Skip to comments.Grover Norquist is the problem with Washington DC, not the solution
Posted on 11/28/2012 2:49:58 PM PST by LSUfan
One of the bigger political stories of the past few days has been the backlash by some members of the GOP to the manner in which Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform wields some legislators tax pledges as a bludgeon to Grovers own agenda.
Some of the criticism of these lawmakers is on target as they lose their nerve following Obamas reelection and are contemplating various revenue enhancements or tax reform schemes as mechanisms to raise taxes on American citizens. Fair enough.
But that in no way makes Grover Norquist the guy in the white hat as a review of his record shows. Not only did Norquist endorse increases in government spending (which we now have to pay for), but his record shows that Grover Norquists primary interest in DC is not the taxpayers but no one other than Grover Norquist and whomever is paying for his time (and it sure aint the taxpayers).
Lets review some data points:
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
First reply. You’re quick.
Islam and Tax policy are two seperate problems.
1. In 2008, we went BANANAS spending ourself into debt. The solution is not to raise taxes to support the spending. The solution is to cut spending.
2. If Norquist is an Islamic apologist, then he is an idiot. That has nothing to do with tax policy.
I'm starting to see a bit of hypocrisy in these attacks on Norquist. If you want to attack him as a muslim apologist or a Saudi agent, then fine. Its about time.
But it almost looks like people are attacking his muslim connections as a way of excusing their decision to surrender to the president on taxes.
They didn't notice his muslim connections before now? They are going to attack Norquist's muslim connections and ignore the president's?
All they are doing is proving that they are weak sisters looking for an excuse to jump aboard the O's bandwagon. We should be taking names and primary'ing these guys at the earliest opportunity.
Like hell they’re separate.
Why the hell anyone needs a pledge to do the right thing is beyond me.
Lets also not forget Norquists lobbying on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to continue the homeownership tax credit, which as Erick Erickson noted directly contributed to the housing bubble and collapse at the expense of billions to the American taxpayers.
But in October 2010, Norquist was on CNN blaming the collapse on Freddie and Fannie:
NORQUIST: You may have missed this, but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac brought us this collapse. Those were the two things the Democrats refused to fix.
SPITZER: No, no, I agree with you that they were
NORQUIST: This was criminal negligence on the part of Barney Frank and Dodd.
SPITZER: They were huge participants, but there were multiple parties involved. I think everybody was
NORQUIST: No Fannie Mae, no Freddie Mac, we wouldnt have the collapse.
SPITZER: No, thats not quite the case. Fannie and Freddie contributed in a very significant way as did
NORQUIST: With trillions. You keep I give you trillions and you tell me thats not a big enough number.
SPITZER: This was multiple links in the chain. And thats why if you want to say just Fannie and Freddie, youre wrong. If you want to say theyre part of it along with the mortgage banks and the brokers and the people who actually were taking out mortgages improperly, then you have the full picture.
NORQUIST: And Jimmy Carter and Bill Clintons laws which forced your bank to lend to people who cant afford to, so that everybody got screwed by the misdirection of capital.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Norquist.
Everything Norquist said with respect to Fannie and Freddie are exactly right, and needed to be said, and precious few Repubs have spoken up to make this case. The fact that Norquist lobbied to continue a homeownership tax credit takes nothing away from what he said. Wanting to claim a homeownership tax credit doesn't make you a supporter of the massive corruption of the financial markets that occurred over the last 15 years.
Again, if you want to attack him as a muslim apologist, fine. Its overdue. But it sounds like they have just discovered his muslim ties in an effort to avoid his entirely truthful argument concerning the corruption in Fannie.
Some folks need to read the article more closely.
Norquist says that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is NOT breaking his tax pledge.
But recently he accused a congressman who wanted to end subsidies for ethanol as breaking his tax pledge.
How the hell does that work?
What is conservative or fiscally responsible about subsidies?
And what of his support for higher spending under Bush?
Many of us recognized that compassionate conservatism was not fiscally responsible back then due to spending increases. To be sure, Obama has brought spending on a whole other order of magnitude, but Norquist sounded like Bill Clinton when he called higher spending an “investment.”
How are they related?
Grover Must Go By Robert Spencer
This article makes no sense. How does his tax pledge work as a bludgeon to promote his other interests? It doesn’t. I could see complaining that the publicity grants an audience that otherwise would be denied him, but I was previously completely unaware of his non-tax pledge views. The way this article is written it sounds like no one else is, either.
I call bad writing or nefarious purposes on this article. You decide.
On this, I'm with you. It sounds pretty incoherent to me too.
“How are they related?”
You need money to fight endless wars against 1 billion people to ensure the integrity of American empire?
He and Delay and Reed should have spent at least as much time in jail as Abramoff.
And if he has been protecting known terrorists then he is flirting with treason and may deserve a more complete and final penalty.
So, Grover Norquist lobbies for a no new taxes pledge so that the US Military will not have the money to defeat Islam?
You want to stay with that position?
Norquist has received a lot of airtime lately. When asked about "his pledge" he claims complete innocence and says it is not a pledge to him, but a pledge to the congressmen's constituency.
Funny how when a congressman does something which only Norquist considers to be a violation of the pledge he sponsors a primary candidate to oppose the supposed violator.
His slipperiness makes eels appear in comparison to have skins made of velcro.
Republicans shouldn’t need Norquist to tell them to never agree to raise taxes on anyone ever. Period.
Washington is the problem, and he's a part of Washington.
As such, he's a part of the problem, but it's not like anything would get better if he went away.
Can someone tell me why Norquist is seen as so powerful? Who is he? I know he is discussed a lot, but I honestly don’t know why.
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.