Ninety-seven percent of House Republicans and all but seven Republicans in the Senate have essentially taken two oaths, which I present below in both chronological order of execution and in order of primacy:
1. To support and defend Grover Norquist in his effort to reduce government sufficiently so that he can “drown it in the bathtub.”
2. To “support and defend the Constitution,” which includes the pledge to “faithfully discharge the duties of the office” on which they enter.
It is increasingly clear that Republicans, at least in the House, are not willing to discharge the duties of their office, faithfully or otherwise, but are willing to flush the country down the toilet in a spasm of misplaced loyalty to a life-long, wealthy right-wing activist, who stupidly said in 2009:
When I became 21, I decided that nobody learned anything about politics after the age of 21.
That’s the mental state of a man who is the most powerful Republican in the country.
Norquist’s ongoing claim to fame is his Americans for Tax Reform, which self-claims that it “was founded in 1985…at the request of President Reagan,” and which is responsible for the worst American domestic mischief of the past 30 years, outside of the 9/11 attacks.*
Here is the mission statement of this quasi-religious group:
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle.
We believe in a system in which taxes are simpler, flatter, more visible, and lower than they are today. The government’s power to control one’s life derives from its power to tax. We believe that power should be minimized.
Now the sentiments expressed in that mission statement are supposedly the same sentiments that voters held as they swept into power the Norquistas in the Tea Party movement who now control the Republican Party.
Or are they the same sentiments?
Nate Silver, now with The New York Times, analyzed just-released Gallup poll data and came up with the following, in terms of people’s preferences for the proper mix of taxes and budget cuts as part of the deal to reduce the deficit:
Silver also noted, incredibly, that “there is a larger ideological gap between House Republicans and Republican voters than there is between Republican voters and Democratic ones.” He illustrated that ideological gap this way:
As you can see, House Republicans, with their anti-tax oath, have positioned themselves on the extreme, right where Grover Norquist, himself an extremist, wants them.
Unfortunately for Democrats, as Silver points out,
the mix of spending cuts and tax increases that Mr. Obama is offering is quite close to, or perhaps even a little to the right of, what the average Republican voter wants, let alone the average American.
And still that’s not good enough.
Mr. Obama has reportedly offered, under one ($2 trillion) scenario, a mix of 83% spending cuts to 17% tax increases. The other scenario ($4 trillion)involves somewhere between 75 and 80% spending cuts.
Hopefully, this exceedingly generous and base-vexing offer is far as Obama will go. But it appears fairly obvious that unless he is prepared to meet Republicans on the extreme, nothing he offers will cause House Republicans to get up off their collective knees, bent in loyalty to an anti-government fanatic, and fulfil their oath to do the right thing for their country.
_______________________________
* Interestingly, Norquist, who is married to a Muslim, has been viciously attacked by conservatives like Frank Gaffney and Pamela Geller and David Horowitz for his supposed connection to unseemly Muslim leaders, possibly including the Muslim Brotherhood. Don’t you just love these crazy folks? Never mind that Norquist was in fact associated with a true criminal, former lobbyist and convicted felon Jack Abramoff, something that doesn’t seem to bother right-wingers.
The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance 
ansonburlingame
/ July 14, 2011Now I read this one, seriously!
It makes some sense until you really look at the numbers in context.
It would seem, first of all that most people want both tax increases and spending cuts to get out of our mess. I agree. The issue boils down to how much of each is needed or how the “split” is achieved. I don’t think you and I disgree that some “mix” of both is needed. We just cannot agree on the proper mix. I’ll take 30% in taxes and 70% in spending any day.
Well for starters you and I, Duane, don’t agree on the overall problem it seems. I have stated it clearly (my view only) that it is a $1.5 Trillion (or so) problem each and every year until the number (deficit) finally goes to zero.
OK, if you don’t like zero, ever, tell me the “sustainable” deficit number (% of GDP or however you choose to state it).
But for sure, neither of us thinks $1.5 Trillion is the correct number or $1.0 Trillion or….. (maybe $500 Billion, the highest deficit achieved by Bush II in eight years).
NOW, you say Obama has asked for a total deficit reduction in ten years of $4 Trillion, which was true two or three days ago. What is “his” number today, two or three days later. I don’t know for sure, do you?
But let’s take $4 trillion over ten year or $400 Billion each year. Spliti it 50/50 in tax increases and spending or $200 Billion each year in BOTH.
Now at face value that is tricky. Because to go from $1.5 Trillion down to say zero one must do that for four straight years. Reducing the deficit by $400 Billion the first year ONLY brings the deficit down to $1.1 Trillion that year. You have to go back and reduce it by ANOTHER $400 Billion for three more years EACH year.
And that would also assume a FREEZE in ALL spending at the levels of the first year that such a deficit maneuver would begin. You cannot run up the budget target by some number of $ Billions each year while keeping your deficit cuts the same. Run up the overall budget each year and the deficits cuts would have to be $400 Billion PLUS the increase in the overall spending budget incease from the first and each succeeding year..
Don’t like $400 Billion per year, fine make it $200 Billion each year for a total of 7 years to reach zero, again with a freeze beginning the first year or increasing the $200 Billion by the increase in the budget by an equal amount.
Now you take taxes and I’ll take spending for each of those years, raising taxes by half and cutting additional spending by half for the given deficit target reduction each year.
Now you can tax the “rich” and get $70 Billion the first year. Where are you going to get the other $130 Billion (or $30 Billion) that first year and how do you sustain such tax increases by the same amount each and every year for 4, 7 or ten years, or 20 years.
After the first year or so you will run out of “rich” (like Greece) and left with looking for big revenue spikes elsewhere.
My job to produce the spending cuts is far “easier”. I can come up with $200 Billion the first year right out of the Defense budget with hardly any screams except from defense contractors. I say let’em scream for a year. I can still keep 10 Carrier Battle groups at sea that first year for sure.
But after 4, 7, ten or twenty years we are both going to be hard pressed to find the revenue hikes and spending cuts to meet our targets each year in deficit reduction.
You can offset to a degree those future problems with GROWTH in GDP. Such growth does not alone solve the problem but it makes it more “managable”. BUT you must also assume that growth in GDP all goes back into tax revenue increases. Hard assumption in a flat world, is it not? And when I lay off 50% of the total government work force in a year or so, GDP will go to hell, also for a few years until they find “productive” jobs which will depend on how you handle taxes.
I would offer tax reform to you to find more revenues in the longer term. I will take entitlement reform on my spending side. You do yours and I won’t complain but I get to do my side as well while you keep your mouth shut as well.
Wonder where we would wind up after 4, 7, ten or twenty years with each and every year having a budget FREEZE at 2012 levels or a commiserate increase in annual targets for deficit reduction.
Now show me an achievable political solution to that approach or give me an alternate approach to finally zero the deficit or keep it “sustainable”.
I hope the math is not too hard.
Anson
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ July 15, 2011Anson,
I am taking the time to address your comment at length because I recognize your earnestness on this issue.
For the record, to address something you wrote, the projected budget deficit for the succeeding fiscal year following the Bush presidency—which had nothing to do with Barack Obama but which he inherited—was, I believe, around $1.2 trillion. You can’t ignore that reality, Anson, not that it matters to the “math” of the situation. But it does matter to the politics, as we go forward. This mess was handed to President Obama and it is time that Republicans stop demagoguing it, at least until a deal is made.
And for the record, Obama has now asked for the largest deal “possible,” acknowledging that Republicans will not come to the table willing to increase taxes at all, a point they have made clear publicly time and time again. It is obvious that we could have some kind of deal to reform entitlements, something that will earn Obama much criticism from his base, and to put us on a path to address our long-term deficit problem, if it weren’t for Republican recalcitrance. I wish you would take them to task for that recalcitrance.
A balanced budget, under anyone’s scenario, is not achievable for years and years and years. That’s the part of this problem that you continue to fail acknowledge sufficiently. It’s unrealistic to think that the budget cuts necessary to balance the budget in the near term (as, say, Rand Paul insists) can get through the Congress, let alone get signed by the President. Even Paul Ryan’s budget takes a long time to achieve balance (something like the year 2040). That’s a lot of debt ceiling increases, Anson. And it’s also unrealistic to think that revenue increases necessary to balance the budget are possible in the current environment in the near term.
One of the reasons even Paul Ryan’s budget, as radical as it is, takes so long to achieve balance is because of its relatively low revenue to GDP ratio, which never goes above 19%. Ryan’s budget, instead of raising taxes, actually reduces them. That’s simply not realistic, if Americans decide they want to keep the social programs they now have and if they want to continue supporting a large national defense and so on. In my opinion, Americans have already decided that, as polls show little support for Ryan’s plan. You may ask, then, why bring up Ryan’s plan? Well, because it demonstrates how far removed from reality is this current crop of Republicans in Congress, since almost all of them voted for it.
So, sure, spending must come down from its current 25% of GDP high, and revenues must certainly go up from their historically low 14.5%, and as long as we realistically put ourselves on a path for those numbers to meet somewhere that is politically sustainable, we will be okay. There is only one way that we can achieve “politically sustainable,” as I note below.
Anson, I believe a single-payer health care system, along the lines of Medicare for all, is the grand solution to our debt problems (since by far the biggest driver of future debt is the uncontrollable increases in health care spending ), but I also recognize that there is exactly ZERO chance of that happening. Thus, there are two necessary parts to solving the debt problem in the context of current politics, one on the revenue side and one on the spending side:
1. Electing Republicans who are willing to raise revenues.
2. Convincing Democrats that Medicare needs reformed.
We need to elect realistic Republicans, those who can clearly see that the public will not part with cherished programs and need to be made to see that they need to pay for them. In short, we need to return to electing Eisenhower Republicans, which made their peace with the welfare state and had an accompanying fiscal responsibility. The conservatives who control the GOP these days, far from making peace with the welfare state, are at war with it and want to destroy it. That simply is not going to happen. All that will happen is that Republicans will refuse to sufficient fund the welfare state even in the face of the public demand to keep it as it is.
As far as the spending side of the solution, Democrats need to come to Jesus on the need to limit the growth of Medicare spending. Part of that difficult job would involve considering things like critically evaluating certain medical procedures (many of which have vocal constituencies despite limited value in terms of health outcomes) and addressing end-of-life care (which is easily demagogued). Further means testing and allowing the government to bargain with pharmaceutical companies will also have to be part of the fix. Painfully for Democrats, some “trimming” of benefits may also be in order, although the extent of such trimming is debatable at this time, and premium increases (part of means testing) will likely be part of the solution.
Look, I appreciate, as I said, your earnestness to get to a solution for a problem you consider so critical. But, as I have tried to point out, the biggest obstacle to what you want is your own party, which, if you want to know the truth, needs to hear from folks like you.
And perhaps you need to stop voting for them, if they won’t listen.
Duane
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ July 14, 2011@ both,
Maybe the budget challenge could be described in terms different from percentages of spending cuts and revenue hikes? Fixing a problem that everyone agrees is serious and massive is going to require a good deal of pain. So, in the context of numerous hurt feelings and political opining so evident on these blogs lately, perhaps the question should be, “Shouldn’t the solution involve some equality of financial and political pain on both sides?”
If the answer is yes, that would tend to leave Mr. Norquist out of the loop as I see it.
Jim
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ July 15, 2011Jim,
Sure, I agree with you about the sharing of pain, but I don’t agree that it should be shared equally, if by that you mean some kind of split down the middle (you used the word “some equality,” but I don’t know exactly what you mean by that). Some, in this increasingly lopsided economy, are more equal than others.
In any case, you propose describing the problem in “terms different from percentages of spending cuts and revenue hikes.” Okay, fine. But when it comes down to it, some metric is needed to evaluate how the pain is being distributed, right? The Republicans have been successful in getting Democrats to, in my opinion, unequally distribute the pain on the backs of the middle class, the poor, and so on, but even in that, Republicans aren’t satisfied.
As someone said, Republicans refuse to take “yes” for an answer. How do you deal with such people?
Duane
LikeLike
hlgaskins
/ July 14, 2011“I don’t think you and I disgree that some “mix” of both is needed. We just cannot agree on the proper mix. I’ll take 30% in taxes and 70% in spending any day.”
Obama has already offered 25% tax increase and 75% in spending cuts. So president Anson I’ll take your deal over Obama’s since it’s a much kinder deal.:>)
“But for sure, neither of us thinks $1.5 Trillion is the correct number or $1.0 Trillion or….. (maybe $500 Billion, the highest deficit achieved by Bush II in eight years).”
Where you are getting things wrong here is that a lot of Obama’s debts are Bush II’s debts carried over. Obama didn’t start either of the two wars in the Middle East, he didn’t give a huge tax break to the rich, he didn’t create the Medicare drug benefit, he wasn’t in office when the recession began in 2007 which lowered revenues which began the loss of jobs, and he wasn’t in charge when the housing bubble burst. He wasn’t even the first to begin bailing out our financial institutions GW was just as his father bailed out the savings and loans crisis of the 1980’s.
Obama took office with a bad hand, and he did his best to play it while the opposition relentlessly impeded his attempts. More than 70% of America’s economist believed that Obama needed to stimulate the economy to get it fueled and restarted. Even the “right-wing nut-job” Trump suggested a need for stimulus through projects such as rebuilding the countries infrastructure. No president living or dead can change a fastly receding economy in 4 years let alone in less than 3 years. Especially against a unified opposition bent on his removal from office.
“Now you can tax the “rich” and get $70 Billion the first year. Where are you going to get the other $130 Billion (or $30 Billion)”
Is all your sensory input blocked by a biological firewall? Once again: We need to deal with the healthcare issue and take the middle men out of the equation.
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ July 14, 2011HL,
It seems clear to me that the Tea Party’s drive to force the Democrat executive to “solve” this problem in one decision that extends fiscal and political pain for a decade or more has been too juicy to resist. Indeed, there have been many opportunities to fix it, but not without great political cost, and no president of either party has given it a serious try. Now, the debt ceiling limit appears to have provided the GOP a tool for a decisive political victory.
Tearing down the social net would officially be Obama’s decision and the blame would be enduring. The story of how we got into this mess, as you so well summarize it above, would be left in the dustheap of history. (Most people prefer a facile explanation over one that requires thought and research, do they not?)
And the really regrettable thing about it is that the key ingredient, the sine qua non, of the problem would still not be fixed. Again, as you say and as I have said repeatedly, that is the excessive costs of medical care.
I have been very much in sympathy with paring costs and reducing the size of government and I’ve been heartened to see this president embracing the same concept by agreeing in negotiations to Trillions in cuts, but the GOP intransigence over sharing the pain is simply unforgivable in my opinion.
Jim
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ July 15, 2011HLG,
“At least we’re not on a “Limb-augh,” and it’s going to take more than a chain saw to cut through his bulbous trunk.”
Ha! I don’t know if you saw his appearance here in Joplin on July 4 (available on YouTube), but he has, indeed, moved away from his in-between-wives weight into, shall we say, something a little more comfortable. “Bouncy, bouncy,” is what Keith Olbermann used to call him.
Now, I won’t criticize him for his bulbousness, but it is a little unseemly for someone so obviously well-fed to talk about discipline of any kind, even if it is only fiscal discipline.
Duane
LikeLike
Randy
/ July 14, 2011Duane, Obama is playing games and has no real intent ir desire to cut spending. I heard an interview with the speaker of the house yesterday where he said all of the “cuts” Obama offered are in outlying years! All of them. All of his proposals in fact include spending hikes over the next few years. Like most Democrats, Obama is a good politician and he knows how to work the class warfare game to his advantage. They are robbing our children Duane, and destroying our future. Can’t you see that? It’s time to cut, and as I showed you the other day, there are lots of EASY cuts – but libs are not interested. WHY? Heck Duane, if 100 percent of people want cuts and agree we must cut, and only half want tax hikes… Then why not cut and move on?? Why not?? POLITICS.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ July 15, 2011Randy,
There isn’t an economist worth his weight in Rush Limbaugh’s new tea who thinks that in this fragile economic recovery that government spending needs to be drastically reduced immediately. Of course the spending cuts are in the future, where they will have minimal effect on economic growth. And of course some form of stimulus—like, say, extensions of unemployment benefits (with outstanding stimulus effects) or a continuation of the temporary payroll tax reduction are in order at this time, when things are teetering on the edge.
I don’t know what polls you are reading, but Americans in the abstract want “spending cuts” (although not 100% of them, as you suggest), but when it comes down to specifics, they suddenly don’t want the spending cuts, if they are spending cuts that affect them. That’s what makes it a matter of POLITICS, Randy. It is politicians, elected by the people, who will make the cuts and who must consider what cuts to make and how to make them and using what time frame.
Ultimately, it is the people who should decide this, via an election where it is all laid out. Thanks to Paul Ryan’s budget plan, supported by nearly every Republican in Congress, we have a good idea of Republican thinking on how to move forward. And thanks to Obama’s willingness to risk his presidency on the debt ceiling issue, and his expressed willingness to reform entitlements (you, like some Republican talking head I heard on television tonight, can call him a liar, if you like, but the truth is that Republicans could have accepted his deal).
Is Obama “playing games”? Are Republicans nuts? Let the people decide, is what I say.
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ July 15, 2011OK, all,
First, good and reasonable reply Duane, and thank you for realizing my “seriousness or earnestness” about the problem of debt and deficits. But your reply in my view had one big error IMPLIED, not said directly.
You said, “A balanced budget, under anyone’s scenario, is not achievable for years and years and years.” I agree with that observation based on political reality in our country today, 100% agreement.
But I then am forced to ask, WILL ECONOMIC FORCES, (forces uncontrolled by politicians in the long run) GIVE US THE TIME TO FIX THE “MESS THAT WE ARE IN”. I strongly believe the answer is a resounding NO. Economic “laws”, forces, etc will bring the whole house of cards down around our ears much sooner than “years and years and years”.
So from the start you and I see the problem of deficit spending (and resulting debt) from a very different perspective. I think the roof will cave in much sooner than you do and you are striving hard to keep our “system” intact in terms of “some” defense and still a lot of entitilments. Frankly, I don’t think such is now achievable in America or the world at large.
And the “proof” in that pudding will be when major European countries start to fail, like Greece. And if we keep on keeping on in the way Obama is trying to lead us, then we will follow right behind Europe when the cliff becomes reality.
Now you have your “vision” and I have mine at a fundamental level. And of course both of us, ultimately, will “vote for our separate visions” if we have any sense. Occasionally I have “switched my vote” when the choice to support Republicans reaches the point of being ridiculous, OB being the most recent “switch” on my part. That was a no brainer for me. Hell, if that “guy from Branson” had won the Dem primary I may well have been “on the streets” campaigning for him.
It originated in a comment from me on Jim’s blog about what I now consider short, mid and long term goals that must be achieved to prevent total economic chaos in America and the world.
You will NEVER agree with that comment, I am sure. But I on the other hand while agreeing that politically it may well take years, and years and years to do what is needed, I simply do not think we have the time to wait that long.
But to achieve my goals, I agree 100% that “America as we know it TODAY (not some time in the past)” MUST change dramatically to avert disaster in the “long” term (5-10 years). As for the short term, if SS don’t go out in Aug, well……
Anson
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ July 15, 2011Anson,
You posed an important question (without, I might add, a question mark):
Your answer is a “resounding NO.”
It won’t shock you that I think you are dead wrong, Anson. And I can prove it:
From The Wall Street Journal:
And please read this opening paragraph from Reuters:
Think about that. The WSJ calls it a “strong” sale and Reuters characterizes the auction as having “good” demand, while others call it “impressive.” The point is that if “economic forces” were closing in on us like you and other conservatives imagine, then how could Treasury sell 30-year bonds to anyone at all? Are these professional investors out of their minds?
The reason these investors are taking the long-term bonds is
a) the rates of return are higher, and
b) the United States is a good long-term investment, especially compared to other places to invest.
I wish you and other naysayers on America’s future would just follow the money of the professionals and you will see that, yes, we have long-term issues with debt, but the United States remains the gold standard of investment opportunities, in terms of stability and trustworthiness and yield.
That’s why we can’t allow Republicans to screw it up.
Here are some of the auction details, which you need to read carefully, from Mortgage News Daily:
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ July 15, 2011Adding one more pertinent, and repeated, point to the above.
There is really ONE economic principle up which I base my pessimism. WE SPEND TOO DAMN MUCH MONEY.
But then you have all heard that before, have you not. And HLG will show me a ‘statistic” to refute my concern. God only knows what Jane will say.
Anson
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ July 15, 2011Yes, Anson, “we spend too damn much money”. I haven’t seen any disagreement with it. You use that often enough that you might want to create a computer shortcut so you could simply type some symbol and the phrase would appear. But if you do, I recommend you include ” . . . and it is mostly on entitlements.”
😀 joke joke joke joke
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ July 16, 2011First Jim,
Do you remember my “cut the spending exercise” of some months ago. I ulitmately took DOD down to about $300 Billion (or so) a year. So “mostly entitlements” is baloney.
Duane,
You almost sound like HLG with your “proof”. You supposition is that as long as Treasury Bills are a good investment we can keep on keeping one, right. For sure we have been doing exactly that at least since 1965 or so, right. And you expect that IF…. then we can still keep on keeping on the same way.
Both you and Obama obviously agree with that approach do you not?
My position is much simpler. We spend too much money (WSTMM, Jim) and have to borrow forever to do so, now month to month or even day to day?
I firmly believe there are severe consequences for ANYONE that tries to sustain such a way of life and when that “well” dries up people will DIE, miserably.
But if we only spend from the “well” (over time) the amount of rain that falls, that is OK with me. And if we keep enough in the “well” as a reserve for a drought, then we are even better.
That analogy, by the way, sounds like the Global Warming challenge (which is real someday, I just don’t yet know when). If we keep putting “stuff” in the atmosphere at a rate that is greater than the “natural” way for the atmosphere to “clean it up” ….. People will die when that happens also.
Anson
LikeLike
Jim Wheeler
/ July 16, 2011Baloney, Anson? I have shown you many charts that prove entitlements, and specifically Medicare/Medicaid, are the massive core of the debt and deficit problems. I can’t for the life of me understand why you would dismiss that assertion with such contempt as that word conveys. When one party in a discussion responds like that, reason is forfeit.
Hell, I was agreeing with you that we spend too much money and just trying to emphasize what I thought ought to be the nature of it. Maybe you automatically I am always against you.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ July 17, 2011JIm and others,
You stated that my “solution” to the problem was “mostly entitlements”. That was my “baloney” retort. I showed just for an example of defense cuts needed to begin to solve the problem, defense cuts larger than you have ever suggested with real numbers, for containing medical costs. As posted elsewhere, the solution to WSTMM goes far beyond any single issue, big issues or a comglomeration of smaller ones.
And on top of that I say we need more revenue as well. I like the 30% to 70% but will for sure take a REAL 25% too 75% if it is offered.
But the simple point is the politics of the issue. Obama will TAKE an immediate “25%” (but in reality much, much lower %) but delay the 75% to the “out years”. He wants tax increases NOW and MAYBE spending cuts “later”. Republicans want the exact opposite and there we sit.
And neither side (nor I) trust the other side to provide the proposed changes in the “out years”. So Obama’s “plan” (even the $4 Trillion plan) is give me what I really want NOW and we can wait on your part until later. That is baloney also, Jim.
anson
LikeLike
Hugh Campbell
/ July 19, 2011Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) – Puppet Master of Deficit Shell Game
A recent editorial by Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) in USA TODAY titled Opposing view: Just say no to higher taxes
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-07-04-opposing-view-debt-limit-taxes_n.htm
speaks volumes regarding the Obama administration’s misjudgment with the Fiscal Commission. Demands for the Commission arose from the 2008 book/movie I.O.U.S.A. highlighted: the Leadership, trade, savings and budget deficits; the first three being the most middle class relevant and root causes of the budget deficit, the tip of the iceberg. The ATR’s pledge signers (not permitted to negotiate in good faith) limit the focus only to spending, throwing middle class relevant deficits under the bus and allow ATR to be the Puppet Master of a deficit shell game.
LikeLike