Grover Norquist says letting the payroll tax break expire is not raising taxes

[Craig234]

Actually in all fairness Norquist said that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would not violate his 'not tax hikes' pledge either.

To be fair, his comments were not that clear. He muddled the issue claiming that he was selectively quoted, from your link one quote:

ATR opposes all tax increases on the American people. Any failure to extend or make permanent the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, in whole or in part, would clearly increase taxes on the American people. In addition, the failure to extend the AMT patch would increase taxes. The outlines of the plans are deliberately hazy, but it appears that both Obama’s Simpson-Bowles commission proposal and the Gang-of-Six proposal dramatically increase taxes on the American people. [Emphasis theirs.]

It is a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to trade temporary tax reductions for permanent tax hikes.

He clearly opposes the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and seems to have sent mixed messages on it being a 'tax increase'.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

That's utterly dishonest.

Since 1983, working Americans have paid extra into SS to create the trust balance of today, currently >$2.5T. Everybody who has a legit job pays into SS or some sort of state or federal pension plan.

Reagan and Greenspan convinced Boomers & now Gen-X'ers to pay it forward, to build the trust so as to help provide their own retirements. It was understood all along that the govt would spend the money & place bonds into the trust, and that the trust would need to be honored, repaid, through some mechanism. That time is rapidly approaching.

Or was it all just a flimflam all along, one that allowed taxes at the top to be cut to their lowest level since WW2, the lowest of any First World Rich? Will modern Repubs honor the words of Ronnie, their patron Saint, or not?

It's going to be a really awkward soft-shoe, I suspect...

The sad truth is that income has shifted so far to the top that families below median income wouldn't make it at all if it weren't for food stamps, EITC & other govt programs. The only realistic way that Dems could give them any additional relief atm was by cutting SS taxes, because Repubs wouldn't allow anything else. The much ballyhooed Job Creators sure as Hell aren't going to pay them any more than they have to, and will seek to maintain employment at a suitably low level to suppress wages even while reaping record profits. It's good to have lots of unemployed, because they're desperate, and they'll work for shit wages. It's also good to buy govt bonds rather than paying taxes to cover it, too...

Maybe Dems should just adopt Grover's POV, claim that bringing back old taxes isn't new taxes at all. In that case, rates for America's wealthiest could be raised back to pre-Kennedy levels, keeping him happy, huh?

This is not a case of the trust fund being repaid to contributors. Zorba was correct. They are accounting for this money as if people are paying it into SS, but the money is coming from the general fund. You are the one that is being dishonest or you don't understand mechanics of how they are doing this.

edit: If you want to send everyone in the bottom half a check, or use SS as a welfare program in the future, go right ahead. But to call this a tax cut AND maintain that SS is just a retirement program is disingenuous. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Craig234]

I have just one question. How does Grover Norquist have all of the repubs in his back pocket?

Where does his power over all of them come from? Isn't he just a lobbyist?

He's one of the largest funnelers of the Republicans' donors' money, and he targets anyone who doesn't follow his rules for a well-funded primary challenge from the right.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is not a case of the trust fund being repaid to contributors. Zorba was correct. They are accounting for this money as if people are paying it into SS, but the money is coming from the general fund. You are the one that is being dishonest or you don't understand mechanics of how they are doing this.

edit: If you want to send everyone in the bottom half a check, or use SS as a welfare program in the future, go right ahead. But to call this a tax cut AND maintain that SS is just a retirement program is disingenuous. You can't have it both ways.

I happen to agree that cutting SS taxes was a poor way to give people in the lower income brackets a much needed break, but it was the only one Repubs would allow. I think expanding EITC & food stamps would have been better, because people earning near the top of the SS cutoff don't need any sort of break- they're doing just fine.

It's a great example of Repubs talking out of both sides of their mouths- raving about deficits while giving tax cuts to people who don't need 'em.

In refusing to extend the cuts, Repubs are actually doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. SS needs to be strengthened, simply because it's all that most Americans will have when they're no longer able to work. I think that the employees' share of SS taxes should be applied to all income, regardless of source, and that the max benefit should be doubled in the process, larger payouts for larger contributors up to the contributions of those making ~ $250K. SS would then "loan" money to the govt for the foreseeable future, and become safe from attempts to dismantle it.

Yep, that's a substantial tax hike for wealthier Americans, but they need to pay more anyway if they want this country to remain the kind of place they really want to live... They can pay it as wages or taxes, and they're sure as Hell not going to do it as wages.

 

[zsdersw]

So why did Republicans use his pledge to take an immovable hard line against renewing the tax cuts only for the poor and middle?

Because it's an election year. They will be very movable at the 11th hour, though, as Fern suggested.

Lines in the sand drawn for political points, from either party, tend to disappear when highly popular tax cuts or government spending are on the brink of disappearing.

 

[dawp]

IMO, anyone who takes his pledge isn't smart enough to hold office. that goes for any pledge.

 

[Ausm]

So, he's the true leader of the republican party. Now I understand. :biggrin:

They genuflect in front of him for some reason.

 

[werepossum]

Wow, you're right. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/grover-norquist-bush-tax-cuts-tax-hike_n_905624.html

So why did Republicans use his pledge to take an immovable hard line against renewing the tax cuts only for the poor and middle?

The Republicans took a hard line against raising taxes on ANYONE. It might be hard for you to understand, but people who earn more than you are still considered people in many parts of the country.

That's not going to happen, because Obama is even more focused on raising taxes on high earners as the Republicans are focused on not raising taxes on anyone. Obama and the Democrats have out-maneuvered the Republicans so the Pubbies' plan of paying for extending the payroll tax cuts by cutting spending elsewhere is DOA in the Senate and facing a veto anyway. Taxes WILL be raised on someone, either the high earners or every wage earner, so for political purposes the Dems are going to win this one. The only good thing is that this proves to even the dimmest bulb that the Democrats are not serious about actually cutting spending at any point.

 

[Throckmorton]

The Republicans took a hard line against raising taxes on ANYONE. It might be hard for you to understand, but people who earn more than you are still considered people in many parts of the country.

That's not going to happen, because Obama is even more focused on raising taxes on high earners as the Republicans are focused on not raising taxes on anyone. Obama and the Democrats have out-maneuvered the Republicans so the Pubbies' plan of paying for extending the payroll tax cuts by cutting spending elsewhere is DOA in the Senate and facing a veto anyway. Taxes WILL be raised on someone, either the high earners or every wage earner, so for political purposes the Dems are going to win this one. The only good thing is that this proves to even the dimmest bulb that the Democrats are not serious about actually cutting spending at any point.

I don't know if you realize this, but the economy still sucks. Cutting spending, reducing the federal workforce, makes no sense. Meanwhile the millionaires are hoarding huge sums of cash. They can easily afford a 2% tax increase (on income OVER $1 mil), and the money will go straight into the economy. They're people but they can pay a little more. We can't... because they've rigged the economy to screw us over for 30 years with "trickle down".

 

[zsdersw]

They can easily afford a 2% tax increase (on income OVER $1 mil), and the money will go straight into the economy. They're people but they can pay a little more. We can't... because they've rigged the economy to screw us over for 30 years with "trickle down".

Why should they necessarily pay more in taxes just because they can, in our opinion, afford it?

What entitles us to more of their money?

 

[soundforbjt]

Why should they necessarily pay more in taxes just because they can, in our opinion, afford it?

What entitles us to more of their money?

Because we've allowed them to keep more of their money for the last 30 years with the "promise" that they would create more jobs, which they've failed to live up to their part of the "bargin".

It's time for their "money train" to stop.

 

[zsdersw]

Because we've allowed them to keep more of their money for the last 30 years with the "promise" that they would create more jobs, which they've failed to live up to their part of the "bargin".

It's time for their "money train" to stop.

Allowed them to keep more of their money? What a ridiculous concept. None of us are entitled to anyone else's money.

 

[soundforbjt]

Allowed them to keep more of their money? What a ridiculous concept. None of us are entitled to anyone else's money.

Try not paying your taxes and see how far you telling them that it's your money will get you in court.

 

[zsdersw]

Try not paying your taxes and see how far you telling them that it's your money will get you in court.

That's tax evasion, you're talking about how much they pay, not whether they pay anything at all.

 

[Throckmorton]

Republicans are the ones who got the country believing that all deficit spending is bad, even after 8 years of Bush's record deficit spending. That's the only reason we're forced to talk about raising taxes 2% on income over $1 mil. And the Republican answer is "No, we should raise taxes on all income up to $106k instead".

 

[zsdersw]

Republicans are the ones who got the country believing that all deficit spending is bad, even after 8 years of Bush's record deficit spending. That's the only reason we're forced to talk about raising taxes 2% on income over $1 mil. And the Republican answer is "No, we should raise taxes on all income up to $106k instead".

