Norquist: 'Impure Thoughts' on Taxes

     Though he claims not to be worried and that it's not his first rodeo, some of the other things he's said belie this lack of concern.

     "Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist on Monday downplayed possible GOP defections from his no tax increases pledge as a few senators “discussing impure thoughts on national television.”

     “No Republican has voted for a tax increase,” Norquist said on CNN’s “Starting Point.” “We’ve got some people discussing impure thoughts on national television.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84219.html#ixzz2DMIiSar7

    As to Republicans who have criticized the pledge or said they aren't beholden to it, Norquist insists that there's nothing to see here:

    "But Norquist said all of the potential defectors had mused about higher taxes in the past, and had failed to attract a following within the Republican Party. The current crisis, he argued, would be no different."

    “They all said that two years ago when we were arguing over the debt ceiling limit,” Norquist said.

    “And during the debt ceiling, we cut spending, we didn’t raise taxes. So other Republicans didn’t listen to Peter King or these others.”

     Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84219.html#ixzz2DMJ7Nkzr

     Ok. Yet it might seem that the politics are different now. True, the GOP held the line on tax hikes for the rich in 2011. What did it buy them, however? Lots of losses. At some point, Norquist's spell will wear off if it's shown that he's become more a liability than an asset.

     He also says that a pledge is a pledge-forever.

      "Norquist also dismissed King’s argument that the pledge does not apply, since he signed it more than a decade ago when he was first elected. Norquist said the pledge is for the length of a time a person holds office and King’s argument “doesn’t pass the laugh test.”

       "And he rejected Graham’s departure from orthodoxy, arguing it was predicated on Democrats agreeing to a list of impossible conditions, including a ten-to-one ratio of entitlement cuts to tax increases."

      “I said to him, ‘Senator, you’re agreeing to a tax increase in exchange for a pink unicorn,’” Norquist said, recounting a recent conversation with Graham.

       Ok. Granted you have to give Norquist that one too. Graham's deal is not terribly enticing for a Democrat-10 to 1 ratio?!

       You have Dems-rightly-demanding a 1 to 1 ratio.

        "Liberals on Capitol Hill are already drawing their line. For instance, West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin have circulated a letter urging Obama to shield entitlement programs from benefit cuts and demand $1 in revenue for every $1 in spending cuts."

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84207_Page2.html#ixzz2DMKZpUnK

      Still, it's clear that Norquist's own personal standing is somewhat on the wane. At least politically he's becoming something of an albatross. It's conceivable that even Repubs who want to maintain the hard line will rather not have their name associated with them. That hurts Norquist to the quick as his whole brand is that it is politically beneficial to be his friend.

      Only 219 Congresspeople are now signed onto his pledge according to he, himself.

      In the larger picture though, too much can be ascribed to Norquist himself. As Greg Sargent says, Norquist's importance gets exaggerated.

      "Are Republicans really rebuking Grover Norquist? Over the weekend multiple Republicans claimed that they are not obligated to honor the no-tax-hikes pledge they made to Norquist, which is supposed to suggest they are willing to make concessions on taxes."

      "Color me unimpressed. It’s easy for Republicans to say they are not beholden to Norquist. What matters is what they’ll support in terms of actual revenue increases, and all signs remain that they will support raising revenues only via closing loopholes — not a big concession."

      It isn't. It shows that the GOP has had to change their tune some. Maybe Norquist's influence may not be quite what it was. Standing up to him now gives a GOPer a certain cache now-it used to be that standing with him did that.

      Until now the GOP has still been sticking to this loophole illusion. Nevertheless it does seem that part of this may just be a need to save face. It's not clear how much of this opposition is just that. There was recently a proposal that would leave the top rate at 35% but tax all income for those who make more than say $400,000 at that 35%-end the lower marginal rates at lower levels for them.

      This apparently would actually raise rates for them to 41%..

       http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/11/what-does-gop-need-to-make-deal.html

        So clearly the political groundswell is on the Democrats' side. They just have to seize it.