On Meet the Press, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) dared Republicans to oppose an extension of the payroll-tax holiday, while Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, defended his organization’s decision not to label the holiday’s expiration as a tax increase.
When host David Gregory asked whether the Senate would agree on an extension of the holiday, which expires at year’s end, Schumer played pundit. “It’s hard to believe the Republicans would oppose this,” he said. “They’ve spent so much time fighting to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the millionaires, it’s hard to believe they wouldn’t want to preserve a tax cut for the middle class.”
Later, Gregory confronted Norquist over his organization’s decision to consider the expiration of the Bush tax cuts — but not the expiration of the payroll-tax holiday — a tax increase. Norquist replied:
The reason why people view the one-year tax holiday that Obama put in a year ago as a temporary tax increase was that President Obama said it was going to be temporary when he put it in. When the Republicans in the House and Senate passed the ’01 and ’03 tax cuts, those were, as their advocates said, intended to be permanent. They weren’t for reasons of Democratic filibusters, but they were always intended to be permanent tax reductions. Obama was the guy who said that this was a tax holiday — calling it a tax holiday kind of suggests they viewed it as temporary. Holidays aren’t permanent.
Gregory also asked both men about Newt Gingrich’s ascendancy in the polls. Schumer responded with damning praise: “I give him some credit for not just blowing with the winds on an issue like immigration. That showed some real courage, and I think people are looking for courage and leadership.”
Norquist, meanwhile, used the question to warn Mitt Romney. “Newt’s put together a fairly radical, robust tax-reform proposal; I think the most written-out one is now Rick Perry’s,” Norquist noted. “I think Romney put his plan in very early, [he] needs to update it to catch up with sort of where the debate’s going.”
Watch Norquist’s comments on Gingrich and Romney below.
Romney's expertise exceeds that of the other candidates. Romney is a team player who can bring others together to get things done. Gingrich is a divider who polarizes and increases the potential of gridlock. Romney is the better choice among Republican candidates.
The Republican's should put out a series of ads saying that "Democrats are bankrupting Social Security by not having it funded by the payroll tax! Democrats want seniors to starve and die by drying up the Social Security "Lock Box." I mean--isn't turn about fair?? Just a thought. ;-)
Grover is excellent...he does not let Butt Monkeys like David Gregory ("Yes, but...") mislead or reframe his core argument.
Republicans should run toward him ... not away. But of course, that would require guts.
Simple, simple argument. The democrats want more tax revenue because they want more government spending. We believe there is too much government spending and sending more money to Washington DC is precisely the wrong action to take.
Cut first..then look at revenues. But cut...deeply first.
Of course it would help if the Republicans actually believed that.
It is nice of our unelected leader, Grover Norquist, to tell us when it is okay to raise taxes and when it isn't.
Of course, our unelected leader, Grover Norquist, has declared that failure to extend the temporary Bush tax cuts would be a tax increase.
So let me get that straight. Some temporary tax cuts are "really" temporary and therefore okay to let expire. Other temporary tax cuts are "actually" permanent and therefore cannot be allowed to expire. Who decides? Grover Norquist, of course!
I guess when you sign a pledge to Grover Norquist, whatever he says goes.
Remember when he told Senator Coburn that ending wasteful ethanol tax credits would be considered a tax increase. Never mind that such tax credits are basically equivalent to spending the same amount of money on ethanol.
When you sign Grover Norquist's pledge, he owns you. He will tell you what to do. And my goodness, you had better listen!
And you had better believe that your pledge to our unelected leader, Grover Norquist, is far more important than your pledge to uphold the Constitution and to do your duty to render independent judgment on behalf of the American people.
Leftwing Democrat's solution to everthing is to jack up everybody's taxes.
This alone is why they should lose every election.
Is is a tax increase if you don't extend the Bush tax cuts. People will pay more taxes. You can engage in all the doulblespeak you want, but people understand that when their taxes go up, it's a tax hike.
You can support whatever policy on taxes you like without signing a pledge that allows Grover Norquist to decide when it is okay to end a tax credit and when it is not. Or when it is okay to allow a temporary tax provision expire and when it is not.
Why are Republican politicians signing away their Constitutional duty to exercise independent judgment on behalf of the American people to Grover Norquist?
You are letting your policy preferences blind you to the bigger issue. And that is, no Republican politicians has a right to sign a pledge requiring them to take orders from Grover Norquist.
I respect Senator Tom Coburn, precisely because be properly put his pledge to uphold the Constitution over his pledge to Grover Norquist.
That Senator Coburn chooses to follow the Constitution rather than empower an unelected lobbyist does not make him some sort of tax and spend liberal.
I'm not sure what the heck the Constitution has to do with Tom Coburn being your typical smarmy Republican who signs an anti-tax pledge to get elected, and then voiolates it the first change he gets. Nobody forced him to sign the pledge and I don't think it's hard to understand the pledge.
I never said Coburn was a tax and spend liberal, but II do think he okay with raising taxes in the name of reducing the deficits and debt caused by spending and borrowing.
He basically said this already. I hope a conservative runs against Coburn and Coburn loses.
Don't sign a pledge if it's just for show. Coburn is a dishonest politician and I see no reason why we have to praise him.
Tax hikers need to run as Democrats or get lost. Either option works for me.
We are not undertaxed in America. A lack of tax revenue is not what lead to the deficits and spending. If taxes had nothing to do with the deficits and debt, it logically followis that raising taxes should not need to be part of the solution. Period.
When, oh when are we going to make a distinction between increased revenue from higher tax rates and increased revenue from ridding the tax code of needless--and fundamentally unjust--complexity that exists for the benefit of a few at the expense of many?
As I understand it, Sen. Coburn was talking about the latter, not the former, and I for one am with him. Our mantra should be broader base, lower rates. It may (probably will) increase revenues, but so what? That revenue can decrease the deficit and ultimately the debt--if Congress can summon the will to do so.
I think politicians have an obligation to be citizen represenativies, not do whatever they want, which you call "indepednent judgement".
If people voted you in on the basis that you will hold the line on taxes, and you then support higher taxes, you have exercised "independent judgment" and you should be willing to acccept the consequences of that on election day. Nobody goes to vote for pols who are just going to do whatever they want...it's about doing what we want.
This doesn't have jack to do with the Constitition, and I'm not sure how an Obama supporter like you can even bring up the Constitution with crediblity. Does the Constitition give the government the authority to fire the CEO of a private sector company like Obama did with GM? I don't think so. I don't see an individiual mandate as constitiontional either.
Why the heck are these 'elected' individuals having their strings pulled by a NON-ELECTED member of the general public ?? the repugs have ZERO spine to do whats right and are playing to the threats of the 1%
You'd have a point if Republican voters were demanding Coburn raise taxes.
I know that isn't happening because Republicans don't support higher taxes. We pay too much as it is.
Again, the reason Coburn signed the pledge was he knew it would help him get elected by the people he wanted to represent. Violating the pledge is essentially Coburn flipping off the people that put him in office. To make Coburn as some champion of the Constitution in this instance is absurd.
As as Obama supporter, why do you spend so much time on National Review's comment boards?
The concept of "violating" the pledge is incoherent.
The pledge is contrary to the Constitution and therefore illegitimate. It is therefore a nullity and not binding, morally or otherwise.
In fact, members of Congress have an obligation to follow their pledge to the Constitution instead, which requires that members of Congress exercise independent judgment in the execution of their duties.
The Constitution does not force politicians to sign pledges or to adhere to them. Therefore, it follows logically that a pledge has nothing to do with the Constitution and your point is absurd.
You seem obsessed with raising taxes. Grover Norquist lives in your head rent free. I find that quite odd and a more than a little disturbing. Are you losing sleep because your tax rates have not gone up yet under Obama? Weirdness.
I see that you continue with this brain dead line of thinking.
The idea that someone may make a decision you don't like, then actually stick with it really does bother you.
They did excercise their independant judgement, when they signed the pledge. The signing of that pledge was also a factor when voters decided who to vote for.
The reality is that you are desperate for any argument to support your desire that govt have more of other people's money, so that you don't have to worry about getting a job.
And, you on the Fascist Corporate Plutocracy side think everything can be solved by tax cuts for the people who don't need them: big corporations and wealthy people. Ya know, if you and Darth Vader (Norquist) don't like being taxed, take the advice of the patriotic millionaires and renounce your citizenship in the US and move to Somalia; they've got a really small government and lay no taxes. People are beginning to wake up to the Axis of Evils' FCP plan...if you think that plan's going to work, you've got another thing coming.