Republicans want to have their cake and eat it too; cutting taxes while spending almost as much as Democrats... but that doesn't justify tax increases on the rich.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I don't know if you realize this, but the economy still sucks. Cutting spending, reducing the federal workforce, makes no sense. Meanwhile the millionaires are hoarding huge sums of cash. They can easily afford a 2% tax increase (on income OVER $1 mil), and the money will go straight into the economy. They're people but they can pay a little more. We can't... because they've rigged the economy to screw us over for 30 years with "trickle down".

Somebody has to cover the costs of the spending.

That is money that can not be spent elsewhere.

Eventually the bills come due. when you can live on your paycheck, you live off of credit cards. When you can no longer get credit; you go to the loan sharks. When you can not pay the loan sharks; your belongings are taken or your legs get broken.

Same with the US economy; we have been tapping into the credit cards at this point and maxing them out. Then going out to get another credit card to take a cash advance to pay the min due on the previous ones. Because the US refuses to tighten the belt on spending.

We can not keep on getting new credit cards and not pay off the old ones; the finance fees on the old ones and new cash advance fees are killing the budget.

 

[Throckmorton]

Somebody has to cover the costs of the spending.

That is money that can not be spent elsewhere.

Eventually the bills come due. when you can live on your paycheck, you live off of credit cards. When you can no longer get credit; you go to the loan sharks. When you can not pay the loan sharks; your belongings are taken or your legs get broken.

Same with the US economy; we have been tapping into the credit cards at this point and maxing them out. Then going out to get another credit card to take a cash advance to pay the min due on the previous ones. Because the US refuses to tighten the belt on spending.

We can not keep on getting new credit cards and not pay off the old ones; the finance fees on the old ones and new cash advance fees are killing the budget.

Cutting spending now is equivalent to cutting up your credit cards instead of using them to relocate for a new higher paying job that will allow you to pay them off.


And guess what... Making the economy worse is in Republicans best interests, so why would you think they want to do anything else?

 

[EagleKeeper]

cutting spending is cutting spending.

Otherwise it is an excuse to keep on spending no matter when times or good or bad.

You can cut spending and still look for a higher paying job.
Once you have it; then get a new card and use it for relocation.

Do not get a new card to pay off the old ones. It becomes a never ending cycle. Like the people you live week to week on a payday loan. Pay the $20 each week because they can not afford to pay off the $200 borrowed in the beginning.

That is what we have been doing. Getting a new card with a higher limit and taking out a cash advance to pay the old card. Cash advances on cards are expensive - you start paying from day one and usually at a higher rate.

 

[Jhhnn]

Somebody has to cover the costs of the spending.

That is money that can not be spent elsewhere.

Eventually the bills come due. when you can live on your paycheck, you live off of credit cards. When you can no longer get credit; you go to the loan sharks. When you can not pay the loan sharks; your belongings are taken or your legs get broken.

Same with the US economy; we have been tapping into the credit cards at this point and maxing them out. Then going out to get another credit card to take a cash advance to pay the min due on the previous ones. Because the US refuses to tighten the belt on spending.

We can not keep on getting new credit cards and not pay off the old ones; the finance fees on the old ones and new cash advance fees are killing the budget.

Family budgeting and governmental budgeting are *not* analogous, no matter how simple that seems or how badly you might want it to be.

In a fiat money system, which is what we have, Government creates & destroys money as they see fit. A family can't print their own money, but our govt can & does.

Hard money favors savers & lenders, and deflation favors them even more. Soft money, some inflation, favors debtors.

For a nation deeply in debt, private & public, what kind of money serves the general population better? What kind of money serves the financial elite?

Expansionary austerity is humbug, something that the conservative govt of our British cousins is now proving. The more they cut spending, the lower their revenues, and the more they have to borrow to meet even reduced spending levels. Race to the bottom.

Part of any sensible way to reduce deficits is to raise taxes at the top, because money that goes there just stays there in the face of low demand & low employment. It's just parked... in govt bonds.

We the people are just paying rent on rich people's money, money that our govt created in the first place.

Why should the govt of the people borrow from the rich to make ends meet when more of that money can be rather painlessly converted to revenue by taxation? If they're just parking it in low yield govt bonds, how badly did they need it in the first place?

Job Creators? Where? Where is that magical growth that low taxes at the top supposedly creates? Isn't that why we lowered top tier taxes in the first place, following the assumptions of Reaganomics, trickledown supply side economics? Why should we keep doing that when it obviously doesn't work?

Soak the rich? Why not? They've been soaking the rest of us for 30 years, and it shows.

 

[Gunslinger08]

I would agree that it isn't "raising taxes" when you allow legislation to lapse, which was originally (only 1 year ago) intended to expire. It's really splitting hairs though and honestly, it doesn't really matter what you call it. I'm tired of "gotcha" politics where everything is about CYA instead of fixing the problem.

More to the heart of the deficit and debt issue, I think we need a middle of the road approach. We aren't going to completely cover the huge deficit (and start paying down our debt) with 100% cuts or 100% tax increases. I'm sure many people on ATPN are smart enough to realize this, but what I hear locally and on the news makes it seem like we can fix it entirely with tax increases or spending cuts.

Raising taxes to entirely cover current and futures expenditures AND start paying a reasonable amount of our debt principal (say 1% or ~$150 billion a year?) would put effective tax rates much higher. Let's say you have a $1.1 trillion deficit + $150 billion in principal payments next year. You'd need about 48% more revenue to cover that. That's not going to happen. No politicians are going to jump on that sword.

Cutting spending by about 1/3rd (approximately the amount we'd need to cut to remove the deficit and cover $150 billion in principal payments) doesn't seem feasible either, though it would be great if it worked without causing a lot of other problems. I just don't see how we can cut down about $1.25 trillion next year. Politically, you'd never get an agreement to pass with such huge cuts, because quite a few politicians would probably lose their jobs over cuts that their constituents depended on. Economically, you're probably going to have to cut quite a few government and government contractor jobs to make that happen, which is going to increase unemployment and reduce revenues.

I think we need to work out a compromise. Everyone complains about taxes, but historically, our rates are quite low. Look at the rates from the 1940s through the 80s. You can't really continually cut taxes with a below average population growth while raising spending. You also can't continually increase spending (mostly from 2000 to today, with especially large jumps since 2008) with the same aging demographics and reduced receipts percentages. So really, the solution has to be a little painful to everybody - raise rates on most income brackets and businesses (or reduce deductions and write offs) and cut spending in a lot of different areas. There isn't a silver bullet for our debt issue.

 

[matt0611]

What difference does it make? The democrats (including Obama) want the cut extended anyway.

 

[brencat]

Cutting spending now is equivalent to cutting up your credit cards instead of using them to relocate for a new higher paying job that will allow you to pay them off.

And guess what... Making the economy worse is in Republicans best interests, so why would you think they want to do anything else?

Complete h()rseshit. You go over budget, you CUT SPENDING. You don't max the card out further or get the credit limit increased and 'take a chance' moving to another city with the HOPE of finding a better paying job. You get that job in hand guaranteed before moving. I know plenty of people who would take that chance but I am not one of them. There are plenty of people willing to drop $250k getting an MBA. How's that working out for the classes of 2011-2012 years with no job and tons of personal debt now??

See this is the problem... we have one of our political parties (Dems) who have no intention of ever cutting spending. And we live in some bass ackwards world where cutting the rate of growth in government is actually considered a 'devastating' cut! Nonsense.

 

[Throckmorton]

Complete h()rseshit. You go over budget, you CUT SPENDING. You don't max the card out further or get the credit limit increased and 'take a chance' moving to another city with the HOPE of finding a better paying job. You get that job in hand guaranteed before moving. I know plenty of people who would take that chance but I am not one of them. There are plenty of people willing to drop $250k getting an MBA. How's that working out for the classes of 2011-2012 years with no job and tons of personal debt now??

See this is the problem... we have one of our political parties (Dems) who have no intention of ever cutting spending. And we live in some bass ackwards world where cutting the rate of growth in government is actually considered a 'devastating' cut! Nonsense.

In my analogy, I said relocate for a new higher paying job that will allow you to pay off the credit cards.... not a hypothetical job. The economic recovery isn't hypothetical, it's been happening, and it will continue to happen if we don't destroy the economy with austerity.

 

[werepossum]

Allowed them to keep more of their money? What a ridiculous concept. None of us are entitled to anyone else's money.

Republicans want to have their cake and eat it too; cutting taxes while spending almost as much as Democrats... but that doesn't justify tax increases on the rich.

Somebody has to cover the costs of the spending.

That is money that can not be spent elsewhere.

Eventually the bills come due. when you can live on your paycheck, you live off of credit cards. When you can no longer get credit; you go to the loan sharks. When you can not pay the loan sharks; your belongings are taken or your legs get broken.

Same with the US economy; we have been tapping into the credit cards at this point and maxing them out. Then going out to get another credit card to take a cash advance to pay the min due on the previous ones. Because the US refuses to tighten the belt on spending.

We can not keep on getting new credit cards and not pay off the old ones; the finance fees on the old ones and new cash advance fees are killing the budget.

Three excellent posts. I can add nothing more than a hearty "well said, sirs."