Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Republicans clash with Grover Norquist
Politico ^ | 6/14/2011 | MANU RAJU

Posted on 06/15/2011 9:15:36 AM PDT by Bigtom67

Several Senate Republicans are angry at anti-tax activist Grover Norquist’s position on a major ethanol vote, creating a rift between one of Washington’s most influential conservatives and a Republican Party that has marched largely in lock step with his campaign tax pledges over the years.

“What Grover Norquist has just done is blown his pledge wide open,” Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) told POLITICO.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: aerospace; bloomberg; congress; corruption; crime; criminal; energy; ethanol; grovernorquist; islam; oklahoma; republican; republicans; senate; taxes; teaparty; tomcoburn Comment #1 Removed by Moderator

To: Bigtom67

Grover Norquist is a fly on something, I don’t think it’s “the Wall” however.


2 posted on 06/15/2011 9:21:13 AM PDT by acapesket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtom67

Grover Norquist is a fly on something, I don’t think it’s “the Wall” however.


3 posted on 06/15/2011 9:21:18 AM PDT by acapesket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtom67

Can anyone explain how cutting a subsidy is a tax increase?


4 posted on 06/15/2011 9:27:20 AM PDT by henkster (Every member of Congress must put the fate of the nation over their next re-election campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: acapesket

ooops! Sorry for double post.


5 posted on 06/15/2011 9:28:23 AM PDT by acapesket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bigtom67

Watched Judge Napolatano on Fox last night. Ethanol was the topic. Mitch McConnell voted with the democrats in the senate and we lost by ONE vote. The judge stated it cost taxpayers 1.78 a gallon.


6 posted on 06/15/2011 9:30:50 AM PDT by katiedidit1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtom67

It sounds like a bunch of nonsense on both sides. Grover Norquist is not a reliable conservative, and neither are those senate RINOs who voted to keep the ethanol subsidies in place.

Removing ethanol subsidies is NOT a tax increase. If you take the damned ethanol out of gasoline, it will save everyone money. I have to take my weedwhackers and chain saws in to get fixed just about every year, or the damned things won’t start. Ethanol rots out their insides. And the same with my outboard motor.

And I’m sure it increases expenses on keeping my car engine going, too. Plus reducing mileage and making the car cough going up hills.


7 posted on 06/15/2011 9:31:44 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

good points.
ethanol is insane on sooo many levels.

i like Thune, but his math is plain wrong.

they say ethanol reduces our foreign dependence.

but, in the entire (Pop Deming) process,
it takes MORE than a gallon of gas, to make a gallon of ethanol, which produces less btu’s than the original gallon of gas.
so, NET,
it INCREASES our foreign dependence,
and INCREASES the price of oil.

...and costs taxpayers over 6 billion a year, on top!


8 posted on 06/15/2011 9:44:51 AM PDT by Elendur (the hope and change i need: Sarah / Colonel West in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bigtom67
“Grover Norquist has no credibility, so I don’t respond to him,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) told POLITICO. “He doesn’t deserve being responded to.”

Good for Chambliss. The day that Grover Norquist ceases to be 'influential' in the GOP will be a very good day.

From CPAC, ACU and the NRA, Norquist/Keene are the enemy within, nefariously attempting to hi-jack the GOP platform to appeal to homosexuals, islamists and illegals.

Such a surprise that they are a part of the Romney team of political hacks.

9 posted on 06/15/2011 9:44:55 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtom67; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; calcowgirl; Gilbo_3; NFHale; ..

FU Norquist!

I didnt realize he was this stupid. Surprised he didnt demand Republicans extend Obama’s ‘Making work pay’ tax credit too.


10 posted on 06/15/2011 9:47:35 AM PDT by sickoflibs (If you pay zero Federal income taxes, don't say you are paying your 'fair share')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elendur

I’ll say it again: using food for fuel is immoral and is the most obvious example of what is wrong with our government.


11 posted on 06/15/2011 10:00:06 AM PDT by NotTallTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bigtom67

If you tell a Senator to get in touch with Common Sense he will most likely refer you to the Foreign Relations Committee.

Ethanol subsidies bad, therefore repeal. But no, we can’t do that.


12 posted on 06/15/2011 10:04:34 AM PDT by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigtom67

Copyright restrictions also apply downthread.


13 posted on 06/15/2011 10:08:54 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: acapesket

FUGN!

Get out of politics and take Ralph Reed and the rest of College Republican irrelevant friends a slow boat to China...


14 posted on 06/15/2011 10:09:46 AM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: henkster

>>>Can anyone explain how cutting a subsidy is a tax increase?

Congress has provided the motor fuel industry with a tax incentive for blending ethanol with gasoline in the form of 45 cents per gallon of ethanol tax credit known as the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.


15 posted on 06/15/2011 10:13:12 AM PDT by NC28203
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

Why anyone has anything to do with this Muslim terrorist sympathizer is beyond me.


16 posted on 06/15/2011 10:32:39 AM PDT by PghBaldy (War Powers Res: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NC28203

I don’t view the termination of a selective subsidy to be a tax increase. Maybe for those affected, it is. But not to the taxpaying public at large. To me it’s just a return to the normal status quo where they are now being taxed just the same as everyone else.


17 posted on 06/15/2011 11:02:49 AM PDT by henkster (Every member of Congress must put the fate of the nation over their next re-election campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: henkster

>>>I don’t view the termination of a selective subsidy to be a tax increase.

Would you view the mortgage interest tax deduction in a similar way?


18 posted on 06/15/2011 11:50:14 AM PDT by NC28203
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NC28203

For me personally, no I wouldn’t view it the same way. But that’s the whole problem with our tax code; it’s really nothing but a fight by special interests for preferential treatment. Your tax cuts should be eliminated but I’ll fight if you want to cut mine. It’s the flip side of the same coin when you talk about the spending portion of public finance. Whether the subsidy exists as the government not taking money in the form of revenue or handing out money in the form of some kind of “entitlement” is only a difference of nuance, not of substance.

In the end, fiscal decisions, both public and private, are not made on the basis of economic efficiency but rather on political connection and clout. And we wind up with a crazy distorted economy that is chasing away jobs and stifling productive innovative activity.

We need a streamlined tax code for everyone, a revenue generating system that is uniform and predictable, and designed only to obtain as much revenue as necessary to fulfill the core functions of government. Arguing over this deduction and that credit is an argument over re-arrangement of deck chairs.


19 posted on 06/15/2011 12:16:56 PM PDT by henkster (Every member of Congress must put the fate of the nation over their next re-election campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Elendur

Your logic leads to one inescapable conclusion:

Ethanol belongs in a beer can, not a gas tank. I think I have a new tag line.


20 posted on 06/15/2011 12:19:51 PM PDT by henkster (Ethanol belongs in a beer can, not a gas tank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Like I have posted....what....86 times?

We have no representation.


21 posted on 06/15/2011 5:04:04 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

I’d sooner listen to Grover from Seaseme Street.


22 posted on 06/15/2011 5:19:46 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bigtom67

Uh, did somebody have fun with the keywords?


23 posted on 06/17/2011 5:04:54 PM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson