Grover Norquist and the Tea Party Got Their Wish, They Broke America: The "Super Committee Fails" [106*10]

THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICA

GROVER NORQUIST
GROVER NORQUIST | Source

GROVER NORQUIST AND THE TEA PARTY WON - AMERICA LOST

TODAY THE "SUPER COMMITTEE" ANNOUNCED they failed! Grover Norquist had his way with America with his "No Tax Increase" pledge, which he got virtually all Conservatives to sign and then, under threat of withdrawel of political support, to keep it. To keep it regardless of the great damage that it might cause the country, to keep it even in the face of all of the logic and factual evidence that proves the basis of the pledge is nonsense; I have presented my own versions of this evidence myself several different ways.

The fact is the Democrats were will to do their part; they were willing to make rather substantial changes in their sacred cows, entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. They were were willing to accept much of the Domineci-Rivlin or Simpson-Bowles Plans, but, the Conservatives and Tea Party, largely because of their pledge to Grover Norquist, were not; they were not willing to do the one thing that is necessary to make our goverment work - compromise.

As Governer Perry Might Say - "Oops!"

APPARENTLY I HIT PUBLISH before its time, rather than "done editing". I was going to wait until the "super committee" had actually failed before publishing this hub, because, who knows, they might of had an 11th-hour epiphany and got something passed and then I would look like the DEWEY WINS! headline; not a place I would like to be.

So, my apologies to the 8 comments I had before I unpublished this hub in order to wait and see the outcome. I do appreciate them though, I haven't had that many in a long time.

OK, Now They Have Failed (Had to wait for the stock market to close, I suppose)

NOW IT IS OFFICIAL and I can publish this hub and comment on the comments, which I appreciate you all writing as well as finish this hub.

THE LEADERS

MINORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL
MINORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL | Source
SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER
SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER | Source

Why Did It Fail?

SIMPLY SPEAKING, because Conservatives refused to make any substantial increase in revenues. The one gesture they did make was to raise taxes on the middle class while cutting taxes on the wealthy ... again AND make permanent the Bush tax cuts. By not compromising, I suspect what they actually did, those short-term thinkers that they are, is to guarantee that the Bush tax cuts, all of them WILL expire at the end of 2012.

Why you ask? Because it will become an election item and 75% of Americans thinkraising taxes raised on the wealthy is a good idea, do the math; the Conservatives will not win this arguement like they did in the past. The Democrats will argue that this is just what they will do, the Conservatives won't let them, so the Bush tax cuts will expire.

Why do Conservatives believe so adamantly in the idea of no new taxes even though the evidence and logic clearly does not support them, because that is the Principle they believe in. The word Pragmatism does not exist in their vocabulary.

Of course, I am going to get push back on the first sentence, but just a cursory look at the charts contained in my hub, "One Aspect of the "Occupy Wall Street" Movement Regarding Redistribution of Wealth in America " shows several things 1) tax cuts have LITTLE relationship to economic growth rates, in fact, if anything, say seem to lead to LOWER growth rates in most instances, 2) there is a redistribution of wealth from the POOR to the RICH as tax rates were decreased, and 3) that regulating the financial industry DID stabilize the economy. The data is undeniable! I will be very interested to see how it can be interpreted any other way. It also shows that the ONLY times there were tax INCREASES, BUSH I, 1991, Clinton, 1993, the economy IMPROVED, go figure, while it improved only once when there was a tax decrease, Kennedy, 1961. I simply do not know how Conservatives can make any historic, fact-based case for their cause; they can't so they just say it does and tell you to have faith they are right.

Because Conservatives never even began to start moving toward a compromise, the one thing they did propose was a sham, the Democrats never needed, publicly at least, to start saying what they were really willing to give up. They had already given up huge cuts in Medicare with Obama Care and said they were willing to consider even larger cuts. Because the Conservatives never budged, fundamental structural changes, such as what Alice Rivlin proposed, never made it to the table, but, I bet there was a strong possibility it could have been adopted; a very appealing proposal indeed.

We will never know, of course, because the Conservatives stayed the course in their maniacal drive to fulfill their one campaign promise they are most interested in keeping, making President Obama a one-term presendent, regardless of the destruction it does to America.

WHAT NEXT?

GOOD QUESTION? As I said, I think the Bush tax cuts will now expire at the end of 2012 unless the Conservatives retain the House and win a Super-majority in the Senate, not likely. The sequester doesn't take effect until 2013, however, to stop it requires Congressional action. Any Congressional action, of course, depends on how the election in Nov 2012, turns out. I think unless on party or the other takes control.

Failing that, or the Conservatives getting kicked out of power and replaced by the Republicans of the past, we will continue with gridlock and the sequestration will tale place; I simply do not see any other alternative, unless ...

The 261 or so Republican's, who rediscovered the word compromise for the good of the country and Democrats who signed a letter to the Super Committee to man and woman-up in order to save America, carry their message to Congress and try to make something happen there. I still don't suspect success their either simply because of the way the House works and the fact that John Boehner controls the House and the Tea Party and Norquist control John Boehner. The Senate, on the other hand, is a different story. There may be enough Republicans now ready to vote against their party and break the obvious filabuster Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will throw up to block any positive action by the Democrats; that possibly could pass, isolating the House and the Conservatives and sounding the death-nell of the Tea Party and Conservatives for awhile.

SO, Time to Give Your Opinion

Do You Think The Super Committe Failed Because

  • Conservatives Simply Would Not Compromise Over Real Tax Increases?
  • Democrats Simply Would Not Compromise Over Real Cuts in Medicare and Social Security?
  • Neither Side is in the Mood for Real Compromise Period
  • You Haven't a Clue and They All are a Bunch of Idiots.
See results without voting

More by this Author


Comments 27 comments

American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

Americans are tired of the liberal rant! Democrats were NOT willing to cut out wasteful spending! Obama himself is recorded as saying you don't raise taxes during a recession! How could anyone want tax increases? The only ones not being taxed are the poor!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

Good morning E,

Why is it such a hard concept, that we are jsut plain and simply spending MORE than we take in, and that perhaps it is time to cut spending?

Federal revenue WILL grow, when we the employement rate drops.

The best way to restore employement, is to cut corp taxes on those who invest in America.

Raising taxes will NOT do anything positive.

We will forever have to agree to disagree on this subject.


chefsref profile image

chefsref 4 years ago from Citra Florida

If low taxes boosted employment we would have full employment right now. Taxes are at the lowest rate in 60 years, where is the growth in employment? Show us the evidence for the position!

Even millionaires are coming forward and saying "Raise our taxes"

The economy and business needs demand for products and services and then employment will recover. What business will hire at a time when people are not buying? None.

Business is already sitting on a 2 trillion dollar pile of cash. Does anyone really think they need more money before they will hire? They need demand. In a time when people are not spending it is only the government that can step in to spend. For the government to spend the government needs revenue from taxes. The only ones that can afford to pay higher taxes are the wealthy.

It pays to remember, we got in this predicament after the Bush tax cuts during a time of 2 wars. According to Republican philosophy we should be in a booming economy because of the low tax rate


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago

Grover Norquist is right up there with Dick Cheney for the most evil man in America award.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

well for the record we have the 2nd highet corp tax rate in the world...just behind Japan.

Why do you think they are sitting on that money? I say, that the uncertainty of raising taxes is one component.

The uncertainty of our economy is keeping investors from spending their money. I say cut taxes on Corps drastically for money spent HERE in the US...and watch Wall Street explode. Instead of raising taxes and letting Washington spend money on what THEY think will "stimulate" the economy........let the people have ALL of thier money for ONE year, and watch consumer confidence explode....and we will see a THRIVING economy.


PETER LUMETTA profile image

PETER LUMETTA 4 years ago from KENAI, ALAKSA

Mr. Merritt's premise that we have the 2nd highest Corp tax rate in the world is based on "taxable income". When most Corporations of size claim profits off shore and get rebates here from our taxes paid then they in practice pay '0' to less than zero in taxes. And Mr. AR's solution is tax the poor, what is that saying about "blood from a stone"? The positive aspect of raising taxes is not just revenue but fairness in who pays the bills in this country. It is about time the rich shared the burden for the wealth they have accumulated over time because of their "special" tax status. WAKE UP!

Norquist should be jailed for the criminal that he is along with his money backers.

Peter


chefsref profile image

chefsref 4 years ago from Citra Florida

Comparing the US against any other country is specious reasoning. Too many other circumstances differ to compare meaningfully.

We hav e to compare our economy against the performance of our economy in the past. Defend your position using American history. The history does not show a correlation between the tax rate and growth. THe economy has boomed even during confiscatory tax rates.

In order to let everyone keep all of their money we have to close all government. Are you ready to have no police, no fire department, no military, no road repairs, no, etc. etc.?

Social Security payments will stop, Medicare payments will stop and the 38% of the economy that relies on government will stop. 38% is a huge drop, not an increase


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

I agree with you. The Republican's idea of compromise is "Give us whatever we want,and then you can kiss our feet."

Ideology Uber Alles.To Hades with the country.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you all for commenting on what was a premature birth of my hub, I hit "Publish" instead of "Done Editing" while waiting for the committee to actually announce their failure, which they did after the markets closed. I have completed the hub now and republished it.

Now to respond to some of the comments and thank again those of you for giving your opinions.

First, Chris, the Effective Corporate tax rate is about 18%, which puts it way down in the middle of the pack, after you take into account of the tax breaks corporations get; the "2nd highest tax rate" is a bogus number you are being fed, check it out. There is no question we are spending too much and spending must be cut, but as I have shown in several of my hubs, as have many others, spending cuts simply can't do it alone; unless shutting down the government including gutting defense is your goal ... revenues must be increased. The simple fact is, deficits will not decrease just with spending cuts and growth will not happen becuase business will continue to sit on their money because business will not believe government knows what it is doing.

