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.
I did not here anything on the tax sliding scale for the wealthy the major hold up. Republicans just keep digging their hole deeper with that archaic stance Are they hoping they will get thrown some scraps as in medieval times. If that was gone we could go to work on solving our place in the world recession problem and adjust our government to it until it upturns as it always does Too bad there are not laws against legislators lobbyists that deliberately harm the welfare of our country. There are laws for everything else spitting on sidewalks running red lights but oh no not this.
Grover Norquist has the Republican party by the throat. The last time one individual held this much power over the Congress and the People was in the 1950s and the individual's name was McCarthy.
referencegirl wrote:
"What is up with the Reagan nostalgia? 1. You cannot effectively compare the current state of our economy to the economy at the time he was in office. 2. Reagan fathered trickle down economics, raised taxes on low and middle income folks, decreased taxes on the rich, eradicated wage and price controls (which is why we get paid significantly less then we used to in comparison to the cost of goods and living), and profoundly increased defense spending. It only worked for the rich and even then, only in the short-term.
Grover's partisanship is disgusting. I am tired of hearing bias attacks aimed at specific people. Honestly, the other guests on the show were much more tolerable."
What you have to remember is that Reagan, as with most politicians, pandered to those (the aristocracy) who wanted to hear what he had to say. And so they venerated him and continue to do so.
However, when the final chapter of the history of the world is written (whenever that happens), Mr. Reagan will not be viewed in so positive a light. Reagan, and his like-minded minions, did no good service in helping this country to commit economic suicide. The only real difference between Reagan and Norquist is that one is no longer living.
Somehow I don't think the first part of the show went the way Diane thought it would.
Somehow I don't think the first part of the show went the way Diane thought it would.
I did not get to listen to the show yesterday - so have just been responding to comments on the topic - but I just finished listening to it. In hindsight, having read the 7 pages of comments, mostly attacking Grover Norquist, considering what I was expecting to hear, I could not believe how respectful and direct he was. That his appearance on the show has been met with such venom on this mb tells me that he is touching a nerve with liberal progressive Democrats and their sacred cows of taxing and spending.
By the way, at the very end he was absolutely right about the ugly parts of PPACA kicking in after the election - in fact many of them come in 2014, just before the mid-terms. I can't wait.
ecgberht wrote:
"I don't dispute them ... the FACTS do"
Yes, I meant B. Even your own analysis of 1T - 2.6T is near enough to mine. There is a reason I think percentages count. I wanted to respond to your condescension at TheJoker "educating" him about Reagan's contribution to the Nat'l Debt.
He tripled it. Yet he is revered by the very people who decry this sort of governance as treasonous. Hypocrisy.
"Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected."
I have already stated my position on what I think was wrong with the stimulus. It had nothing to do with shovels.
"Utter nonsense.... President Obama has not offered a Constitutionally required budget that the Congress would pass since he became President."
Yeah, that Bush didn't include them in his budget is indeed confusing to me. It's some kind of nonsense, surely.
At least you were honest enough to qualify, "that the Congress would pass." The POTUS has presented a budget every year.
Remember when the Congress voted on Paul Ryan's budget and the Dems voted "present?" It added a little Schadenfreude to the political theater. It is the Congress' role to pass a budget. So... Continuing Resolutions, the odd debt-ceiling hostage-taking, continued abuse of the filibuster. SNAFU
I find your usage of the phrase, "Constitutionally required" flawed at best, more likely pejorative.
"If percentages make you feel better..."
In "real 1980's dollars", it exploded under Reagan.
President Reagan faced a Recession nothing like what Obama faced. Reagan wasn't stuck with two foreign wars (one of which was based purely on lies).
I have serious differences with the POTUS; but for now, the debt isn't one. History can instruct you as to why it's not the most pressing concern at the moment, in my opinion. That's a whole different discussion, though.
Norquist starts off by misrepresenting the Patriot's response to "No Taxation Without Representation." Today we have representation, and the plutocrat's Romney-Ryan was voted down in 2012. The GOP now have a mandate to raise taxes on his 2% class. Bet he thinks America is a Christian Nation too, eh?
Fits with his distorted mindset. But i will go back now and listen a bit more... .
I didn't tell the politicians to sign a pledge, America just figured it out? He talks to us as if we are children. Is he for real? The Plutocrats all live in a bubble of sycophants. Get over it Norquist -- who elected you. I hear the TEA party chant: "Run Grover, Run. " Do us all a favor, man up and run for office.
Don't worry Lindsey. We all know the TEA Party has a target painted on you -- but wait, Grover's put in a good "serious" word for you -- he's got ya back, bud... .
Reagan, a Hollywoodland movie star. Just like Eastwood or Heston. An actor. The Wizard of Oz pulling levers on a stage for the Faux News sheep.
Sorry, I can't listen to any more of his sour grape slop (29 minutes -- total waste). But thank you Diane, for trying to get inside the head of a plutocrat. I'll listen to Norquist again the day he decides to run for public office. He can wallow in his self-pity until that day -- for all i care.
