No new taxes.
Since the early 1990s, it has become something of a mantra for the Republican party, with anti-tax activist Grover Norquist leading the way. Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, has infamously pressured members of Congress into signing his pledge not to raise taxes – any taxes – with a majority of Republicans taking up the pen.
Until now.
The first breaks in the “no new taxes” armor have happened with Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) now saying that he is open to compromise on taxes and the budget. He said, about his decision, “I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge.”
Sen. Chambliss is no political newbie. He has served in Congress since 1995, first as a Representative and now as a Senator. During his tenure, he has generally voted against higher taxes telling Politico just last year:
I have consistently stated that I am not in favor of tax increases. I have also consistently said I am in favor of significant tax reform to lower rates, simplify the code and close loopholes, actions that will increase revenue and improve America’s fiscal solvency.
But that was before, you know, the “f word” (fiscal cliff). And sequestration. And the looming deadline to balance spending cuts and tax rates.
Now, Sen. Chambliss is thinking about a compromise – as are Representatives Scott Rigell (R-VA) and Steve LaTourette (R-OH) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), all of whom have expressed concern over the terms of the pledge in today’s economy. Newly elected Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has refused to sign the pledge. And Grover Norquist simply isn’t having it.
Norquist – who advocates allowing us to fall over the cliff – says, if we do, it will be the President’s fault. He doesn’t believe in a compromise, calling the current economic situation “a completely invented crisis” (on that one point, you’ll know that we kind of, sort of agree). He further claims that most Republicans aren’t thinking about changing their minds on taxes and tax reform and refers to those leaning in that direction as having “impure thoughts.” Ultimately, he says those Republicans in Congress like being there and believes most won’t go back on their pledge because, “[i]f Republicans break their word, “They are saying, ‘I was elected under false pretenses because I misled you about what I would do.'”
The pledge doesn’t allow for any wiggle room. Those that sign the pledge – including 39 senators and 219 members of the House – agree to “solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases.” That includes, according to Norquist, allowing any existing tax cuts to expire. It also includes reducing and eliminating deductions – both of which Mitt Romney touted in his presidential platform.
That puts many who signed the pledge in a bind, which might explain the current do-nothing Congress. Simply put, many in Congress are afraid of the political machine that is Norquist, understanding that crossing him publicly could be the political kiss of death. Sen. Chambliss, however, doesn’t see it that way, saying that he cares a lot more about the country “than I do Grover Norquist.”
Sen. Chambliss’ willingness to talk compromise is both bold and tricky. The notion of compromise is practically lost in today’s economic climate – and perhaps that’s why we can’t manage any real change. In the 1980s, President Reagan, under pressure to stabilize the economy reconsidered his stance on taxes. He eventually rolled back some of his own tax cuts and in his second term, pushed through some of the most significant tax reform of the last century, the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
President Reagan might not have survived the pledge. Or Grover Norquist as a political powerhouse. Fortunately for him, neither existed in the early 1980s.
President Reagan’s successor, President H.W. Bush, wasn’t quite so lucky. President Bush, who was famously vilified for his “Read my lips, no new taxes” commentary isn’t a fan of Norquist or the pledge. While Norquist continues to use President Bush as the poster child for promise-breaking, President Bush believes that the “rigidity” of the pledge is bad for the country, saying, the “circumstances change and you can’t be wedded to some formula by Grover Norquist.” In the same breath, President Bush grumbled, “It’s—who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?”
Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson seems to agree, arguing against Norquist and the pledge. He said, seemingly speaking to those who signed the pledge:
What can Grover (Norquist) do to you? He can’t murder you. He can’t burn your house.
The fear of crossing Norquist is huge. But is it justified? He’s like the guy that you thought was really cool in high school and then, when you were all grown up, you realized he was really just a big bully. And I don’t know about you but I’m not a fan of bullies.
We’ll see if, increasingly, the current Congress agrees.
