Getty Images
There's been quite a bit of coverage over the last 24 hours of some Republican lawmakers, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), saying publicly they're prepared to blow off Grover Norquist's anti-tax "pledge" as part of a larger deal. Before the political world gets too excited, though, it's worth paying attention to the fine print.
A pair of congressional Republicans reiterated their willingness Sunday to violate an anti-tax pledge in order to strike a deal on the "fiscal cliff," echoing Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the Georgia Republican who suggested last week that the oath may be outdated.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said he was prepared to set aside Grover Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge if Democrats will make an effort to reform entitlements, and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) suggested the pledge may be out of step in the present economy.
Yes, all of a sudden, Norquist's pledge is losing friends fast. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said last week, "I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge," and the political establishment swooned when Graham proclaimed yesterday, "I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform."
To be sure, Norquist's waning influence is a positive development, as is the larger shift in the debate -- Washington is no longer arguing whether to include more revenue in a debt-reduction deal, but how to include more revenue.
But to characterize Graham's position as some kind of major concession is a mistake. Indeed, while the South Carolinian's position is ever-so-slightly more constructive than some House Republicans', the closer one looks at his approach, the less reasonable it appears.
What he's proposing is Republicans to get what they want on both sides of the budget ledger.
Let's unwrap this a bit. On the one hand, Graham is willing to accept new revenue. Through slightly higher tax rates on millionaires and billionaires? Absolutely not -- Graham specifically proclaimed, "I will not raise tax rates to do it."
So what will the Republican senator tolerate? Mitt Romney's plan. Here's what Graham offered yesterday:
"When you're $16 trillion in debt, the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming Greece, and Republicans should put revenue on the table. We're this far in debt. We don't generate enough revenue. Capping deductions will help generate revenue. Raising tax rates will hurt job creation. So I agree with Grover, we shouldn't raise rates, but I think Grover is wrong when it comes to we can't cap deductions."
In other words, Graham -- being singled out for praise today for being so "reasonable" -- would demand that Bush-era tax rates be left in place for everyone, including the very wealthy, but he'd consider a cap on deductions. As a practical matter, his "concession" is being open to adopting Romney's revenue proposal.
In exchange, Graham expects Democrats to reward Republicans with "structural reforms" to support programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. What kind of "reforms" are they seeking? We don't know -- no one in the Republican Party has been specific about the kind of entitlement cuts they expect to get in a bipartisan deal.
Stepping back, consider the general framework of the proposal we heard yesterday: on the one hand, Republicans would get the tax rates they want. On the other hand, Republicans would also get the entitlement changes they want.
And because Grover Norquist doesn't like it, this is considered the reasonable GOP offer.
Democrats, after a very successful election cycle, are being asked to accept a deal in which Dems concede on tax rates, concede on entitlements, and accept the reward of Romney's revenue plan? This is what passes for bipartisan compromise in late 2012?
Leave a Comment:
Simply sounds like lumpy gravy to me! -Kevo
Breaking the Grover Norquist logjam is simple! Democrat voters need to pledge to vote for those Reps in the Republican primaries when they come up in 2014. You can still vote for the Democrat in the General election but this would ensure that the Tea Party and the Koch brothers can't "Primary" more moderate members of Congress.
Take a step off the curb (not the cliff) and let this preening little moron and the rest of The Ignoramus Party trip on the curb, then "negotiate" with them. Like their traitor ancestors they only understand getting their ass whipped several times in succession before they understand they won't be "rising again."
Do the Republicans understand that Romney lost? That America collectively said "no" to his economic ideas?
Oh, they know . . . they just don't care . . . because those of us who said "no" are not financing them.
Sure they do. But they've had such profoundly excellent results rolling Dems in the past with flagrant bullsh!t that they figure they've got nothing to lose by pursuing their agenda like always.
Where is the smackdown, the public excoriation of the r's bogusness that would lead them to really get the message and work in an honest way toward a productive outcome? The election obviously didn't provide it.
Graham is ptomaine walking. Nasty stuff that'll make you sick just getting near it.
Sorry Ms Lorraine, The House was kept Republican to oppose Obama.
Sorry Shooter, but the House stayed Republican, because the districts are rigged in a way so they would be. House Districts are not set up to represent the people of that district. But more so the party that determined the lines of those districts.
Shooter, I realize that you are just running feces through the blender but your statement is just so wrong it begs response. First, I am curious just who you feel kept the House Republican? How does the fact that they retained control but lost seats square with your theory?
While they did retain the House the Republicans LOST the election. They lost the Presidency by over a hundred electoral votes and seats in both chambers. There is NO way to spin that as even a draw. And, surprising as the fact may be, people voted Republican for a lot of reasons (just as they did Democrat), most having little or nothing to do with Obama.
I think the simple-mindedness of Republican responses is what bothers me most. They offer this stuff seriously and I'm expected to believe it. I mean really. They would lose my vote just for repeatedly insulting my intelligence if they hadn't already lost it for a host of other reasons.
The smackdown is around the corner. Repubs are leaving themselves open for another sucker punch.
These Republicans are playing for 2014..sounds like a fear of a Grover primary challenge. Ask the Senator after ten years of Bush tax cuts where are the jobs he is afraid of hurting ?? The media should start keeping these people honest. The same goes for Sen. McCain. Why is media giving him a free pass to slander Ms. Rice ?? A review of his war record outside of his prisoner of war time is absolutely not sterling. Now he is allowed to slander people and you in the media sit idly by ?? The election is over. Get on with the job of reporting the governing of your country. Do your job and keep the politicians honest.
Steve, the big media organizations are owned, lock, stock and barrel, by big conglomorates controlled by very conservative elites. I am afraid keeping politicians honest isn't part of the modern journalists job discription. Big media people do exactly what is expected of them. That is why they are big media people.
Don't forget that there were two parts to the Grover Pledge. First was "no new taxes," and the second part was that if you ignored the first part, he wouldn't support you and you wouldn't be re-elected. What I think is different now is that so many of Grover's candidates were defeated this time around. His threat loses some of its danger and fear of voter repercussion maybe has a little more cred.
"I think the [Norquist] pledge is outdated, and I will not it be the determining factor in my fiscal responsibilities to my country." - Graham
"So you will consider raising tax rates on the richest Americans?" - Press
"Absolutely not, raising taxes is never going to stimulate the economy." - Graham
"So you still standing by the pledge then?" - Press
"Absolutely not!" - Graham
So basically, they're saying it's not "forcible rape" just "rape" - same song, same tune......We'll see you in 2014!
Do NOT believe a word any republican spouts...they are trying to obscure their party platform...they will lie to achieve their agenda...they lost this election, which means they will be even more dishonest and more willing to go that extra mile to win by any means necessary...I'm still curious about the hacker Anonymous's claim of protecting Ohio's voting machines from a Rove attack...It seems the GOP's arrogance and over confidence betrays something...the expectation of a certain outcome...and the surprise that it didn't happen...something smells bad in GOP land...
AGREED
Their taxes have not been raised in approximately 11 years - WHERE ARE THE JOBS - JOB CREATORS???? Oh is that because the real job creators are the American Consumer.
No, jobs do not come from the American consumer. Jobs come from business.
Where do consumers get their money? Jobs that come from business. Business is the only institution that creates economic wealth (goods and services), the source of prosperity. Without new wealth there is no new jobs, and no new tax revenue.
Business always comes first, they produce the benefits.
Jobs in fact do come from the consumer. Because it's the consumers who buy the product or services business proved. If the consumers do not consume, the business cease to produce. Business do not create jobs, people do, and they do so by buying goods and services.
People can get their money from any number of places, not necessarily a 'business". One can inherit it, be self employed, work for the Government, etc. Suggesting that people only get their money, and by default their purchasing power, from the entity that is a business, is absurd.
Right, Calvin Lundy. I hear these complaints that businesses are failing because of "government regulations," but I'm not convinced. If they're failing, there are lots of possible causes, and it seems logical to me that first among those causes is lack of customers. When people are carefully counting every dollar they spend, competition for those dollars is fierce. And any savvy business owner knows he needs fewer workers when the customer pool dries up.
New to politics and whatnot, so don't blast me, just making an observation... Seems to me it's the franchises that are claiming to hurt the most, and they're raising prices on customers and cutting hours for employees, as well as trimming the employee pool as well. But these mandates have come from the top down, not from the individual franchise owner. Individual franchise owners can choose to not participate in certain sales, etc, but the price for each dish is going to stay the same. Seems to me employees will start flocking to work for actual small businesses; they will work for lower rates, yes, but when they get more hours it will cut even. Generally speaking, it's a better atmosphere, anyway; they don't have to respond to corporate bullcrap. If we set a bill for a new tax pool - the richest of the richest of the rich - and raised taxes on them, while lowering commercial property tax rates, wouldn't that stimulate the economy, as well as creativity and variety? Less people would flock to franchises (bad business behavior), and more people would band together to start their own small business (providing it's a good business model) in desperation to generate some kind of revenue. The nationwide act of raising prices on the working poor by the (especially restaurant) chains would actually allow the new small businesses to be competitive while also reinstating the DIY mentality that we lost after WWII (because really, screw the super rich for acting like we're the only ones who need to make a sacrifice). I think that the Dems would let Republicans pass a lot of business-friendly bills if the Republicans agreed to raise tax rates on the super rich, even by a bit (if you have billions, I don't want to hear about how you're losing even $10 million more per year. Buy less expensive crap from overseas).
There isn't one reasonable penny is Ms. Graham's coin purse.. It is a step in the right direction to hear that some are disbanding from the no tax pledge from that other ignorant, self-hating closet homo but like that in itself displays, "reasonable" has been completely bred out of the GOP cell line. "Duty to country" is also a blatant and odoriferous load of horseshet..
Graham proclaimed yesterday, "I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform."
So - He acknowledges that raising taxes is good for the country, and, bless his heart, he's willing to do it (Well, not really, as explained later in the post). But in exchange for doing what's right, he's gotta have some goodies no matter the cost.
Without entitlement reform, no use doing anything else either. entitlements are the gobblers of most of the government spending.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
In case we want to see the breakdown of how the taxes are spent.
funny how that doesn't mention how any of that "entitlement spending" goes to corporate welfare.
Hmmm. I a little memory cell is being a bit of a pest. Isn't Lindsey Graham the same guy who demanded that the US Government pay for a major project to upgrade the Charleston, SC harbor? Maybe that "little" project should be part of the deficit reduction discussions.
The world of Grover Norquist and the Tea Party radicals driving the agenda of the Republican Party really is a fantasyland. Conservatoires not only denied the accuracy of their "skewed" polls before the election, they are acting like nothing changed and that President Obama did;'n twin a resounding landslide mandate earlier this month. Americans voters made it known loud and clear that tax breaks for the rich while forcing draconian cuts on the middle class and working folks will not be the path of our country. The GOP can either accept this reality, or else they can whine on fox News and slowly drift off into irrelevance as a political player in the United States. - progressive
Lindsey Graham etal.are just putting out more political garble. Nothing more than smokescreens, they huff and they puff but say nothing more than Romney was saying in his "failed" campaign. Anyone should be smart enough to figure out when Boehner chooses to put "Obamacare" on the table, they are not serious. He and the rest of his caucus know it would be a killer to the negotiating process. But they figure Obamacare is still so unpopular that they can take advantage of it. But I have news for them, it is'nt that unpopular anymore.The last I seen the disapproval rate was down to 33%.
I can't fault Graham or other Republicans on this one. This is the way you are supposed to begin negotiations. You try to get as much of your own plan as possible and you do that by putting forward your own plan. It's foolish to make concessions before the other party has made a counter offer.
The Democratic strategy of opening with a deal they think both parties can accept gave us the Heritage Foundation's health care plan, the 2-year extension of the entire Bush tax plan in 2010, and almost gave us a 10-to-1 cuts-to-revenue deal during the government shutdown negotiations in 2010. For all the talk of Democrats being the "smart" party, Republicans are by far the better politicians.
I have to agree. For all of the posturing on the Right for what they want, I have yet to see what the Dems are offering on the Left, aside from standing firm on raising the taxes on those making over $250,000. Perhaps they start by offering to raise the income threshold to $1 million and some concession on Medicare and Medicaid reform (leaving Social Security off the table). Perhaps some sliding-scale co-pay on visits and or medications. I'm a liberal but I know the Left is going to have to give a little to gain a lot. Just because Obama won on his mandate, the Dems can't continue to say "The people have spoken" because roughly 47 percent (funny how that number keeps popping up) did vote for Romney. I think the Repubs are just trying to save face.
I agree too. Let the tax cuts expire.
This has been the Republican definition of "compromise" since the Reagan era: "We get everything we want, and you get nothing you want. Deal?"
Graham is simply a lousy public figure. I trust Miley Cyrus more. He makes used car salespeople look like heart surgeons.
i think mourdock nailed it. the definition of 'bi-partisanship' in the g.o.p. dictionary is when democrats come over to the republican's way of thinking.
I don't trust Senator Graham. I find him to be one of the most dishonest Senators we have.
Who cares what Republicans say? Just let the tax cuts expire, then talk to them.
Just because Republicans proposed it, doesn't make limiting or eliminating deductions a bad idea. A simpler tax code is a goal we should all be behind, even if our definitions of simplicity vary. The big problem with the Romney approach is that there just isn't enough revenue there to make a difference, meaning that you either have a negligible amount of deficit reduction, or you need to make draconian spending cuts that probably hurt GDP even more than the tax increases.
We should be closing deductions and tax expenditures while also raising rates, and some of those increases are going to need to hit people making $70k-$250k, despite how politically toxic everyone in Washington thinks that would be. Even if it's the right thing to do, nobody is going to want to spin that compromise, "Hey, we did the other party's tax increases and in exchange they agreed to do our tax increases too!"
Why do these Reptilian politicians put their oath to Grover Norquist over their oath to the Constitution?
"I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform."
For the good of the country, they need to honor their oath of office.
I also do not find Senator Graham trustworthy. What entitlements? Those that make it possible for for poor among us to live with some decency? Or those that go to those with plenty of money, such as members of the Congress of the United States?
Their perks are myriad, yet would fall into the "entitlement" category -- and they are not written in stone. Well, maybe they are . . . But they need to be considered.
Oh, and Marko56, you speak sense -- just let the tax cuts expire (knowing full well that any legislation can be made retroactive). What a cat fight that would engender!
Can't you go to prison for Bribery, how about false advertising or Big Oil bonuses from the good guys of Texas. Weeeee! Lobbying is slang for bribery. Romney is busy trying to figure out how to pay all those donors back for all the money he lost them.
Miss LIndsey needs to go somewhere , sit down, and S-T-F-U.
nobody is playing with him.
Without numbers the charges against Graham are a bit one-sided.
Don't the Democrats want THEIR way on both sides of the ledger too? Sure, why not?
But we have no numbers to know if Graham is being an asshat or not.
Would he cut oil subsidies and reduce Medicaid by $1.00?
Technically, he'd be "reducing loopholes" and "cutting entitlements", and Democrats should grab that deal.
Point is, absent numbers this is a non-event we would have done well to ignore.
Seeya when you have some numbers, Senator. Until then, you're just posing for the cameras and boring me stiff.
Yes, because a proposal like that which would Democrats could see as oh-so-favorable would have to be kept secret. You're talking about a party that stood firm against 10 to 1 reductions to revenues. Feel free to give Senator Babydoll Eyelashes the benefit of the doubt, but the hyperbole of what you suggest is, well, hyperbolic.
This is why I'm such a fan on Benin and Maddow. Politicians used to have tact. You used to need a lawyer to understand what they were really saying. Now, as long as you're not distracted by a flashing light, their double talk is clear and it's good to have a few people out there to call it out for those who might not be as quick on the uptake.