Politicians signed the Norquist pledge because they believed doing so would help them get elected. They will honor their pledge until, and only until, they determine that breaking their pledge will help them get elected. Norquist knows he can't overplay his hand, so, in accord with the Republican leadership's current position, Norquist says that permitting the temporary Bush tax cuts to expire is a tax increase, whereas permitting the temporary payroll tax cuts to expire is not, ostensibly because Obama referred to the payroll tax cut as a holiday. This is sophistry, and not even very good sophistry. Norquist knows it and the Republicans know.
The Republicans should not raise taxes during a recession, and I'm pretty sure they won't. They will extract what concessions they can, and then they will vote to continue the payroll tax holiday another year, and every employed person in the US will have more money in his or her paycheck every payday next year.
Romney's expertise exceeds that of the other candidates. Romney is a team player who can bring others together to get things done. Gingrich is a divider who polarizes and increases the potential of gridlock. Romney is the better choice among Republican candidates.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Republican's should put out a series of ads saying that "Democrats are bankrupting Social Security by not having it funded by the payroll tax! Democrats want seniors to starve and die by drying up the Social Security "Lock Box." I mean--isn't turn about fair?? Just a thought. ;-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's class warfare, on behalf of the top tier of taxpayers. Norquist reveals his doublespeak hypocrisy when it comes to tax cuts. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGrover is excellent...he does not let Butt Monkeys like David Gregory ("Yes, but...") mislead or reframe his core argument.
Republicans should run toward him ... not away. But of course, that would require guts.
Simple, simple argument. The democrats want more tax revenue because they want more government spending. We believe there is too much government spending and sending more money to Washington DC is precisely the wrong action to take.
Cut first..then look at revenues. But cut...deeply first.
Of course it would help if the Republicans actually believed that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSchumer is so very often interested in political power over what's best for the country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is nice of our unelected leader, Grover Norquist, to tell us when it is okay to raise taxes and when it isn't.
Of course, our unelected leader, Grover Norquist, has declared that failure to extend the temporary Bush tax cuts would be a tax increase.
So let me get that straight. Some temporary tax cuts are "really" temporary and therefore okay to let expire. Other temporary tax cuts are "actually" permanent and therefore cannot be allowed to expire. Who decides? Grover Norquist, of course!
I guess when you sign a pledge to Grover Norquist, whatever he says goes.
Remember when he told Senator Coburn that ending wasteful ethanol tax credits would be considered a tax increase. Never mind that such tax credits are basically equivalent to spending the same amount of money on ethanol.
When you sign Grover Norquist's pledge, he owns you. He will tell you what to do. And my goodness, you had better listen!
And you had better believe that your pledge to our unelected leader, Grover Norquist, is far more important than your pledge to uphold the Constitution and to do your duty to render independent judgment on behalf of the American people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLeftwing Democrat's solution to everthing is to jack up everybody's taxes.
This alone is why they should lose every election.
Is is a tax increase if you don't extend the Bush tax cuts. People will pay more taxes. You can engage in all the doulblespeak you want, but people understand that when their taxes go up, it's a tax hike.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can support whatever policy on taxes you like without signing a pledge that allows Grover Norquist to decide when it is okay to end a tax credit and when it is not. Or when it is okay to allow a temporary tax provision expire and when it is not.
Why are Republican politicians signing away their Constitutional duty to exercise independent judgment on behalf of the American people to Grover Norquist?
You are letting your policy preferences blind you to the bigger issue. And that is, no Republican politicians has a right to sign a pledge requiring them to take orders from Grover Norquist.
I respect Senator Tom Coburn, precisely because be properly put his pledge to uphold the Constitution over his pledge to Grover Norquist.
That Senator Coburn chooses to follow the Constitution rather than empower an unelected lobbyist does not make him some sort of tax and spend liberal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not sure what the heck the Constitution has to do with Tom Coburn being your typical smarmy Republican who signs an anti-tax pledge to get elected, and then voiolates it the first change he gets. Nobody forced him to sign the pledge and I don't think it's hard to understand the pledge.
I never said Coburn was a tax and spend liberal, but II do think he okay with raising taxes in the name of reducing the deficits and debt caused by spending and borrowing.
He basically said this already. I hope a conservative runs against Coburn and Coburn loses.
Don't sign a pledge if it's just for show. Coburn is a dishonest politician and I see no reason why we have to praise him.
Tax hikers need to run as Democrats or get lost. Either option works for me.
