republican lawmakers to the pledges his organization asked them to sign, opposing any tax increases. He joins Diane to discuss taxes, spending and debt negotiations.
Guests
Grover Norquist
president, Americans for Tax Reform
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I am sorry that I missed the first part, but will listen again later. I wanted to know how he thought we should have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Irag. He was happy to criticize President Obama for the "surge" in Afghanistan but still said nothing about paying for it, something this administration has failed to do, as did the previous.
I am also shocked at the ego demonstrated by this man. He spoke repeatedly of his visions for our nation. If he has a vision let him run for office and hang it all out for the public to judge. In the meantime it is simple to bully candidates into signing a pledge which prevents them from being able to govern. It is very well when things just go along smoothly and there is no need to increase expenditure. But when there are emergencies or wars elected leaders have to make difficult decisions.
Someone has described him as a lobbyist and that is what he is. Shame on those stupid enough to fall for his pledge and to actually believe they should sign it, or who are so cowardly to try to govern with this thing hanging over them.
monte wrote: "If his mild mannered approach causes this much unrest in the liberal ranks ..."
Um, monte? I don't think it's his manner that's upsetting people. I think it's his ideas, which are indeed radical. Perhaps you didn't notice that because you were so soothed by his manner.
Nope, monte, Grover struck ignorant in the hearts of the fearful, but was otherwise a dancing clown. If I was an Oligarch I wouldn't give him another penny. Check your ear wax.
I'm disappointed and distressed that Diane revealed her bias against Norquist's ideas during the interview. It was as if she simply could not listen to him. While I'm not surprised by the ad hominem attacks in most of the comments here, I am surprised by the adversarial quality of the interview.
I usually like the Diane Rehm Show because it provides all points of view. Why did Grover Norquist go unchallenged on you show by an opposing point of view? Did he request that?
Wow, annew is surprised that Diane did her job. annew needs to sign a pledge to not listen to NPR. (not capable)
When he says that the top 50% is paying the larger portion (percentage) of the "total" tax debt. He is absolutely correct. But what percent of the wealth is owned by the top 50%?
If you have a church with two people in it, the person that tithes from $100,000 will tithe $10,000 while the person making $10,000 a year will tithe $1000. Grover would complain that the $100k earner is paying over 90% of the total church budget. The interesting perspective is the poor person is tithing from their poverty while the $100k person is tithing from his wealth.
His approach answers what I believe is the wrong question. The real question is, what percentage of the income is being taxed on the top wealth in this country? Not the possible percent but the actual every day rate. Find a CEO in the top 100 companies in this country who pays the same or higher rate as his secretary, and you have just won a million dollar bet payable from Warren Buffett.
Two questions:
1. Political power and ethics: Many thoughtful observers (e.g., retired Judge Lee Sarokin) worry about the potential conflict between the Congressional Oath of Office and the tax pledge. How can he counsel House and Senate members about their ethical obligation to decide "without mental reservation" — especially since he isn't subject either to that oath or to the voters?
2. Taxing small business: I'm a small businessman. My startup decision was based on all the usual entrepreneurial analyses — demand, capitalization needs, competition, cash flow, suppliers, margins, etc., etc. None of my considerations about existing or prospective taxes — rates, national/state/local, etc. — could possibly have stopped me from taking the risk. On the contrary, if they had been significant enough to stop me, the business plan would have been doomed from the outset.
Now that a very significant percentage of potential customers remain unemployed, I'd be thrilled to pay more taxes if those taxes could provide them with jobs or otherwise give them the means to pay me for services they need. Why shouldn't I pay for increased demand? ... especially when that (additional) tax bill will be a lot less than my (additional) investments in inventory and staff I'd make to meet that demand?
Two questions:
1. Political power and ethics: Many thoughtful observers (e.g., retired Judge Lee Sarokin) worry about the potential conflict between the Congressional Oath of Office and the tax pledge. How can he counsel House and Senate members about their ethical obligation to decide "without mental reservation" — especially since he isn't subject either to that oath or to the voters?
2. Taxing small business: I'm a small businessman. My startup decision was based on all the usual entrepreneurial analyses — demand, capitalization needs, competition, cash flow, suppliers, margins, etc., etc. None of my considerations about existing or prospective taxes — rates, national/state/local, etc. — could possibly have stopped me from taking the risk. On the contrary, if they had been significant enough to stop me, the business plan would have been doomed from the outset.
Now that a very significant percentage of potential customers remain unemployed, I'd be thrilled to pay more taxes if those taxes could provide them with jobs or otherwise give them the means to pay me for services they need. Why shouldn't I pay for increased demand? ... especially when that (additional) tax bill will be a lot less than my (additional) investments in inventory and staff I'd make to meet that demand?
I want to thank you Diane for your in-depth interview with the Dictator and new President of (the wouldbe totalitarian) United Repukes of America.
I think his next interview should be with the organizers of Dancing with the Stars because I have never seen someone who danced around the truth in trying to deceive the general public with your simple questions of his past pronouncements.
What an artful dodger!
It is a shame to see this great Republic being held hostage to such a flake!
The Founding Fathers of this country must be having many a restless night.
There are certain guests who deserve an entire hour of the show dedicated to themselves. By the number of posts for this one that is made self evident. Diane did not lay a glove on him and you liberals are on a hissy fit.
Mike Sergeant is right, everybody's looking at Obama, but it is congress that has authority over financial and budgetary policy. As with many other issues, I doubt whether congress is working well.
Diane has shows with guests representing different views, but she also has shows with one guest. For example, she has previously had Michael Moore on by himself.
I do despair, though, that there are so often representatives of the Cato Institute or Heritage Foundation on her panels. These groups are all created and funded by a small group of very well-off people trying to market a singular ideology - government is bad - by making it sound as if it is coming from a variety of "specialists". How about a show on that? Why would we want people who believe government has no redeeming qualities running the government? They are not true conservatives, they are ideologues who think compromise means losing.
Diane, love your show, but Grover ran rings around the subject matter unfortunately. not your fault. he's just well scripted after 24 years of working on his story. sorry also that the one caller who started out by using the word "traitor" had to be stopped. the bigger Grover problem is that he truly is violating the precepts of constitutional pledges by presenting a pledge that will conflict with an elected official's constitutional pledge to support and defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. the moment an official's duty to increase taxes bumps up against Grover's pledge, the official has a choice. raise taxes or obey Grover. Grover said the pledge is not to him; however, he wrote the pledge and put words in the official's mouth just like insurance companies force policy holders to sign away their judicial rights. his team will surely attack that official the moment his pledge is violated. sounds just like the german officer's pledge to Hitler before WWII. obey me or die a political death.
Just one of many points that highlight the madness of conservatism: He wants to end subsidies on ethanol producers and still lower their taxes so there won't be a "net gain" Wow, what nonsense. In other words, their profits are almighty (even when our government creates them) and paying their fair share back into the system is abandoned. It is clear that the conservative "ideals" are for the weak minded and fools. This is clearly demonstrated whenever one of them speaks. If this guy has so much merit, let him run for office and let's see how far he can promote his toxic theories. Unfortunately, this one is happy working behind the scenes and creating rust from within. And he is attached to the NRA? Are you kidding? This person is incredibly dangerous indeed.
(Growin) - Well put and to the point. I too would love to hear programs on the deceptions and charades created by conservatives that are delivered as mainstream. What is truly sad is that there are so many that fall for it. Fortunately, the greater majority of Americans are not conservative.
Since the popular analogy from the Consertvatives seems to compare the U.S.A. with the American Citizens household budget, let me offer a simple rebuttal.
Having a Politician promise not to raise taxes, while allowing them to spend as they wish, is like me telling my wife and child, not to worry about how much they spend, for I promise not to make more money, to pay the bills!
The conservatives didn't starve the Beast. They fattened It up, put it on the credit card, and now refuse to pay!
The Democratic party tries to fight fair, using Marquis of Queensbury protocol, against an opponent who seems ONLY to know how to hit below the belt.
At approximately 10:45, Hassan from Texas called in to ask for Norquist's view on the the Republican role in creating the deficits between 2001 and 2008. He also asked if there was any tax the Grover Norquist liked.
Mr Norquist ignored the comment on the Bush deficit spending and did not answer the callers question. Doesn't anyone remember how the neocons (mostly Norquist's chums) promised that Iraqi oil would pay the cost of the war. And I regret to comment that I agree with the perjoritive used by the caller you cut off before the Hassan call. Norquist, Abramoff & Friends have done more damage to the political life this great country than any other grouping.
Please, Diane, no more softball interviews.
I will be very disappointed in DR if there isn't a solo appearance SOON of a well known proponent of the opposite view from Norquist's. This show should have been balanced, but since it isn't, hopefully her programming will balance it with a solo opportunity for rebuttal - soon. I am a long-time listener and this is the first time I have written about the show. Come on, Diane, do the right thing!
Was one of his suggestions actually to lower the pay for government employees? He was comparing the salaries of private sector workers with government workers and concluded that government workers were paid considerably more (I would like to see some factual data on that). With the overwhelming majority of government workers in the middle class, this seems like another vote for widening the gap between the rich and average person. Of course, we know what the Republicans _really_ want, which is to privatize everything so they can profit off the companies taking over and run things in their own interests. It has nothing to do with helping America or improving the state of things. I do agree that we need more transparency on government spending, but the solution is not to dismantle government (which is at least supposed to be for the PEOPLE) and turn everything into corporations (which are solely interested in themselves). I vote to raise taxes for the good of the country, and I would only vote for a GOP candidate that either has NOT signed this pledge, or one that will break it if they did.
I think your show is great, Diane. And, I am all for not allowing name calling. But Grover! Why even give him the air time to "spread" his anger and meanness! He is just horrible and so smug! Grover is not helping any of us; he is just trying to destroy as much as he possibly can. Please Diane, stick to guests how are trying to help and not destroy us! Thank you!
Thanks Diane for exposing a true moron on the American tax front. I'm sure his lobotomy scar was evident in the studio. It's astonishing that people of such obviously low intelligence can get a national platform. Don't we want people who represent us to be smarter than us. This guy makes Ben Qualye and Sarah Palin look like Mensans.
Would that every journalist pursue questions as doggedly as Diane Rehm! GOOD FOR YOU, this is one of the best programs you have broadcast. Grover Norquist made statements he would not substantiate and you refused to accept his dodges and hedges are real answers. The "Emperor" has no clothes and you let him prove it. Thank you for such tenacious questioning.
In replying to MG (ean-reene) Drew Kelly posited that $250K per year is not alot of income. If it isn't then why would the same people who don't want that amount and above taxed at a slightly higher rate begrudge public sector employees a much lower salary even including their retirement and "cadillac insurance plans"? A fallacy of sub-speciation (classism) is occurring which assumes there is a special category of rugged individualist business people who are more capable and more deserving than the rest of us. I submit that many in such a category may be only more selfish and corrupt (no loyalty to the community). They disproportionately use resources and the talent of others in a cruel and wasteful way. I think any thinking person must wonder why, if 250K is such a quotidian amount, why it is not the minimum US wage. Logic dictates that such might be possible if incomes and wages were capped at a reasonable level. (Grover would espouse competition, but what good is competing if 95% of the people wind up losers. That's a failed state, works only for a greedy and uncaring few.) Why must we live in terror?
After listening to todays show I threw up from being dizzy from all the back tracking and skirting the real issue at hand. Simply this man represents a political side that is hell-bent on grabbing every god damn dime for his rich friends. These people will not be satisfied until the United States of America is under one party only and the middle class no longer exist. Wealthy elitist, out of touch with reality will soon reign fully over every aspect of our lives. They will never have worry about government services when they takeover, for the poor and middle class we will be their government servicers trapped at low income and all within a legal and upper class devised slave labor system... Aka 3rd world...
After listening to todays show I threw up from being dizzy from all the back tracking and skirting the real issue at hand. Simply this man represents a political side that is hell-bent on grabbing every god damn dime for his rich friends. These people will not be satisfied until the United States of America is under one party only and the middle class no longer exist. Wealthy elitist, out of touch with reality will soon reign fully over every aspect of our lives. They will never have worry about government services when they takeover, for the poor and middle class we will be their government servicers trapped at low income and all within a legal and upper class devised slave labor system... Aka 3rd world...
After listening to todays show I threw up from being dizzy from all the back tracking and skirting the real issue at hand. Simply this man represents a political side that is hell-bent on grabbing every god damn dime for his rich friends. These people will not be satisfied until the United States of America is under one party only and the middle class no longer exist. Wealthy elitist, out of touch with reality will soon reign fully over every aspect of our lives. They will never have worry about government services when they takeover, for the poor and middle class we will be their government servicers trapped at low income and all within a legal and upper class devised slave labor system... Aka 3rd world...
I listened to Norquist. I work in Financial Services, an NRA member, and a Conservative Liberal. Let me share with you a few facts that makes Norquist totally Irresponsible and not too smart.
First of all, the 401K is a failure. Taking Social Security and putting money for younger people from defined benefit (when both spouses die money goes back in the fund for others) verses the Defined Contribution (when both spouses die, goes to kids who spend it in 18 months). Defined Contribution provides more money to Beneficiaries than the 401K. The average 65 year old has $55,000 in their 401K plus Social Security.
Norquist is irresponsible suggesting having a defined Contribution instead of defined benefit like the present Social Security system.
Thirty years ago, there were 150,000 defined benefit plans, today there are 50,000, mainly Congress, Unions, and government employees. I worked for a Fortune Five Corporations, they did away with the defined benefit pension, halved my and 150,000 other older employees lost 50% of our DB Pension that was put in a "Vapor Profit" fund of $40 Billion that even with reduced revenue, was used to boost Profits that increased CEO pay who was paid 80% in stock. He walked away after 9 years with $2.4 Billion and I wound up with 23% of my final ten years average salary and no COLA and no health care.
100,000 Defined Benefit Pensions were stolen, thanks to Congress allowing it and the Corporations got away with it. The Babyboomers are having a tough time and many will never retire even with the fact that at age 65, half of them will have some physical disability that prevents them from working full time.
Next came George W Bush, getting us into two Unfunded wars, costing One Trillion dollars, and cutting taxes by 4.6% on people making $250,000 a year. Then there is the Capital Gains taxes, that 1% of our country enjoy at 15% who pay little in taxes. Warren Buffet pays 17% while his Secretary pays over 35%.
Norquist is obviously a paid advocate for the Richest 1% in this country and cares less about the 99% of us, many who have not seen wage increases in 30 years, just debt.
Norquist does not address health care costs that is the result of Price Fixing with a Monopoly of Medical Billing tied together with a nationwide network of computers Fixing Prices to ensure 7% Profit Annually resulting 17% of GDP and climbing. We have 900,000 families, 3 to 4 million people who declare Medical Bankruptcy due to Medical Bills and NO ONE is outraged.
Australia has Universal Health Care for everyone that costs 9% of GDP, 2% of their 48% Marginal Tax rate, and doctor visits are $45, a voucher after the visit sent in to Medicare who in turn verify the treatment and send the patient a $25 check. $20 is their cost. Australians can also get Private additional health insurance to enhance their treatment, but they cannot opt out of the basic Universal Health Care. Australia does not have Family Medical Bankruptcies.
In September 2008, George Bush had increased the national debt nearly $5 Trillion to nearly $10 trillion. Where was Norquist then? He went to war, increased Defense Spending $400 Billion and cut taxes by the same amount. A small grooup of people made a LOT of money.
One has only to read the comments(tho I did listen to the show) to see that Diane enabled Norquist in the worst way. I expect better from NPR, and will go elsewhere for serious, probing political interviews. I still like you Diane, but you've lost your edge.