Anti-Tax Crusader Grover Norquist
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-03/anti-tax-crusader-grover-norquist
Tax policy has never been easy -- for politicians to agree on or for Americans who are not accounting experts to understand. Now we have the so-called fiscal cliff looming over the nation, and the Obama administration and Republican leaders are at a stalemate on how to avert it. Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist has played an outsized role in the debate. Most Republican members of the current Congress have signed Norquist's anti-tax pledge. But with November elections over and the fiscal cliff just weeks away, some pledge-signers have begun to waver. Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform joins Diane to talk about one of life's two certainties: taxes.
Guests
Grover Norquist
president of Americans for Tax Reform.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen
Democrat of Maryland and ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
Rep. Ted Yoho
Republican congressman-elect of Florida.
Video: Inside The Studio
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, talked about the so-called fiscal cliff and his no-tax pledge. Norquist said President Barack Obama's proposal to avoid the fiscal cliff is "unserious," and he proposed broadcasting the negotiations on C-SPAN. "I think he's trying to take us off the cliff and blame other people," Norquist said about Obama. About the public negotiation, Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen replied, "It would be good if Speaker [John] Boehner actually put his plan on paper like the president has so the public can see what it is." Norquist also responded to a listener's question about why he continues to refer to policies enforced under President Ronald Reagan's administration, even though more than 30 years have since passed since Reagan was president.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The hippies and flower children of the sixties who once rebelled against "the man" have become the man. They are mean, nasty control freaks out for revenge . They bludgeon the opposition with a constant drum beat of personal insults and political correctness. Calls of racism, sexism and inequality are their favorite tools to put even the slightest criticism on the defensive. Their only answer or solution to anything is giving more power and control to the man. Their religion is global climate change and wealth redistribution. Personal responsibility and traditional values are quaint outdated ideas that they believe never worked and only suppressed free will. They live for the moment, mob rule supersedes Constitutional rights, decadence is desired. World history on societal and governmental evolution mean nothing to them, their arrogance in believing that the entirety of all human history has led up to this moment for them the enlightened to take control.
Well Diane, I dont think I will donate to your show anymore. Maybe you could ask your buddy Grover for assistance.
The policies that Mr. Norquist advocates are the very policies that caused our current economic collapse. Clearly Bankers and others will work to their self interest and the harm of everyone else whenever they must choose. This is why government regulation is needed.
The Republican policies of the past 30 years have created an economy in which only the wealthy see an increase in their income and wealth. For that reason the wealthy need to pick up the slack that nobody else can afford.
In 1781 over 90% of our population were subsistence farmers. Economic and political philosophies appropriate to 1781 do not work in a post-manufacturing economy in which less than 1% of our population farms for a living.
GOP failure to win white house was due to adamant, extremist, egocentric individuals like Noruist within the party who clings onto a view and refuse to change even when the facts and opinions are stacking up against them.
The wealthy get much more from our government than anyone else. In the state of Nature, most would be poor, some might be middle class, very very few would be wealthy, and none at all could be rentiers.
As such it were only fair that those whose lives are so (literally) enriched kick in more, not as an act of charity, but rather as the repayment of a just debt.
(Thanks, Mr Franklin.)
Legislators who sign away their ability to legislate on a significant policy issue are violating their oath of office. Their constituents deserve better. What happened to the notion of Congresspersons casting votes based upon their best judgment and information gained by studying the issue and being exposed to the facts and evidence? It's called leadership, not capitulation.
Mr. Norquist's comment that his pledge is to the American people is ludicrous. Do the American people solicit primary challengers for those who break the pledge? Do they collect donations to fund those opposed to his positions? He has said that this is war, and his "people" need to understand that point. He is not, however, the representative of the American people.
Norquist is, sadly, one of the greatest threats to our Republic. Because of how our system "works" this extremist freak can act as a domestic terrorist and do so with impunity. He needs to take his whack reactionary ideas and scurry off to someplace like Somalia where he and his fellow anarchists would feel right at home.
I am disappointed that the Diane Reem Show is elevating Mr. Norquist to this level. He is not elected by anyone, he does NOT speak for poeple like my wife and I, and our taxes could go up if President Obama's tax plan goes into effect.
Mr. Grover should refer to our President as President Obama, he should disclose who is funding his deceivingly named institution before he speaks in public on a show like yours.
He should just call in as an American citizen, that is the only right he has.
Again no one elected him, he is just another citizen or a mouth piece for his undisclosed donors. His kind ruins democracies.
@ Clifford: you stated "We just had a tax increase proposal to fund our local ports and harbors. The duty of maintaining our waterways was once the responsibility of the Federal Government and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.Today with LOWER TAXES ON THE WEALTHY,the burden has shifted to local property tax payers. NOT FAIR"
Why do you think that federal funds (my tax dollars) should pay to maintain YOUR "local" ports and harbors? I can see federal money maintaining U.S. highways because they cross state borders and are used by all, but once again "local" ports and harbors? What's wrong with this picture?
It's unfortunate that Ms Rehm won't acknowledge that elimination of the massive tax increase that accompanies Obamacare should be considered when addressing our country's options in the face of the fiscal cliff. In her mind, it's simply and solely a matter of whether we tax the rich. How incredibly shallow, and yet, not at all surprising.
@ Gerald Fnord -- uhh, dude, social welfare programs and their current buzillion dollar costs are just a tad different today than those in place in Ben's day. Accurate quote, but totally irrelevant in the 21st century.
Cliamte, you wrote Why do you think that federal funds (my tax dollars) should pay to maintain YOUR "local" ports and harbors? I can see federal money maintaining U.S. highways because they cross state borders and are used by all, but once again "local" ports and harbors? What's wrong with this picture?
My "local port(s)" are on Lake Erie. While these ports are local to me these ports handle at least interstate commerce but more commonly international traffic.
So highways crossing state lines should be Federal, but Ports and Waterways used to move between states but more commonly between different countries shouldn't be Federal? Really?
So who do you want to operate our ports and waterways? The U.N.?
.
At first I was appalled that Mr. Norquist was to be Ms. Rehm's guest today, but I listened with great interest as he spoke disrespectly about the President, ignored facts and clung to his unsubstantiated positions. It was most helpful to hear the rebuttals of the congressman from Maryland. Having Grover Norquist as your guest created another opportunity for listeners to hear facts. Thank you.
That was a very disappointing show. Grover Norquist was far too snarky with his comments regarding tax proposals, and Diane did not challenge the belittling tone (like she normally does with other guests).
One issue that I am utterly fed up with is the tax cuts from George W. Bush. No one ever brings up the fact that these cuts had a 10 year sunset because keeping them in place would have exploded the deficit. Unfortunately, at the planned sunset date, the economy was in free fall and everyone was willing to continue these tax breaks to soften the economic pain everyone was experiencing, and to, perhaps, provide some economic stimulus. We are now at a point where we could better handle these tax breaks expiring - maybe not all of them, but a fair share. I agree with the Democratic proposals to start eliminating those that benefit the more well off, and as soon as we begin to get on firmer ground, continue getting rid of them in their entirety.
On Christian responsibility, I recall the board's attention to the following:
lindacheyenne wrote:
"As a progressive Christian, I do let my religion influence my vote, and my vote will be for the democrats. Jesus taught us to take care of the poor, the sick, the hungry, the widows, all of the people marginalized by the religious right. Democrats in this election are the only ones I can vote for and follow my conscience. There are many different kinds of people who claim to be Christians, I choose to vote for those who do as Jesus commanded."
linda, I think what you meant to say was:
Jesus taught us to abrogate our responsibility to take care of the poor, the sick, the hungry, the widows, all of the people marginalized by the religious right and create government programs to do it instead. Democrats in this election are the only ones I can vote for and follow my conscience. There are many different kinds of people who claim to be Christians, I choose to vote for those who create government programs to do as Jesus commanded so I can use OPM to do it and I don't have to do it myself.
gary k wrote:
"You get what you pay for. If you don't want to pay taxes which keep the highways repaired, should you complain when you dodge pothole after pothole? If the school buildings are in disrepair, should you complain if one of your children is severly injured or killed in a school building collapse?"
Why is it that when liberals complain that Conservatives don't want to pay taxes, they always bring up things that are the proper role of the FG like infrastructure and defense? What we object to, gary, is buying cellphones for welfare mothers, paying farmers not to grow stuff, and something called "Rural Housing Service".
Wonder why there's a Grover Norquist and a Taxed Enough Already paty? Here's your answer:
http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml
I, as the rest of the country, saw the ad that Mr. Norquist claims said "Mitt Romney gave him cancer". It did not! The ad was a man who lost his job through a Bains reorganization and his wife subsequently was diagnosed with cancer and he no longer had insurance. It was a sad story and while it certainly intended to show the Bains drive for profit, it did not leave me with any impression that Mitt Romey gave the wife cancer.
Mr. Norquist, you do not earn creditability with these tactics.
Mr. Norquist goes to great lengths to make sure
that everyone understands that “the pledge” is
with the American people, not with the individual
signatories.
But this assumes that the signatories are in fact
representing the interests of the American people
and not themselves or some other master, a highly
dubious matter at this point.
THX, I think you pretty much nail it that our politics will be much improved after the baby-boom generation is dead, which can't come too soon.
I'm one of them and I sincerely hope you are one, too. You sure sound like it.
Richard Dennis wrote:
"If we go over the FISCAL CLIFF, taxes will go up, The position of negotiation for President Obama will be to lower taxes on the middle class, and raise taxes for the top 2%. I can assure you if I were President and I was re-elected on my platform to raise taxes on the top 2%, I would stand my ground".
So the 98% voted to raise taxes on the 2%. And nobody sees anything morally wrong with that? Next it will be the 96% on the 4%, then the 60% on the 40%. Why the h=== not?! If I can't get it for myself, I can vote a government in that will get it for me!
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy".
We are supposed to be a free and independent people, rooted in self determination and responsibility. Not a fascist state. The 98% voting to raise taxes on the 2% and not on themselves is not a case for self-righteiousness as the left would like us to believe. It is a MORAL FAILING in our country.
pmiles46 wrote:
"The President put a proposal on the table. Why are the Republicans avoiding putting their own proposal on the table?"
They can't be on the "table" because they are lying dead on the "floor" of the Senate.
No, egbert. What Lily was saying is that Liberals prefer their taxes to be spent on the sort of people Jesus tells us to care for.
You have been completely sucked in by this weird idea that Government is some alien outside force that has been imposed on the American people.
Please remember the first 3 words of the Constitution and the last phrase of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. That is what our Government is.
We hear so much about cutting the social side of the equation in the budget, but no one is talking about the defense side of the budget.
So many people in congress get $$$ from Defense contractors, are they willing to cut? HOW MUCH IS BEING CUT FROM DEFENSE BE CUT TO AVOID THE FISCAL CLIFF?
Grover's opening words to you, Diane, and to all listeners was flawed and insulting of our intelligence: he founded his longstanding opposition to taxes on the opposition to taxation by American colonists in the 18th century, while conveniently failing to mention that those taxes were going OVERSEAS to a foreign power -- not to fund domestic government. He's more glib and obviously brighter than that other self-appointed national Republican spokespeson, Russ L, but its time -- finally -- to place his ideas where they belong: on the public policy scrapheap.
I agree with E.J. Dionne, in his column of 11/28:
"Here’s the first lesson from the early skirmishing over ways to avoid the fiscal cliff: Democrats and liberals have to stop elevating Grover Norquist, the anti-government crusader who wields his no-tax pledge as a nuclear weapon, into the role of a political Superman."
Or even giving him on-air time.
Sounds to me like Norquist completly disregards the people that voted for Obama! He ONLY cares about the people that voted for the people that voted for those that signed is pledge.
Are people aware that when they point to Greece or Spain, that one of the main reasons that these countries are the positions that they find themselves in is because the very wealthy have not paid taxes for decades. Collection on taxes in these countries are mostly volunteer and the tax collection dept is very under funded . Taxes have been paid from public workers. So why is that a threat that we will become like greece and spain when we are already on that path and Norquist is trying to keep us there valid?
The Last Moderate wrote:
"Now, this debate is not complicated. It’s easy for Americans to choose sides: Democrats say let taxes rise a little on the most well-off 2% of Americans to help cut the deficit; Republicans say keep taxes low for job-creators to boost the economy. But we’ve got no debate at all on whether to raise taxes for 98% of Americans. Republicans and Democrats say that we cannot let those taxes rise. So that’s something we all agree on, right? But the Democrats say let’s just work together to preserve those low tax rates for the 98% even while we have this debate about the other 2%, and the Republicans say no! There are reasons, of course. But to the American people it looks a frightening hell of a lot like the Republicans are willing to raise taxes on most of Americans! Why on Earth NOT just go ahead and vote for the low taxes for 98% of Americans—I mean how is it possible to be against that— and you can also keep working to get what you want for the other 2%?"
I'll be happy to play on with the charade that you don't actually know the answer and 'splain it to you, 'k? Because if the Republicans endorse the maintenance of the Bush rates for the 98%, the rates for the 2% simply expire and Democrats get everything they want. See? The lower rates for the 2% will never come back as long as there is a Democratic House and/or
Senate, which, as a "moderate", I'm sure is fine with you.
This is a giant game of chicken. I'm betting that, since returning to the old rates will almost surely put us back into recession, and since the President does not want a double-dip as part of his legacy, he will blink. Ugly? Sure. But reality.
THX,
Apt name for SO many noisy posts.........like the THX audio in movies......focusing on the sound and ignoring the content.
Messr Norquist is a one trick pony.....and pours out pettifog, errors, and self agrandisement like a firehose. e.g. His parting erroneous comment included either a lie or a malaprop about the proposed (not yet in force) tax on medical devices - he said it was 20%. In fact the tax on such devices is selective and is only 2%. The tax coming from ACA for those who refuse to be responsible citizens (those who refuse to add their uncovered medical costs on others) by getting insurance is not only a conservative Republican notion, it is a meager reflection of similar requirements throughout the US like auto insurance and licensing fees. Grover has yet to understand that the protections and facilities he USES do not come free. If NPR is so liberal, why do they make such extensive efforts to present alternate views?
Shennanigans!!
By the way, Jesus never said a word about "pull yourself up by the bootstraps". He did repeatedly tell the rich off, not just once but many times......even called them "whitened sepulchres" " full of dead mens bones" and "hypocrites". In one place He pointed out that a destitute widow gave more to the temple than all the wealthy. He made it crystal clear that WE are supposed to SHARE with everyone and said zip about the specifics of doing that.
AlanB wrote:
"No, egbert. What Lily was saying is that Liberals prefer their taxes to be spent on the sort of people Jesus tells us to care for.
You have been completely sucked in by this weird idea that Government is some alien outside force that has been imposed on the American people.
Please remember the first 3 words of the Constitution and the last phrase of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. That is what our Government is."
And what I'm saying is that trying to guilt people with Christian principles with respect to personal responsibility vs. the responsibility of government is dishonest and twists the message of Jesus.
As for the "government is some alien outside force that has been imosed on the American people", that is what is called the "strawman argument". The strawman argument occurs when one party misrepresents the position of the other party and then argues against that misrepresented position. Article 1, Section 8 is very clear on the responsibility of the FG. That's all we're looking for not that government is "some alien outside force that has been imposed on the American people". Infrastructure (roads), defense, mail delivery, patents and a few others. "We the people" as an excuse for every social program is a play to the emotions, when the Articles are very clear as to what the Founders actually wanted. By the way, the things that Article 1, Section 8 lists promote the GENERAL welfare, which is what the Constitution calls for. Payments to any INDIVIDUAL violates general welfare clause in my view - but that's about all the FG does any more.