Before Reagan we had Savings and Loan to finance and build our homes. Then we had the Reagan S&L crisis and the S&L here became a Savings Bank. Reagan ushered in the Shareholder economy -- Americans are no long stakeholders we are all about greedy profits and our share. Banks started building houses and eventually credit default swaps. The Shareholder economy -- what's in it for me. Look at Texas after the 2012 election, TEA Party secession -- they are un'Merican if you ask me... .
ecgberht: you don't see the fiscal cliff? you believe Norquist has the good of the nation at heart? Let him run for office -- not go out and BUY off politicians.
Back in the day of real Tea parties. They would have spit 'bakker juice on a plutocrat like Norguist.
@CaptainHowdy
A lot to respond to but little time, so I'll just pick a few:
"The POTUS has presented a budget every year."
Did not receive a SINGLE Yea vote in the House or the Senate. Hmmmm.
"I find your usage of the phrase, "Constitutionally required" flawed at best, more likely pejorative."
You can "find" anything you're looking for, Cap'n. Yeah, and I disagree with Obama's policies so I'm also a racist. Got it. Why can't a fact just be a fact any more? BTW, a budget was also Constitutionally required each year for Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson .... Jefferson, Adams, Washington.
"President Reagan faced a Recession nothing like what Obama faced. "
"History can instruct you "
Honey, it's you who needs the history lesson. Reagan faced UE in the double-digits and INTEREST RATES the same, which President Obama did not have to deal with thanks to the Fed. I worked at a bank in the early 80's. I got a break as an employee on my mortgage rate; 9% fixed. Most people were paying 11 or 12 adjustable! Remember that, Cap'n? You like to harp on the rise of the debt under Reagan on a percentage basis; actually a lot of Reagan's deficit spending was on defense; domestic spending, which was out of control under Carter, was brought in line in Reagan's first term. That defense spending, turns out, led to the breakup of the Soviet Union, our most dangerous enemy. To me, that makes it worthwhile.
As for why debt is a "pressing concern"? Because when you owe somebody they own you. That's why.
Robert Long View wrote:
"ecgberht: you don't see the fiscal cliff? you believe Norquist has the good of the nation at heart? Let him run for office -- not go out and BUY off politicians."
Skipped most of your stuff after the first one, but my moniker caught my eye on this one.
Sure I see the fiscal cliff. I also see a double-dip recession if we go off it. Obama may be able to successfully blame Republicans NOW, but HISTORY will record it as the "Obama" recession, not the "Republican" recession. Like they told you in school, "you don't want that on your permanent record". Clinton gets credit for a great economy even though it was largely due to Repubican fiscal policy under Gingrich and the Contract with America, and the inflating of the Internet bubble. When Bush took office, the bubble had burst and the economy was headed toward recession.
BUT, you never hear any of that! All you hear about is "the great Clinton economy and the Clinton surplus".
See how that works?
That is why I think that, if the Republicans stick to their guns on tax rates, and President Obama understands the hit his Legacy will take with a double-dip recession, he will have to blink.
And yes, not only do I think Grover Norquist has the good of the country at heart, I think he is a patriot.
By the way, this whole "Grover Norquist was never elected" is beginning to get on my nerves. So what? Most citizens haven't been. What does that make us? Chattle? Not surprising that the "Government is the answer" crowd would take that stand however.
Guess what? None of the following were elected to national office:
Thomas Paine, Sam Adams (appointed by committee to the Continental Congress, but wasn't elected by the people), Paul Revere or Samuel Prescott, Patrick Henry, Molly Pitcher (she couldn't even VOTE much less hold office!), Nathan Hale, Daniel Shays, John Paul Jones.
Perhaps you would consider them "traitors" too, as Grover Norquist has been labeled by the left? You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
feel very old writing this down -
it was an interesting show - but I missed the beginning, was bothered by the sense of vacuum / lack of framework for much of what I heard, maybe it was provided before I tuned in
thought we all agreed along the way that the super-wealthy elite could exploit those less well born & educated, or less motivated in pursuit of the Am. dream because the super-wealthy would pay a significant level of the financial gains back through taxation and via philanthropy.
(btw - is this not the essence of Reagan's trickle-down??)
what is the current minimum wage, how many are employed at that wage at this time, (when was it last raised, and by how much?)
I continue to vote and at one time was deeply involved in gathering information about the issues of the day but no longer feel the information is as relevant as it should be.
Shouldn't a person with a job such as Mr. Norquist has taken on bring the realities of social justice into the conversation from time to time.
we hear about how hard the super-wealthy have worked to become so, (versus the 47% of slacker workers paying no fed inc tax or those not working for wages at all) and that may well be, but when a chasm exists such as we now see between those who have and those who have not, even an idiot can see - the necessary funds to run the show must come from those who run it, or the whole thing will implode.
from here it just looks like the end of the beginning of the implosion that's all - this too will pass.