reply to post by OccamsRazor04
Ahead of the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts, an influential activist known for enforcing GOP anti-tax absolutism is reinterpreting his
famous pledge, making it harder for Republicans to compromise in a way that ultimately raises federal revenues.
All but a handful of congressional Republicans have signed — and strictly adhered to — Grover Norquist’s pledge to “oppose any and all
efforts” to raise taxes or revenues. But the White House’s insistence that President Obama will veto attempts to extend all of the Bush tax cuts
creates a new incentive for Republicans to cut a deal with Democrats after the election. For that reason, Norquist is insisting on an interpretation
of his pledge in which failing to prevent a tax increase — or even voting to partially cut a lapsed rate — would constitute a violation.
Not the greatest source, but I think it's credible for these purposes.
Your stance that Norquist exerts no control over those who sign his document, which happen to be the majority of the Republican party, is not
Here, we have a situation where tax cuts passed under a previous administration expiring constitutes a violation of the pledge. No EO wants to have
their honor in question. So, they will all vote against the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts. Any time one person has an agreement signed by another
they hold some measure of control over them.
Signing this pledge means a gradual lowering of tax rates or keeping them the same, even if the government is facing a severe deficit. It is different
than some campaign promise because of a different level of accountability.
Would Republicans vote against expiring tax cuts regardless of signing? Maybe. But at least they would have a choice.
This represents possibly the most extreme example of the Norquist pledge coming back to haunt EO's. There is no opportunity to go back on a tax cut.
The Bush Cut's brought taxes below the norm, and now there is no going back to the norm for Republicans.
Maybe the most effective tactic for the democratic party would be to say, alright no taxes at all. Let's pass a bill that creates a zero tax society.
This is obvious madness. But if the bill were passed, the Republicans would be faced with either doing the correct thing and raising taxes to a
reasonable level or violating the pledge.
While the legality of the pledge is vague, I think it's fair to say that it violates the spirit of the Constitution and Founders. We need a flexible,
compromise oriented government in such a pluralistic society. Not one where congressman sign a document that says, "We won't do this under any
circumstance." Regardless of what "this" is.
As the Republican National Convention begins this week, one of the party's most powerful players is neither a candidate, nor a speaker, nor a
delegate. He is not a member of Congress, nor the holder of any public office. He's a lobbyist and a conservative activist named Grover Norquist, who
over the years has gotten virtually every Republican congressman and Senator to sign an oath called, "The Pledge." It's a promise that they will
never, under any circumstances, vote to raise taxes on anyone. And so far, Norquist has held them to it. As we first reported last fall, Grover
Norquist, through the pledge, controls 279 votes, including both the speaker of the House, and the Senate minority leader. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan
have signed it. And in the coming campaign, you can be sure that Grover Norquist won't let them forget it.
The issue is, whether the pledge is legal or Norquist's actions legitimate, we have one man exerting a disproportional influence on a large percentage
of representatives from all over the country and preventing flexibility in policy.
Really, the fiasco that ensues when the Tax Cuts expire may be the undoing of Norquist and the Republican party as we know it.
10/3/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)