More GOP lawmakers say 'It's Over, Grover.'
Republicans looking at the fiscal cliff seem to be rethinking the party's nuance-less "no new taxes" orthodoxy in Washington.
More GOP lawmakers say 'It's Over, Grover.'
Thomas Fitzgerald, Inquirer Politics Writer
It may be a trial balloon, or it may be a real movement, but a growing number of Republican lawmakers are now saying they are willing to junk the Grover Norquist pledge they signed to oppose all tax increases if it would help get a deal to avert the “fiscal cliff.”
Sen. Bob Corker (R.,Tenn.) was the latest to publicly distance himself from Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform advocacy group, speaking Monday on CBS This Morning. “I’m not obligated on the pledge,” said Corker, about to begin his second term. “I made Tennesseans aware – I was just elected – the only thing I’m honoring is the oath I take when I serve, when I’m sworn in this January.”
He joins (at least publicly) Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as well as Rep. Peter King of New York.
“I agree with Grover, we shouldn't raise rates, but I think Grover is wrong when it comes to we can't cap deductions and buy down debt,” Graham said on ABC's This Week Sunday. “What do you do with the money? I want to buy down debt and cut rates to create jobs, but I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform.”
Graham, as are many Republicans, is talking about capping deductions and tax credits for wealthier taxpayers, though he says he does not favor increasing marginal tax rates. Yet event his step runs afoul of Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which does not allow for nuances – a tax increase is a tax increase, no matter how you do it.
This movement is among the most interesting developments in the early phase of negotiations between the parties to agree on a package of revenue increases and spending cuts to avert automatic cuts and the expiration of lower tax rates enacted in 2001 and 2003 – amounting to higher tax bills for millions – due to occur Dec. 31 without a deal.
Here is the print Big Tent column I wrote for the Sunday Inquirer on the Grover mutiny among Republicans.
Yet a key question remains: How willing would GOP lawmakers be to actually vote for a concrete revenue raising proposal? After all, Norquist gets his power from the grassroots; a hard-edged anti-tax stand has benefitted the Republican party politically for several decades, and the party’s base might rebel – even to the point of supporting more ideologically pure candidates in primaries against lawmakers who stray.
Just ask former one-term President George H.W. Bush how much it can hurt to backslide on taxes.
Aaron Blake of The Washington Post’s The Fix blog has a very good analysis of this question here.
Dear Phillies2008, Republicans control the House of Representatives. We have a bicameral system. This allows both parties more opportunities to get in each other's way -- and to forget about the voters who put them there.— philapat- Before we get rid of BIG BIRD we're gonna get rid of GROVER. Can you tell me how to get to SESAME STREET? LOL.— phillygtown
- people are cheering higher taxes? this is surely the end of this country..— USAFirst1
- This comment has been deleted. — sharkmeat
- Why is it bad that Americans pay low taxes? Shouldn't we celebrate that? Why is it that we should expect corporations and private citizens to tighten their belts and pay more, but not expect our politicians to cut back on spending? — Howard Beale UBS
- Why is it bad that Americans pay low taxes? Shouldn't we celebrate that? Why is it that we should expect corporations and private citizens to tighten their belts and pay more, but not expect our politicians to cut back on spending? — Howard Beale UBS
- you simply cannot expect to be taken seriously about cutting the deficit if you think it can be done without raising taxes. It is simply mathematically impossible.
looks like Obama has got the GOP in a check mate position. wonder how is must feel to be backed into a corner by the guy you've labeled as "in over his head".— Ryan - Republicans want the cuts first, then the increases. They've been duped before by liberal promises of cutting expenditures--cuts that never happened. This time, they want the cuts up front. They are shaping the argument around that point, and as crunch time gets closer, they'll have an opportunity to get the message out. In the end, we all know an 11th hour compromise is in the works, and both sides will claim victory. The Republicans have a chance to turn the tables and make it seem that Obama stood in the way of meaningful change. If the press is objective, people will see that they were willing to make a deal that would help the country.... If. — Howard Beale UBS
- Most people who post here have no clue about business. You go try to get investment capital when capital gains are at a level people just don't want to invest because their return on investment is too low. It stifles business lending when taxes are too high. This is business 101. Most of you know it alls are too wrapped up in Obama fever and love of the Annointed One. Most of you have never run a business. Taxes, taxes, taxes are what make or break mnat smalls businesses. Democrats suck the teet of society while republicans work for a living and take risks.— highjacked
- Please, dude, nobody believes the pre-pubescent Ayn Rand BS. Capital gains tax rates have been much higher in American history than they are now and investment wasn't stifled. In fact, the opposite is true. Periods of higher taxation have coincided with periods of increased GDP and lower unemployment. Trikle-down is over- it was spectacularly successful at making the rich richer but not much else. Reagan raised both the capital gains rate and the corporate tax rate in 1986 and he's the undead hero of the Republican Party. The world will not end if rates go up on the wealthy. It didn't in the past and it won't now. The economy has a demand problem and there is no credible economist on the planet who can explain how giving more much to rich people will fix that. — abendteuer
- Sen. Graham and a few other Republicans are saying they may agree to tax increases if the Democrats agree to entitlement reform , and of course the Democrats are never ever going to agree to cut any welfare .— publius sempronius tuditanus
- What the hell does anyone do with a billion dollars anyway ?— BobSG
- There is a very big difference between a having a billion dollars and earning a $250k annual income. — jfar86
- Please more articles in philly about the GOP. I mean look at the state of the city and their voting record for 65 years. Once you are done w these articles, please write about all the water in the desert!— 420Phillie
- The problem is that since America has the ability to borrow nearly unlimited $$$ spending is not connected to revenue. So one party can cut taxes and do no more than pay lip service to "spending cuts" and we borrow the difference - over and over. I'm not thrilled about paying taxes. Nobody is. But it's time we treat Congress like you do a small child. Finish your homework and THEN you can play the video game. It's time for the taxpayers to look at Congress and say cut spending - for real - not just reduce the amount of spending increases you proposed last month - seriously cut spending - and THEN you can have your tax cut. The GOP is on a mission to shift the tax burden onto the middle class - part of a larger mission to destroy the middle class. The 1% does not want to compete with us. They want to control us. They do not want us starting our own business like a little Microsoft or Apple. They're the shareholders and board members of the IBMs that lose market share to those start-ups - they want those middle class computer guys to work for them and give them their ideas and make them rich. Part of the tax rate game is to make sure it stifles small business. They're succeeding.— dlovell2001
You can reach Tom Fitzgerald at 215-854-2718 or tfitzgerald@phillynews.com.
Reach Thomas at tfitzgerald@phillynews.com.
