With every budget negotiation the question is which Republicans might be willing to break their tax pledge to Grover Norquist. Norquist's pledge has gotten a lot of criticism and it seems that some conservatives at least have chafed under them. Recently Norquist and conservative Republican Tom Coburn have been at odds. Last week the conservative Ross Douthat debated Norquist on "The Pledge."
http://www.aei.org/events/2011/11/29/pledge-or-wedge-grover-norquist-vs-ross-douthat-on-the-taxpayer-protection-pledge/
Douhat is currently an op-ed writer at the allegedly liberal New York Times. I actually watched a recording of the Norquist-Douhat debate. The format was very regulated-not necessarily in a bad way, though it seemed that when Douthat's bell was run he stopped talking whereas Norquist wouldn't till he finished his thought.
Douthat wanted to argue that Norquist's pledge is a strait jacket that doesn't serve the conservative cause well. During his introduction, the moderator revealed that Norquist was ranked one of the funniest of Washington celebrities.
Perhaps wanting to justify this Norquist began his segment with a joke: when midgets play miniature golf do they know it? That struck me as kind of funny but not necessarily politically correct and perhaps indicating a certain mean spirited tendency? While I'm not sure that it bothers me I know some would be.
In his argument itself, Grover made the case that the pledge is not "to him" but to the American people. He also argued against hypothetical questions like "is this a tax hike, is that a tax hike?" This was particularly in answer to the controversy recently where he has seemed to say that if the Republicans let the payroll tax cut expire, this would not count as a tax hike.
This is a smart tact for him to take in arguing that candidates and elected politicians don't make the pledge to him. Still it can be pointed out that ultimately he is the arbiter on whether or not something is a tax cut. He does attempt to argue that he doesn't want to play the hypothetical game of this is or is not a tax hike. But he has played it before and he played it last week by claiming the payroll tax cut expiring is not a tax hike.
His reasoning is interesting. He argues that it was by definition temporary. He's right of course. But then why would allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire but a tax hike as those too are temporary?
In the debate Douthat argues that things have changed and that the pledge is too dogmatic, that if for instance the GOP gets 85% spending cuts and 15% tax hikes why is this not a victory? Douthat then goes on to argue that spending as a percentage of GDP has not gone down, so maybe Norquist's total fixation on tax cuts hasn't served the overall conservative objective of smaller government.
In a sense though I guess you could argue it has worked. I mean, of course, I am a liberal Democrat and I don't want deep spending cuts anyway. But you could argue that the Norquist approach has worked in the Jude Wanniski "Two Santa Claus" theory of American political parties. Norquist also claims that when the Republicans have agreed to do tax increases and spending cuts, the spending cuts haven't "been real."
"A key part of Norquist’s case is that government spending is always bad and that, despite repeated promises of cuts by Democrats, it always goes up. We take no position on his economic argument about spending, but the notion that spending has always gone up only makes sense if you look only at raw dollar spending — which does not make much sense at all."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/grover-norquist-a-misleading-accounting-of-recent-history/2011/11/27/gIQAAhER2N_blog.html?hpid=z3
If you look at raw dollar spending then you'd never see a spending cut probably even with a President Gingrich that passed the Paul Ryan budget.
As to tactics with Douthat, as a liberal Democrats of course I don't want to see a dramatic cut in government spending so in trying to judge whether or not the categorical Grover pledge works or not I gotta be careful. I don't want to drown government in the bathtub but what would I think of his strategy if I did?
Douthat suggests that the Republicans might get more spending cuts with even small tax cuts. Norquist somehow thinks any such deal will always be tainted though this in in part due to his looking a raw dollar spending rather than at inflation and percentage of GDP. Still it seems to me that the Wanniski play has worked and Norquist is a successful case of that. Douthat may be right that it won't be in the future-I hope not. As the GOP had the choice of $800 billion in tax hikes this year in exchange for $3.2 trillion in spending cuts but ended up with no tax hikes but $2.2 trillion in cuts he might seem to be right.
Still it seems to me that Norquist's playbook has until recently served the Right well. There are signs it may not do in the future and it seems that some in the Republican [party are rethinking it.
Say this for Norquist though-for him it's really like a football game. When asked shouldn't he focus on "conservatives rather than Republicans" he did say that might seem true but pointed out that since Reagan the liberals are out of the Republican party and most liberals have left the Democrats. He then got into the moment. "How many Democrats want to cut spending? None of them, none! None! None!"
He speaks of the "Rs and Ds." For him the Republicans are his football team and the Democrats are the bad guys. When I was at Firedoglake-till they banned me-I was accused of being like that about the Democrats-rooting for them like a football team.
If true though I think I at least am realistic. Norquist makes it sound like with the Tea Party at the helm the Republicans are never going to lose an election again. That's what as I Giants fan I though in 1986, Then reality showed that no team no matter how good wins every season. True there are teams that over time do perform well and some are never do wells. But no one wins every year and Norquist sounds pretty overconfident. I suspect Obama will win a second term, The worry is the Senate where there are 23 Democrats up for re-election against only 11 for the GOP. Who knows whether or not they can take back the House? Certainly a lot of ground to catch up with.
No comments:
Post a Comment