60 minutes piece on Grover Nordquist

[Guest]

was a reminder of what a dangerous and divisive person he is. There are many conservative principals worth being passionate about, but the absolute refusal to raise taxes on wealthy individuals is not one of them. As Allen Simpson, a long standing, and well-respected conservative has said, Norquist and his tax pledge are bad for America. Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform, and their no tax pledge have forced republicans into a corner. They must sign the pledge or risk being heavily opposed by ATR, and ultimately defeated in primaries. Once they sign, they must avoid voting for any tax increase or ATR will see that they are defeated in their next primary. This unelected despot, holds the entire republican party in his hands as he works to keep taxes low on his wealthy contributors. He and his group have been instrumental in convincing millions of middle and lower class conservatives that it is in their best interest to keep the taxes of billionaires at historically low rates, a real marketing success story, to the detriment of most of them and America at large. The majority of people who have become very wealthy have done so because of the great opportunity provided by this country, and as the result of infrastructure built largely on the backs of average taxpayers. And, the massive tax breaks, subsidies, and loopholes many of them enjoy make the most blatent welfare queens look like pikers. This country has financial problems that cannot be solved simply by cutting programs and services to the poor and the elderly. The wealthy 5% or so could be forced to step up and pay the share that equates to the advantages they enjoy. But, unfortunately, it cannot happen because Grover Norquist and ATR have every republican congressman in their pocket, and none are enough of a statesman to say "I will do what's right, even if it means I get defeated in the next election". And don"t tell me the left is just as bad, although on many fronts they are, but they have shown a willingness to compromise on their social program funding, but there is no compromise for the Grover Norquist party.

[Guest]

After seeing that piece on "60 Minutes", VK's mantra to never vote for incumbent makes perfect sense. Let them take their "pledges" with them as they are voted out of office.

[Guest]

The 60 Minutes piece on Norquist was informative...and scary.

Norquist is a lobbyist. But because he has organized his lobbying firm as a not-for-profit, he is not obligated by law to reveal the sources of the millions of dollars of funding that he receives. Who could they be? He would have us believe that he is simply an ultra-conservative who opposes any form of tax increase.

But one must wonder: is Norquist simply a high-minded conservative? Who else might be funding his lobbying firm with the millions of dollars necessary for him to maintain such control on the Congress? Rich folks or corporations who want to keep tax rates and loopholes in place? Foreign governments who want to weaken or destroy the U.S. economy and position in the world? The whole scenario makes it difficult for me to believe that Norquist is simply a well-meaning uber-conservative.

By his own admission wants to reduce the size of the federal government to what it was in 1900. He says that programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, funding for education, almost all of the regulatory agencies, and so forth, should be eliminated and replaced by programs and means developed by the private sector. (Where he stands on the Defense Department is an interesting question that went unaddressed in the 60 Minutes interview. We didn't have much of a Defense Department in 1900.)

What's more important and raises my underlying question is his iron-fisted control of 279 members of Congress. That's the majority, 52% of the 535 who we elected to represent us. I don't remember the precise breakdown, but that number contains virtually all the Republican members of the House and a substatial number of GOP Senators, including all those in Republican leadership positions. He was described in the piece as the most powerful man in America. More powerful than any of the Congressional leaders or even the POTUS.

After watching the piece I wondered WHY is Norquist so powerful? He gains his power by offering campaign financing to GOP candidates and members who agree to sign his promise to never, ever or in any way raise taxes. If any of those 279 elected representatives violate that pledge to him, he selects other candidates to run against the "promise violators" and finances their election to replace the member who reneged on the pledge made to him. He has been very successful in doing so.

Basically, on fiscal matters, Norquist controls the majority of the U.S. Congress.

I asked myself, why do elected members of Congress permit themselves to be so beholden to an admitted lobbyist? His power comes from the GOP members who agree to sign his pledge and then not violate it. Someone is giving him enough money to essentially buy their votes and their loyalty. Those 279 members of the Congress who have signed his pledge are beholden to Norquist, not the people who elected them as their representative. They cannot govern the country responsibly, they cannot compromise on the question of increasing revenues to the Treasury, unless they choose to face the threat that Norquist will oppose them, get them replaced in the Congress.

So the answer to my WHY question is that Norquist's power comes from the members of Congress themselves. Those 279 seats they fill are apparently such attractive and lucrative positions that they don't dare cross Norquist. They are willingly more beholden to Norquist than those who elected them as their representative. Grover Norquist has bought and paid for the majority of votes in the U.S. Congress on tax matters.

Folks, this may be one of the most scary exposés that I've ever seen reported in the media. Why it hasn't gotten more attention is beyond me. But clearly, on fiscal matters there is one man--Grover Norquist--who controls 52% of the U.S. Congress in the way they might address and vote on the things necessary to address the dire fiscal crisis facing the country. He willingly admits that conformance to his pledge is more important than even the fiscal health of the country.

This is UNBELIEVABLE!

[Guest]

The smug look on Norquist's face was sickening. He KNOWS he is a vulture with these lily-livered congress members in his clutches, but it's like he thinks he's omnipotent.

All I could think of was this:

meg·a·lo·ma·nia noun \ˌme-gə-lō-ˈmā-nē-ə, -nyə\

Definition of MEGALOMANIA

1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance

2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur

I also kept thinking this from Paradise Lost, by Milton, fits Norquist:
"Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven."

I thought it was interesting that Jon Huntsman is the only GOP candidate (of the top ones) who has not signed Norquest's pledge. He's quoted here, saying: "First of all, I don't sign pledges. I was asked to sign a pledge when I ran for governor in 2004, and I didn't," Huntsman said in a gaggle with reporters aboard his plane. "And I got attacked because I didn't. And then we went around cutting and reforming taxes at record levels."
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/168295-norquist-confident-huntsman-will-come-around-on-tax-pledge?page=2#comments

For those who missed 60 minutes, here is the Kroft interviewing Norquist segment online:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7389006n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

[Guest]

The smug look on Norquist's face was sickening. He KNOWS he is a vulture with these lily-livered congress members in his clutches, but it's like he thinks he's omnipotent.

All I could think of was this:

meg·a·lo·ma·nia noun \ˌme-gə-lō-ˈmā-nē-ə, -nyə\

Definition of MEGALOMANIA

1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance

2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur

I also kept thinking this from Paradise Lost, by Milton, fits Norquist:
"Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven."

I thought it was interesting that Jon Huntsman is the only GOP candidate (of the top ones) who has not signed Norquest's pledge. He's quoted here, saying: "First of all, I don't sign pledges. I was asked to sign a pledge when I ran for governor in 2004, and I didn't," Huntsman said in a gaggle with reporters aboard his plane. "And I got attacked because I didn't. And then we went around cutting and reforming taxes at record levels."
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/168295-norquist-confident-huntsman-will-come-around-on-tax-pledge?page=2#comments

For those who missed 60 minutes, here is the Kroft interviewing Norquist segment online:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7389006n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

Given how sucessful he has been, it seems that he is NOT delusional..and does have personal omnipotence and grandeur.

[Guest]

a true scumbag....he is everything that is wrong with our government. The smile at the end made me sick.

[Guest]

Given how sucessful he has been, it seems that he is NOT delusional..and does have personal omnipotence and grandeur.

I think the part that is "delusional" is his thinking he cannot be taken down, and that his grip on these politicians is forever.

All humans and megalomaniacs can be taken down....i.e. Saddam Hussein, hiding in a literal rat hole in the ground but still proclaiming his supremacy as president.

And as noted in the 60 minutes segment, some GOP signees are already ignoring their pledge they signed years ago.

They've been appeasing Norquist--feeding a crocodile, hoping it will eat them last--but maybe they've realized they'll get eaten soon anyway. The 60 Minutes segment is a good start.

[Guest]

Video: Rep. Wolf on House floor, October 14:

WOLF: GROVER NORQUIST’S RELATIONSHIPS SHOULD GIVE PEOPLE PAUSE

http://wolf.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=34&itemid=1805

and

"In an unusually public display of dissension in GOP ranks, Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.) lashed out at antitax advocate Grover Norquist, charging that he abuses his position as sponsor of a no-new-taxes pledge.

The comments in a House floor speech Tuesday marked a flare-up in a long-simmering feud between Mr. Norquist and some lawmakers who chafe at his perceived influence...."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/04/rep-wolf-attacks-grover-norquist-over-antitax-pledge/

[Guest]

No responses from the far right. I take that to imply tacit agreement. Honestly, unless you are in the $250K taxable income bracket (which would mean you earn well over $300K), you would likely be unaffected, from an income tax standpoint, by increased taxes on the highest earners. And if you are in that bracket, you might realize the fairness of playing a small part to help get the country that has enriched you out of the mess it is in. Here in Missouri and Kansas, legislators are trying to do away with state income taxes and institute a higher (10%) sales tax, which absolutely shifts the tax burden from the well-to-do to the lower and middle classes. How can that be defended?

[Guest]

...

[Guest]

No responses from the far right. I take that to imply tacit agreement. Honestly, unless you are in the $250K taxable income bracket (which would mean you earn well over $300K), you would likely be unaffected, from an income tax standpoint, by increased taxes on the highest earners. And if you are in that bracket, you might realize the fairness of playing a small part to help get the country that has enriched you out of the mess it is in. Here in Missouri and Kansas, legislators are trying to do away with state income taxes and institute a higher (10%) sales tax, which absolutely shifts the tax burden from the well-to-do to the lower and middle classes. How can that be defended?

It can be defended from the standpoint that people legitimately employed should not be punished to pay for the taxes that people working for cash under the table, illegal immigrants, drug dealers, etc. are not paying in income tax. Consumption (sales) tax involves everyone, not just those legitimately employed. Also, there are some good points in here:

Between 1998 and 2010, private sector jobs in the 10 states with the highest state and local tax burden increased by 1 percent, whereas the 10 lowest burden states grew by 8.8 percent. At the same time, Kansas lost 1.2 percent.

Not surprisingly, the nine states with no personal income tax did even better; they added 1.7 million jobs while the rest of the country lost 300,000. We must reduce our tax burden to create jobs and economic growth, and gradually eliminating the state income tax will have the greatest impact.

But that would not cause crippling reductions in essential services. Letting taxpayers keep more of their income will increase sales tax receipts, as much more money will be spent on taxable goods.

That’s exactly what Oklahoma experienced when it reduced its income tax rate; Gov. Mary Fallin is working to eliminate their income tax, and some in Missouri are considering the same. Imagine the impact if one or two of our neighbors did so while Kansas kept taxes high.

Read more: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/gradual-elimination-kansas-income-tax-could-boost-states-future/#ixzz1eOndy23K

[Guest]

It can be defended from the standpoint that people legitimately employed should not be punished to pay for the taxes that people working for cash under the table, illegal immigrants, drug dealers, etc. are not paying in income tax. Consumption (sales) tax involves everyone, not just those legitimately employed. Also, there are some good points in here:



Read more: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/gradual-elimination-kansas-income-tax-could-boost-states-future/#ixzz1eOndy23K

Most if not all states without an income tax didn't simply shift the tax burden to a sales tax. This is not a case of containing out of control government spending or even lowering the overall tax burden on the citizens - it is a case of shifting the tax from income to expenditures. Anyone knows that the lower the earnings the larger percent is spent, as opposed to saved or invested. So the net result is a larger percentage of the tax burden is shifted from the well to do to those less fortunate. This shift would not hurt me personally, but is not good public policy.