We are not undertaxed in America. A lack of tax revenue is not what lead to the deficits and spending. If taxes had nothing to do with the deficits and debt, it logically followis that raising taxes should not need to be part of the solution. Period.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen, oh when are we going to make a distinction between increased revenue from higher tax rates and increased revenue from ridding the tax code of needless--and fundamentally unjust--complexity that exists for the benefit of a few at the expense of many?
As I understand it, Sen. Coburn was talking about the latter, not the former, and I for one am with him. Our mantra should be broader base, lower rates. It may (probably will) increase revenues, but so what? That revenue can decrease the deficit and ultimately the debt--if Congress can summon the will to do so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you deny that Senators and Representatives have a duty to exercise independent judgment under our Constitution?
The pledge signers are all in violation of that most basic duty.
Senator Tom Coburn has stood up for the Constitution. For that, he should be congratulated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think politicians have an obligation to be citizen represenativies, not do whatever they want, which you call "indepednent judgement".
If people voted you in on the basis that you will hold the line on taxes, and you then support higher taxes, you have exercised "independent judgment" and you should be willing to acccept the consequences of that on election day. Nobody goes to vote for pols who are just going to do whatever they want...it's about doing what we want.
This doesn't have jack to do with the Constitition, and I'm not sure how an Obama supporter like you can even bring up the Constitution with crediblity. Does the Constitition give the government the authority to fire the CEO of a private sector company like Obama did with GM? I don't think so. I don't see an individiual mandate as constitiontional either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy the heck are these 'elected' individuals having their strings pulled by a NON-ELECTED member of the general public ?? the repugs have ZERO spine to do whats right and are playing to the threats of the 1%
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey represent citizens, yes. They do not sign pledges and do whatever generally less informed citizens expect them to do.
We elect individuals, not policies.
You need to contemplate the difference between a representative republic and a direct democracy.
This has everything to do with the Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou'd have a point if Republican voters were demanding Coburn raise taxes.
I know that isn't happening because Republicans don't support higher taxes. We pay too much as it is.
Again, the reason Coburn signed the pledge was he knew it would help him get elected by the people he wanted to represent. Violating the pledge is essentially Coburn flipping off the people that put him in office. To make Coburn as some champion of the Constitution in this instance is absurd.
As as Obama supporter, why do you spend so much time on National Review's comment boards?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe concept of "violating" the pledge is incoherent.
The pledge is contrary to the Constitution and therefore illegitimate. It is therefore a nullity and not binding, morally or otherwise.
In fact, members of Congress have an obligation to follow their pledge to the Constitution instead, which requires that members of Congress exercise independent judgment in the execution of their duties.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Constitution does not force politicians to sign pledges or to adhere to them. Therefore, it follows logically that a pledge has nothing to do with the Constitution and your point is absurd.
You seem obsessed with raising taxes. Grover Norquist lives in your head rent free. I find that quite odd and a more than a little disturbing. Are you losing sleep because your tax rates have not gone up yet under Obama? Weirdness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI see that you continue with this brain dead line of thinking.
The idea that someone may make a decision you don't like, then actually stick with it really does bother you.
They did excercise their independant judgement, when they signed the pledge. The signing of that pledge was also a factor when voters decided who to vote for.
The reality is that you are desperate for any argument to support your desire that govt have more of other people's money, so that you don't have to worry about getting a job.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd, you on the Fascist Corporate Plutocracy side think everything can be solved by tax cuts for the people who don't need them: big corporations and wealthy people. Ya know, if you and Darth Vader (Norquist) don't like being taxed, take the advice of the patriotic millionaires and renounce your citizenship in the US and move to Somalia; they've got a really small government and lay no taxes. People are beginning to wake up to the Axis of Evils' FCP plan...if you think that plan's going to work, you've got another thing coming.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePoliticians signed the Norquist pledge because they believed doing so would help them get elected. They will honor their pledge until, and only until, they determine that breaking their pledge will help them get elected. Norquist knows he can't overplay his hand, so, in accord with the Republican leadership's current position, Norquist says that permitting the temporary Bush tax cuts to expire is a tax increase, whereas permitting the temporary payroll tax cuts to expire is not, ostensibly because Obama referred to the payroll tax cut as a holiday. This is sophistry, and not even very good sophistry. Norquist knows it and the Republicans know.
The Republicans should not raise taxes during a recession, and I'm pretty sure they won't. They will extract what concessions they can, and then they will vote to continue the payroll tax holiday another year, and every employed person in the US will have more money in his or her paycheck every payday next year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse