Grover Norquist Reacts to Obama's Proposed 'Buffett Rule'

Monday, September 19, 2011

President Obama will announce a deficit reduction plan today that will reduce government spending by $3 trillion through cutting entitlements, tax increases, and war savings. The plan is the White House's opening offer to the Congressional "super committee," which has until Dec. 23 to reach a deal on deficit reduction. GOP lawmakers have already labeled the proposed tax hikes "class warfare," particularly the so-called "Buffet Rule." Named for billionaire Warren Buffett, who has repeatedly called for higher taxes on the rich, the rule imposes a minimum tax rate on those earning more than $1 million per year. Many Republicans contend that taxing the wealthy will only worsen the economy.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and author of "Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives," has a reputation of holding Republicans in Congress to Americans for Tax Reform's anti-tax pledge. He gives his spin on Obama's plan.

Comments [9]

Don Dubay

We can all hope that thru a combination of presidential ballsiness as in his announcement of Sept 19, and the rising ire of the american people toward the bought and paid for rightists in congress, "Grover" will be first neutralized, then marginalized, then forced into retirement in Siberia or some other suitable environment. It will help when voters wake up and throw out of office next November, any damned fool who signed that idiotic pledge.........

Sep. 20 2011 12:13 PM
Jean from Indiana

In the second year of Bush W. I learned of Grover Norquest advising Bush that the only way to smaller government is to bankrupt the government. His argument was that legislatures will never cut "the entitements" and shrink the government until they have no choice.

I credit him with engineering this push for uncontrolled spending that started with Bush on the wars and on a stead fast eye on never increasing taxes. By now, who in their right mind would think that cutting taxes on business is going to create jobs?

I look at the debt in this way. I am a modest middle class US citizen. When I see the national debt that each of us owes, I say, wow... I could pay my share but it would just about drain everything I have. Then you see that something like 2% own as much as the bottom 1/2 of our population and you realize they can pay off our national debt without breaking a sweat. Trouble probably is that they probably hold much of that debt and pay the low taxes on the capital gains that we taxpayers pay in interest on the debt that we could take to $0 if we only had the will to pay our debts. Sorry for the ramble... Hope it stirs some thoughts at least.

Sep. 20 2011 10:52 AM
Angel from Miami, FL

Perhaps if his mom would've named him after his paternal grandfather we all could've avoided ever hearing this Grover's tirades. Seriously, "Grover"?

I know, I could have commented on Grover's talking points but this is a baby boomer who got somewhere thanks to his father's hard work. To show his thanks he's decided to rebel against everything his elders built and, with help of those he believes to he his equals, tear down the good parts of society before the next generation can get a taste.

Sep. 20 2011 10:46 AM
James Morton from Troy, MI

Amazing that someone is complaining that the New York Times and The Takeaway made a symantic error regarding a plan that will in fact trim $3 trillion from the deficit.

Of course he didn't note Norquist's, all too typical grossly false, statement that Obama increased spending by $1 trillion. If he included ALL of Bush's 2008 spending, which was pre-economic-crisis, it would total $3.1 trillion. If he was honest, he would acknowledge that it was Bush's budget being executed in 2009 when the crisis was being handled and the total went to 3.71. In 2010, it was 3.78 and he says this year it will be 3.8. At most the increase is .7 trillion.

Additionally, We're still trying to finish Bush's mishandled wars and resolve this crisis. It is so disingenuous and so typical of him to suggest that the increase is an increase in "the size of government". Norquist also said Obama's proposed tax increase of 3% from 33% to 36% is "the opposite" of Reagan's reduction from 70% to 28%!!!

Talk about misinformation, but most unfortunately typical for the right.

Sep. 20 2011 01:05 AM

Oh, and one other thing: This webpage repeated a mistake made by the New York Times. The hyperlink to the Times story indicates that Obama proposed to "reduce government spending by $3 trillion."

That is a mistake. Obama does not propose to reduce spending by that amount. Obama, if anyone believes him, proposes to reduce spending by half that amount ($1.5 trillion) and to increase taxes to raise the other $1.5 trillion, in order to rdeuce the debt by a total of $3 trillion.

Here is the NYT correction to that effect:

"An earlier version of this article, and a headline on the Web, mistakenly referred to a figure of more than $3 trillion as the amount of federal government spending that President Obama's plan would cut. The $3 trillion figure should have referred to the amount the plan would reduce the deficit over 10 years; $1.5 trillion of that deficit reduction will come from tax increases, not spending cuts. The article also gave an incorrect date for the deadline for the bipartisan Congressional committee to come up with its own cuts. It is Nov. 23, not Dec. 23."

Little wonder, really, that a monumental error of one and a half trillion dollars would be made by the New York Times and repeated credulously by The Takeaway.

Sep. 19 2011 02:31 PM

As expected, an invitation extended to Grover Norquist on a public radio program leads to two things:

1. The program hosts cross-examine him. Each and every question is crafted with a premise, designed to poke at a perceived weakness in an argument. Follow-up is pointed; so as not to let the guest off easily.

2. The public radio listenership criticizes the hosts for being too easy, and the producers for inviting any conservatives on at all, or at least not without forceful rebuttal.

Since this week on public radio will be devoted to promotion of Obama's requested tax increases, let us listen and wait to see how Obama supporters and other liberals are treated, and how listeners to The Takeaway respond.

Sep. 19 2011 02:23 PM

If you are going to have a controversial guest such as grocer norquist on air, please follow him up with someone who knows the facts. The Bush budget did not include two wars.

If A small businessman clears one million dollars, by investing in his business, creating new jobs, his pretaxable income goes down and his tax bill goes down. In general, investing in stocks does not add income to that corporation. it pays the stock holder that sells the stocks. Large corporations are sitting on over one trillion dollars, they obviously are not creating jobs. In, general, the exec making over one million dollars a year doesn't work any harder than the person emptying his waste basket, but he sure enjoys it more.
Any congressman who signs a pledge to anyone that limits their ability to carry out the business of the country violates their oath of office.

Sep. 19 2011 10:03 AM
Sunshar from AZ (MS in SW)

Please fact check and expand on Mr. Norquist comments re: tax rates for the rich. If they were lowered during Mr. Reagan's terms, what are they now? And if he can compare Mr. Obama's plan for increased rates on the upper income to "another alternative tax" please note the major problem with the "alternative tax" is that it is not and has not been indexed to inflation. And by the way, who voted for Mr. Norquist, and his anti-tax pledge.

Sep. 19 2011 09:27 AM
Peg from Southern Tier NY

The wealthy as Job creators????????????

A better name would be Economic Parasites.

Sep. 19 2011 08:08 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.