Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), of the Gang of Six, all but renounced the letter — if not the spirit — of the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” he signed, saying on Meet the Press Sunday that he would accept a net tax revenue increase (i.e. one obtained by broadening the tax base and eliminating some tax benefits) so long as it didn’t include an increase in rates.
“Which pledge is most important… the pledge to uphold your oath to the Constitution of the United States or a pledge from a special interest group who claims to speak for all American conservatives when, in fact, they really don’t?. . . . The fact is we have enormous urgent problems in front of us that have to be addressed and have to be addressed in a way that will get 60 votes in the Senate. . . and something that the president will sign.”
”Where’s the compromise that will save our country?. . . This isn’t about politics that is normal.”
Here’s the vid:
ATR’s Grover Norquist, principal Coburn’s belligerent on the tax issue and the man who publicly called on him to drop out of the bipartisan Gang of Six deficit negotiations, was not happy with the senator’s interview, telling Politico that Coburn had “lied his way into office”:
“The pledge that Tom Coburn signed was to the citizens of Oklahoma. He made that promise in campaigning for Senate in Oklahoma.
Coburn said on national TV today that he lied his way into office and will vote to raise taxes if he damn well feels like it never mind what he promised the citizens of Oklahoma. Sen. Coburn knows perfectly well that the pledge is not to any organization but to the citizens of his state. He lied to them, not to Americans for Tax Reform.
Before this recent television comment, Coburn told me personally in a phone call that he would not vote for a tax increase and repeated his commitment in writing in a public letter to me.
Ok, Grover, elaborate. How do you define a "tax increase?" Paul Ryan wants to lower rates and close loopholes too.
Is it closing the mortgage interest deduction? Is it any legislation that causes taxes as a percentage of GDP to recover from the 50 year low of 14% it's currently at to normal levels? Is it instituting or raising ANY tax or tarrif, anything at all that would conceivably cause even one person to have a higher tax bill than before??
That, you imbecile, CANNOT be done, even if every person on the panel were an Ayn Rand disciple.
Coburn's record has been immaculate. He doesn't have to prove himself to a schyster like you.
Coburn is dead wrong; and this is a telling sign that whatever the "Gang of 6" comes up with will be a turd sandwich.
Govement is spending too much. Period. To remedy that by giving Government power to take more is absurd. Never mind the fact that higher taxes would likely result in lower growth and lower overall tax revuenues.
When Coburn was running for office, the only thing going for him in my mind was the fact that he was Republican. However, over time, I have come to respect him as someone who can do the math that our president can't do and that so many Americans don't want to do. I'm with him - I do not think we can cut our way out of this. However, I do want to broaden the tax base (as he does) - all except the working poor need to feel the pain of the goodies that they keep voting for themselves. Norquist came to Georgia to help with our tax redistribution - his plan ended up raising taxes on the middle class and cutting it for the poor and the rich - some of the Dems did spreadsheets and the Repubs were horrified about what they had bought into - fundamentally robbing their base to help the Dems base.
ATR needs to show so flexibility if they actually expect to get any reforms. Perhaps they should change their name to Americans for Tax Reductions since they don't really care much about reform....just reductions.
20% of GDP is not going to kill capitalism or our country. Default would.
As I understand it, Coburn is agreeing to close loopholes *without* lowering rates. So, this would not be revenue neutral and by any definition seems to me to be a tax increase.
I'm not a huge Norquist fan, but Coburn is agreeing in principal to a tax increase.
I'm not sure at this point I'd support a tax decrease, but a tax increase in a shaky economy is generally accepted to be a bad thing. Fact of the matter is, we have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem. It's been amply shown that increasing income tax rates on high earners to some truly frightening levels is not going to close the hole in the budget. The only way we get there from here is with significant spending cuts combined with economic growth.
Of course, Obama and the rest of the left have completely demagogued the issue by claiming that the Republicans want to throw grandma into the street and make her eat cat food. How utterly predictable.
Good luck with that argument around here. Reminding folks that we could - and should - raise taxes modestly out of the basement levels they are currently at is tantamount to declaring yourself a socialist, here in the comment section.
Coburn, Chambliss and Crapo no doubt are sincerely trying to get control over the debt problem.
On the other hand, if Obama was really concerned about the debt, he would not have made the first budget proposal he made.
For Obama and Durbin, the gang of six talks hold out hope of taking the most damaging issue (debt and spending) off the table for the 2012 election and could result in that long-hoped for split between tea party Republicans and establishment Republicans. Their only hope for regaining the House is to split the Republican party and credibly paint the Tea Party as extreme.
I'm not willing to even discuss a guest worker program, let alone amnesty for some illegal entrants, until the borders are secure.
And I'm not willing to even discuss tax increases until serious spending cuts have been put into law.
Period.
Because politicians lie whether they run as Republicans or Democrats. (I am more exercised about "conservative" politicians who lie to me than about politicians who lie to Democrat voters.)
This is where conservatism gets truly mindless... not one dollar more in taxes, from anybody, no matter what the circumstance? In an era when our debt and deficits is already out of control?
Think Ronald Reagan would take that pledge?
Conservatism is about sensible government that holds the rights of the individual as paramount. And tax policy must be viewed as another policy tool - to be used judiciously, of course, and commensurate with the kind of government we want and need.
There's another agenda at work with Norquist and ATR, and it truly smells bad.
Norquist is really off the reservation on this..... it makes perfect sense to simplify the tax codes and eliminate loopholes and deductions intended to encourage or discourage specific behaviors (the mortgage interest deduction for example). Norquist's orthodoxy is placing him in opposition to the bedrock conservative principles of tax simplification and fairness.
I worked in the tax structure business and I am well aware of how much money is at stake to the corporations with the various tax loopholes and incentives.
Getting rid of tax incentives and the corrupt crony capitalism that results is much more important to reducing the size of government in the long term then the exact overall rate of taxation. Simplifying the tax code and removing deductions is the key to reigning in big government. Either Norquist is in the pocket of the big corporations who thrive on the current corrupt system or he is just shortsighted......either way Coburn would be wise to ignore him.
You seem to be working under the delusion that the federal deficit is a result of too little tax revenue, when in fact the federal government is pulling in within a few percentage points of the 19% of GDP that seems to be the max federal tax revenue our economy will support.
On the contrary, the problem is not too little tax revenue but far too much federal spending. You simply cannot extract enough tax revenue from the economy to support current spending levels. And, if by some miracle you were actually able to extract enough revenue from the GDP to cover current expenditures, the political class would quickly remedy that situation by further spending increases. This problem is only solvable through significant spending cuts coupled with economic growth. You will never solve the deficit problem by increasing the amount of money the federal government siphons out of our economy.
I'm with Coburn. The taxpayer protection pledge is about not increasing tax rates. If you just keep rates the same, tax revenues will go up. Is Norquist seriously suggesting that this is a violation of his pledge?
Obviously TheFish is a pinko-commie-moonbat that hates America....
Seriously, tax receipts are a tiny part of the problem. If you tinker with the tax code to get receipts up to historic averages, the deficit is still 1.3 Trillion. The trajectory of entitlements is not changed by jacking up taxes.
This gang of six nonsense is nothing but bad news. The "compromise" they come up with will be the typical stuff we from bipartisan deals. The Left get 90% of what they want the right gets screwed. You just know this deal will involve tax hikes today for spending cuts ten years from now.
But, the pantywaist-can't-we-all-get-along crowd runs this country. They will accept suicide as long as everyone is on board with it.
Seems we're hearing different versions, Michael. My understanding is we're talking something along the lines of Simpson-Bowles. Lower rates, rid the code of a lot of junk deductions. Not ideal, but I'd be okay with it.
We have reached a point of "**** or get off the pot," in my opinion. When the bond markets start raising an eyebrow, it's getting extremely risky to yet again start primarying incumbents and kicking this past the next election. We've been doing this for a LONG TIME. The RINO hunters want perfection, but we've simply run out the clock. We need a solution to this thing very quickly, perfect or not.
If the next couple of elections strengthen our hand, fine, we can improve on it later. But we don't have the luxury of satisfying every noisy, self-appointed arbiter of what is and isn't conservatism anymore.
As I asked last week....how can closing a 'loophole' be considered (by any sane, rational thinker) a tax 'increase'? There was a tax -- the government, through lobbies, created a 'loophole' so certain folks, corporations, etc didn't have to pay the full tax ---just a partial part of it(if anything at all, hello GE?)...so to close a loophole, you are only going back to what was --and what everyone else pays.
Norquist is a fool, an imbecile, intellectually dishonest and not to be taken seriously by anyone ---Republican, Democrat or other.
Seems to me that Coburn has become a useful idiot for the Left.
Their playbook is not that hard to figure out:
1. Increase government spending by massive amounts
2. Huge deficits created
3. "Solve" deficit by rasing taxes
4. End result: Permanently bigger government
The only solution that will actually "solve" the problem is cutting spending. Period.
Grover Norquist badly damaged his credibility and the credibility of his organization when he started denouncing people, including Senator Coburn, for wanting to get rid of the ethanol subsidies boondoggle.
For the love of all that is Holy please stop saying "Gang of X". It is incredibly dumb.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf it comes with huge spending cuts, I'm with Coburn on this one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOk, Grover, elaborate. How do you define a "tax increase?" Paul Ryan wants to lower rates and close loopholes too.
Is it closing the mortgage interest deduction? Is it any legislation that causes taxes as a percentage of GDP to recover from the 50 year low of 14% it's currently at to normal levels? Is it instituting or raising ANY tax or tarrif, anything at all that would conceivably cause even one person to have a higher tax bill than before??
That, you imbecile, CANNOT be done, even if every person on the panel were an Ayn Rand disciple.
Coburn's record has been immaculate. He doesn't have to prove himself to a schyster like you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCoburn is dead wrong; and this is a telling sign that whatever the "Gang of 6" comes up with will be a turd sandwich.
Govement is spending too much. Period. To remedy that by giving Government power to take more is absurd. Never mind the fact that higher taxes would likely result in lower growth and lower overall tax revuenues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Coburn. Norquist needs to calm himself down and face reality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen Coburn was running for office, the only thing going for him in my mind was the fact that he was Republican. However, over time, I have come to respect him as someone who can do the math that our president can't do and that so many Americans don't want to do. I'm with him - I do not think we can cut our way out of this. However, I do want to broaden the tax base (as he does) - all except the working poor need to feel the pain of the goodies that they keep voting for themselves. Norquist came to Georgia to help with our tax redistribution - his plan ended up raising taxes on the middle class and cutting it for the poor and the rich - some of the Dems did spreadsheets and the Repubs were horrified about what they had bought into - fundamentally robbing their base to help the Dems base.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseATR needs to show so flexibility if they actually expect to get any reforms. Perhaps they should change their name to Americans for Tax Reductions since they don't really care much about reform....just reductions.
20% of GDP is not going to kill capitalism or our country. Default would.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShawn,
As I understand it, Coburn is agreeing to close loopholes *without* lowering rates. So, this would not be revenue neutral and by any definition seems to me to be a tax increase.
I'm not a huge Norquist fan, but Coburn is agreeing in principal to a tax increase.
I'm not sure at this point I'd support a tax decrease, but a tax increase in a shaky economy is generally accepted to be a bad thing. Fact of the matter is, we have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem. It's been amply shown that increasing income tax rates on high earners to some truly frightening levels is not going to close the hole in the budget. The only way we get there from here is with significant spending cuts combined with economic growth.
Of course, Obama and the rest of the left have completely demagogued the issue by claiming that the Republicans want to throw grandma into the street and make her eat cat food. How utterly predictable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Cupertinokid,
Good luck with that argument around here. Reminding folks that we could - and should - raise taxes modestly out of the basement levels they are currently at is tantamount to declaring yourself a socialist, here in the comment section.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCoburn, Chambliss and Crapo no doubt are sincerely trying to get control over the debt problem.
On the other hand, if Obama was really concerned about the debt, he would not have made the first budget proposal he made.
For Obama and Durbin, the gang of six talks hold out hope of taking the most damaging issue (debt and spending) off the table for the 2012 election and could result in that long-hoped for split between tea party Republicans and establishment Republicans. Their only hope for regaining the House is to split the Republican party and credibly paint the Tea Party as extreme.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not willing to even discuss a guest worker program, let alone amnesty for some illegal entrants, until the borders are secure.
And I'm not willing to even discuss tax increases until serious spending cuts have been put into law.
Period.
Because politicians lie whether they run as Republicans or Democrats. (I am more exercised about "conservative" politicians who lie to me than about politicians who lie to Democrat voters.)
Never forget 'Read My Lips'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is where conservatism gets truly mindless... not one dollar more in taxes, from anybody, no matter what the circumstance? In an era when our debt and deficits is already out of control?
Think Ronald Reagan would take that pledge?
Conservatism is about sensible government that holds the rights of the individual as paramount. And tax policy must be viewed as another policy tool - to be used judiciously, of course, and commensurate with the kind of government we want and need.
There's another agenda at work with Norquist and ATR, and it truly smells bad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNorquist is really off the reservation on this..... it makes perfect sense to simplify the tax codes and eliminate loopholes and deductions intended to encourage or discourage specific behaviors (the mortgage interest deduction for example). Norquist's orthodoxy is placing him in opposition to the bedrock conservative principles of tax simplification and fairness.
I worked in the tax structure business and I am well aware of how much money is at stake to the corporations with the various tax loopholes and incentives.
Getting rid of tax incentives and the corrupt crony capitalism that results is much more important to reducing the size of government in the long term then the exact overall rate of taxation. Simplifying the tax code and removing deductions is the key to reigning in big government. Either Norquist is in the pocket of the big corporations who thrive on the current corrupt system or he is just shortsighted......either way Coburn would be wise to ignore him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ TheFish,
You seem to be working under the delusion that the federal deficit is a result of too little tax revenue, when in fact the federal government is pulling in within a few percentage points of the 19% of GDP that seems to be the max federal tax revenue our economy will support.
On the contrary, the problem is not too little tax revenue but far too much federal spending. You simply cannot extract enough tax revenue from the economy to support current spending levels. And, if by some miracle you were actually able to extract enough revenue from the GDP to cover current expenditures, the political class would quickly remedy that situation by further spending increases. This problem is only solvable through significant spending cuts coupled with economic growth. You will never solve the deficit problem by increasing the amount of money the federal government siphons out of our economy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm with Coburn. The taxpayer protection pledge is about not increasing tax rates. If you just keep rates the same, tax revenues will go up. Is Norquist seriously suggesting that this is a violation of his pledge?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObviously TheFish is a pinko-commie-moonbat that hates America....
Seriously, tax receipts are a tiny part of the problem. If you tinker with the tax code to get receipts up to historic averages, the deficit is still 1.3 Trillion. The trajectory of entitlements is not changed by jacking up taxes.
This gang of six nonsense is nothing but bad news. The "compromise" they come up with will be the typical stuff we from bipartisan deals. The Left get 90% of what they want the right gets screwed. You just know this deal will involve tax hikes today for spending cuts ten years from now.
But, the pantywaist-can't-we-all-get-along crowd runs this country. They will accept suicide as long as everyone is on board with it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeems we're hearing different versions, Michael. My understanding is we're talking something along the lines of Simpson-Bowles. Lower rates, rid the code of a lot of junk deductions. Not ideal, but I'd be okay with it.
We have reached a point of "**** or get off the pot," in my opinion. When the bond markets start raising an eyebrow, it's getting extremely risky to yet again start primarying incumbents and kicking this past the next election. We've been doing this for a LONG TIME. The RINO hunters want perfection, but we've simply run out the clock. We need a solution to this thing very quickly, perfect or not.
If the next couple of elections strengthen our hand, fine, we can improve on it later. But we don't have the luxury of satisfying every noisy, self-appointed arbiter of what is and isn't conservatism anymore.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs I asked last week....how can closing a 'loophole' be considered (by any sane, rational thinker) a tax 'increase'? There was a tax -- the government, through lobbies, created a 'loophole' so certain folks, corporations, etc didn't have to pay the full tax ---just a partial part of it(if anything at all, hello GE?)...so to close a loophole, you are only going back to what was --and what everyone else pays.
Norquist is a fool, an imbecile, intellectually dishonest and not to be taken seriously by anyone ---Republican, Democrat or other.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeems to me that Coburn has become a useful idiot for the Left.
Their playbook is not that hard to figure out:
1. Increase government spending by massive amounts
2. Huge deficits created
3. "Solve" deficit by rasing taxes
4. End result: Permanently bigger government
The only solution that will actually "solve" the problem is cutting spending. Period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGrover Norquist badly damaged his credibility and the credibility of his organization when he started denouncing people, including Senator Coburn, for wanting to get rid of the ethanol subsidies boondoggle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse