PDA

View Full Version : GOP abandons Norquist 'no taxes' pledge...



Soflasnapper
08-09-2011, 05:52 PM
Ok, one Republican US Representative from Nebraska is the only GOPr so far. Still, it's a start.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">August 09, 2011 02:00 PM
Will This Become A Trend? Republican Congressman Recants Anti-Tax Pledge To Grover
By Susie Madrak


So far, there's only one, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE). But I suspect this desire to distance themselves from Grover will only grow. So at least for the time being, while the chaos in the wake of the S&P downgrade is fresh in the public mind, Norquist is not such a shoo-in for GOP prom king:

Think Progress notes:

Signing the anti-tax pledge promulgated by Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform — which stipulates that the signee will, under no circumstances, approve a tax increase — has almost become a must-take step for Republican politicians. Norquist is a kingmaker of sorts in right-wing circles, as he decides which policies do and do not violate the pledge.

As Tanya Somanader and Zaid Jilani put it, “Shackling Republicans to his anti-tax pledge, Norquist is dictating to Republicans that they cannot close a single tax loophole or allow one tax cut to expire, not even to entice Democrats into agreeing to much larger spending cuts.”

However, not every Republican Congressman is enamored with Norquist’s approach. During a town hall yesterday, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) explained that he has disavowed Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, which he had previously signed, because “it’s too constraining“:

In answer to one question, the 1st District Republican Congressman revealed he informed Grover Norquist and his anti-tax organization he no longer is committed to that organization’s pledge to oppose any form of tax increases.“I did sign that pledge when I was first running” for the House in 2004, Fortenberry said. “I no longer sign any pledges.”

A pledge “restrains your ability to think creatively,” he said, noting Norquist attempts to interpret and define what is considered a tax increase.“I informed the organization I don’t consider (the earlier pledge) binding,” Fortenberry said. “I don’t care to be associated with it. It’s too constraining.”

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Fortenberry later said, “We have a broken tax code that is skewed to the wealthy and corporations (who) know how to move capital around,” and endorsed revenue-positive tax reform.</span>

</div></div>

LWW
08-10-2011, 01:41 AM
ONce again ... your data doesn't support your conclusion.

Qtec
08-10-2011, 01:41 AM
Cantor has doubled down, the twat.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Eric Cantor Shoots Back: Still No Compromise on Taxes



</div></div>

hate that guy (http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/08/eric-cantor-shoots-back-still-no-compromise-on-taxes/)

Q

LWW
08-10-2011, 05:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cantor has doubled down, the twat.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Eric Cantor Shoots Back: Still No Compromise on Taxes



</div></div>

hate that guy (http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/08/eric-cantor-shoots-back-still-no-compromise-on-taxes/)

The funny thing is that you have no idea why ... other than you are told you "hate that guy."

Q </div></div>

Soflasnapper
08-10-2011, 08:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ONce again ... your data doesn't support your conclusion. </div></div>

My conclusion is that one GOPr abandoned his Norquist no taxes pledge. My data is that one GOPr abandoned his Norquist no taxes pledge.

Seems a fairly air tight case, as to my actual conclusion.

You say it's wrong, for what reason?

eg8r
08-10-2011, 08:54 AM
LOL. I guess at this point is there proof that the one GOPr ever signed the anti-tax pledge? I have no idea and I think it is dumb for the GOPers to say "never". The tax code is a mess and should be simplified a ton.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-10-2011, 09:19 AM
Yes, when they are said to 'sign' the pledge, that is 'signing' a physical piece of paper. I imagine Norquist holds these in a highly secure area.

As this guy says, he signed his own pledge back when he was first running. And went so far as to notify the Norquist org that he was no longer honoring this written pledge.

eg8r
08-10-2011, 10:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, when they are said to 'sign' the pledge, that is 'signing' a physical piece of paper. I imagine Norquist holds these in a highly secure area.
</div></div>Is there any proof that this one GOPr signed the pledge? I did not see it in the quote. You state the guy signed his "own pledge" which leads me to believe he did not sign Norquist's pledge. By notifying the organization that he would not be signing theirs seems to make complete sense and I agree with him for doing so.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-10-2011, 12:56 PM
From the part of the article I quoted above:

During a town hall yesterday, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) explained that he has disavowed Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>which he had previously signed</span>, because “it’s too constraining“:

In answer to one question, the 1st District Republican Congressman revealed he informed Grover Norquist and his anti-tax organization he no longer is committed to that organization’s pledge to oppose any form of tax increases.<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“I did sign that pledge when I was first running” for the House in 2004, Fortenberry said.</span>

That isn't exactly proof, but it is surely evidence, and pretty firm evidence at that, as a direct statement in quotations from the man.

If one wants to exercise extreme skepticism on everything, it can still be held in doubt, I suppose. But lacking any reason to doubt the man's word, I'd rate any chance this isn't true at slim to none.

eg8r
08-10-2011, 01:41 PM
Nah, no extreme skepticism, I just did not remember reading that part. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif If he says he signed it then that is good enough for me. Glad to see he changed his mind. Not because I think he should raise taxes on the rich (because that is the only thing the Dems have come up with since being in office) but that the tax law needs to be simplified for everyone and Norquists pledge will not allow that.

eg8r

LWW
08-10-2011, 03:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ONce again ... your data doesn't support your conclusion. </div></div>

My conclusion is that one GOPr abandoned his Norquist no taxes pledge. My data is that one GOPr abandoned his Norquist no taxes pledge.

Seems a fairly air tight case, as to my actual conclusion.

You say it's wrong, for what reason? </div></div>

Your thread title:

"GOP abandons Norquist 'no taxes' pledge..."

Soflasnapper
08-10-2011, 05:11 PM
That was the fault of the editor who supplied the headline, not the writer.

Oh, wait, that's me.

Ok, it was the tease of the piece. It only needed the '?' to make it acceptable as a Fox News headline, and they are professionals.

LWW
08-11-2011, 04:50 AM
"ABANDONS" is a statement of fact that something has happened.

Qtec
08-11-2011, 04:58 AM
..and?

Q

Gayle in MD
09-14-2011, 10:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cantor has doubled down, the twat.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Eric Cantor Shoots Back: Still No Compromise on Taxes



</div></div>

hate that guy (http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/08/eric-cantor-shoots-back-still-no-compromise-on-taxes/)

Q </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In a memo to his House Republican caucus released after Obama spoke on Monday afternoon, Majority Leader Eric Cantor doubled down on his insistence that there be no tax increases included in the next round of deficit negotiations. Though this position ignores the fact that taxes are set to go up automatically in 2013 if Congress does not cut a deal with President Obama, it also suggests that the current debilitating gridlock in Washington is not a passing issue. Score it as a point for Standard & Poor’s.
“There will be pressure to compromise on tax increases,” Cantor writes. “We will be told that there is no other way forward. I respectfully disagree.”

The memo also makes clear that Republicans will not simply sit by as Obama tries to pressure Republicans to pass his stimulative measures. “Our primary focus must be to get the economy going and get people back to work,” Cantor writes. “While I will be providing you with a more detailed list of legislative proposals before we return in September, it is my intention that the House will take continual and steady action on bills to reduce or eliminate regulatory barriers to job creation this fall.”

The entire memo is produced in full below.

MEMORANDUM

TO: House Republicans
FR: Eric Cantor
DT: August 8, 2011
RE: S&P Downgrade of U.S.

Like many of you, I spent the weekend attempting to put Standard and Poor’s Friday night downgrade of U.S. government debt into context and understand its point of view. After hearing from many of you and from respected experts outside of government, I wanted to take a brief moment and outline my initial thoughts. I welcome and would appreciate any feedback you may have.

Two Crises:

As we all know, America is facing two related but separate crises. The first is the federal government’s debt crisis that is the result of decades of fiscal mismanagement by both political parties. The second is the economic and jobs crisis, which has resulted in record unemployment and made it harder for businesses to grow and create jobs. I believe that America’s jobs crisis has been compounded by the Obama Administration’s anti-business, hyper-regulatory, pro-tax increase agenda –which has led to dangerous uncertainty in our economy. While much of our time this Congress has been focused on the former, it is the latter that is most directly and dramatically impacting the lives of individuals, families, and small businesses throughout this country.

Anyone who has looked at the numbers cannot seriously discount S&P’s concerns over our government’s rising public debt burden. I do, however, believe its analysis is overly focused on resolving the debt crisis in a manner that would greatly worsen the jobs crisis, which would be a catastrophic mistake. This is not surprising, as S&P’s job is to opine on the federal government’s balance sheet. Indeed, S&P makes clear in its Friday report that it takes, “no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing.”

As legislators focused not just on our debt crisis, but also on getting the 14 million currently unemployed Americans back to work, we cannot afford to be so ambivalent when it comes to revenues. As I learned during the two months of debt limit negotiations, ‘revenues’ is just a code word for the President’s desire to tax individuals, families, and small business people earning over $200-250,000 per year.

S&P seems particularly focused on what it sees as the inability of the political parties to bridge our differences on the best way to eliminate the deficit. By this it means – in part – our unwillingness to raise taxes. The bottom of page four of the S&P analysis describes that a base case scenario, which results in the AA+ rating with a negative outlook, “now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the [Budget Control Act].”

Now to be fair, S&P is also clearly concerned about what it perceives as an unwillingness to tackle our insolvent entitlement programs, which are the biggest drivers of our debt, “the containment of which [S&P] and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.”

So Where Does This Leave Us?

In all of the discussions Speaker Boehner and I have had with the President this year, the President has repeatedly made clear that even if we agree to all of his requested tax increases, he would never support the type of structural changes to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security necessary to make these programs solvent as envisioned in our budget resolution.

More disturbingly, the President and Congressional Democrats have also argued that they will only consider modest changes to our current entitlement programs if we agree to tax increases.

For those 14 million Americans currently looking for work, this is a trade we simply cannot afford to make. Raising taxes in this economy will only make it harder for working families and the very small businesses we are counting on to create jobs and get our economy going.

But don’t take my word for it; here is what two Harvard economists concluded in a 2009 study about the various approaches to closing budget deficits, “For fiscal adjustments we show that spending cuts are much more effective than tax increases in stabilizing the debt and avoiding economic downturns. In fact, we uncover several episodes in which spending cuts adopted to reduce deficits have been associated with economic expansions rather than recessions.” (Alesina, A. and Ardagna, S., “Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes Versus Spending,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 15438, Oct. 2009, p. 3, available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w15438.)

The Path Forward:

Over the next several months, there will be tremendous pressure on Congress to prove that S&P’s analysis of the inability of the political parties to bridge our differences is wrong. In short, there will be pressure to compromise on tax increases. We will be told that there is no other way forward. I respectfully disagree.

As we have said from the beginning of the year, the new Republican Majority was elected to change the way Washington does business. We were not elected to raise taxes or take more money out of the pockets of hard working families and business people. People understand Washington can’t keep spending money that it doesn’t have. They want to see less government – not more taxes. This means that spending must be reduced from its current level of 24% of GDP. This is why we were elected, and we are doing the things that we promised we would do. Since we only control one-half of one-third of Washington, these changes are happening incrementally – but make no mistake, they are happening. And that is a sign of progress.

With the Budget Control Act, we made a $917 billion down payment on deficit reduction without raising taxes. The Joint Committee created by the legislation presents another opportunity for an additional $1.2 to $1.5 trillion in savings by the end of the calendar year. Based on the savings identified in our Budget Resolution and in the Biden Group, I firmly believe we can find bipartisan agreement on savings from mandatory programs that can be agreed to without tax increases. I believe this is what we must demand from the Joint Committee as it begins its work.

Now these efforts alone will not solve our debt crisis. That will require fundamental structural reform to our entitlement programs in order to preserve the safety net for the next generation without bankrupting our nation.
Just a few weeks ago, the President himself acknowledged the resistance of his own party to such reforms, as well as the reality that without reform, entitlement programs are unsustainable. On July 11, President Obama said, “…the vast majority of Democrats on Capitol Hill would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements; would prefer, frankly, not to have to do anything on some of these debt and deficit problems. And I’m sympathetic to their concerns, because they’re looking after folks who are already hurting and already vulnerable, and there are a lot of families out there and seniors who are dependent on some of these programs. And what I’ve tried to explain to them is, number one, if you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. I mean, it’s not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing.”
But doing nothing is exactly what the President did in his budget. The President remains opposed to any structural reforms, and would only nibble around the edges of these programs IF taxes are increased on job creators. Given that reality, I firmly believe that these are issues that will be central to the decision that voters will make in the 2012 election.

On Fox News this past Sunday, our colleague Paul Ryan perhaps summed it up best. When discussing the Joint Committee and the goals being set for it, he said, “I think people are overemphasizing what the Committee is going to achieve. I don’t think the Committee will have a full fix to the problems. Democrats do not want to address the health care bill or put out a plan. The President hasn’t put out a specific plan to fix the problem and they don’t want to go with structural entitlement reform which is what you have to do to get the economy growing… I want to make sure people understand that I don’t think [the committee] is going to fix all of our fiscal problems. I hope it is a Committee that will get a down payment on the problems. Ultimately, I think the leadership in Washington needs to be changed.”

This is our challenge for the next 15 months.

In the meantime, our primary focus must be to get the economy going and get people back to work, which is why I have been working with many of our Committee Chairmen to prepare a fall legislative agenda focused on economic growth through reducing the regulatory and tax burden on job creators. While I will be providing you with a more detailed list of legislative proposals before we return in September, it is my intention that the House will take continual and steady action on bills to reduce or eliminate regulatory barriers to job creation this fall.

The new Republican Majority is finally holding Washington accountable, and has begun to business as usual. Our country currently faces two very serious crises – debt and jobs. These two crises are not mutually exclusive, but they are equally dangerous. That is why it is absolutely critical that as policies are developed to overcome each, we consider their impact upon each other. Anything less would be negligent.

Thank you,
Eric


Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/08/eri.../#ixzz1XwhtwNza (http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/08/eric-cantor-shoots-back-still-no-compromise-on-taxes/#ixzz1XwhtwNza) </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 20pt'>We must destroy Repiglican Fascism before it's too late! </span>