Right on Chefsref.

Thanks for your comments as well American Romance, Peter, Ralph, and Lovemychris.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

You said..."business will continue to sit on their money because business will not believe government knows what it is doing"....Why should they believe the government? We are 15 Trillion Dollars in debt, they only do for themselves. THEY (the government)are the problem.

The OWS are protesting the wrong folks.

This Supercommittee failure is a direct reflection of Obama and his lack of leadership....period. He has been too worried about campaigning instead of being in Washinton overseeing this budget....but, of course it is just as easy for him and others to just blame the Republicans as they have for the last four years.

He could take a page out of the Reagan PLAY book and he could have stayed back and made phone calls and work one on one with repubs and dems, to get things done.

He is too egotistical....even Chris Matthews has called him out on his lack of abiltity to LEAD.

the bottom line is clearly, we need new and real leadership.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Come on Chris, you know that when the President makes a call, in order to make a deal, someone as to pick up the phone on the other end and be willing to deal; and the Conservatives simply aren't answering the phone.

You know as well as I that most "leadership" happens behind-the-scenes" so the real work the President does isn't public. However, the President has laid out, in writing what he wants, and the Conservatives simply say No, no way, no how, because, Mr. President, we want you to be a one-term president; we promised the American people that and, by God, we are going to deliver on that promise come Hell or high water, no matter what it does to America.

The President also understands, that apparently Chris Wallace doesn't, that it is Congress who enacts Laws and it is the Executives duty to carry them out. I see the President as trying to make Congress do its job ... for a change rather than having a President, any President, carry 100% of the load; that wasn't what George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, et al had in mind.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

ME,

The problem is, that we have a deep, fundamental, difference between the two parties...the democrats want higher levels of spending and taxes and the republicans want them both to be lower.

We recently had an election, with a loud and clear signal that we want the lower not the higher of taxing and spending....

It would be depriving to those who take this problem serious to "give in"....that would be devastating to our electorial process.

Though it be true, we on the right want nothing more than to see Obama a one-term president...wanting this country to fail is pure BS. Those of us on the right realize that if the policies that this administration were all enforced, this country would fail...miserably.

Let me remind you the American people made this decision....and for the first time in a LONG time, the legislators did NOT let them down with a half assed compromise.

I respectfully disagree with all of my heart.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

How come 2010 was "loud and clear", but 2008 was "Oh No You Don't"?

2010 mandate was JOBS. And--since they got their tax cuts, where are they?

What level of spending that relates to THEM and their special interest groups are GOP willing to cut?

So far, they are willing to cut from poor people....that's about it. And btw--Obama DID cut taxes....and he wants to keep them. Just not for millionaires.

A 3% hike in tax rate will not hurt a billionaire. But cuts to gvt programs will devastate families. Suppose you had to now pay for retirement of your parents...plus your own family. How many can afford to do that?

Why are we cutting programs that people need, to give money to people who don't? It is senseless.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

"Why are we cutting programs that people need, to give money to people who don't? It is senseless."

THIS is a fundamental difference between the two ideologies...

We are not CUTTING programs and giving to others...we are cutting back on programs to get within our means of spending.

"A 3% hike in tax rate will not hurt a billionaire."...but that is NOT what the democrats want to do...they want to raise it on those making over $250,000....they are NOT billionairs.

Also, do you REALLY beleive a 3% hike on BILLIONAIRS will make a difference? It will not.

"2010 mandate was JOBS. And--since they got their tax cuts, where are they?"

the GOP did not get a tax cut...the merely had the Bush Tax cuts extended...no new tax cuts was made.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

First, let me note that Chris has it more right, it was $250,000 to start, but they settled on incomes above $1,000,000.

Also, Chris hit-the-nail-on-the-head, as they say, regarding one of the fundamental differences between Conservatives and the rest of us; the issue of the role of government vis-a-vis providing for the General Welfare for groups or individual Americans.

In my research, I have seen instances of this dichotomy back to 400 B.C. but it really became a philosophical difference in the Age of Enlightenment; therefore, this is not unique to America nor our time. For the Conservative, it is society’s role, not governments, to provide for the care and feeding of the less fortunate; the General Welfare provision in our Constitution only applies to the Nation as a whole.

For the rest of us, we see many inequities in society’s ability to provide for the unfortunate and therefore conclude that only the federal government can fairly, without much discrimination, address poverty in America; it is just too big a job for the hit-and-miss, uncoordinated activities of private efforts alone, not that they don't play a tremendously important role in any case.

It is also true that a characteristic of the more conservative of the Conservatives is that they truly believe, without ill will, that poverty is a natural state of affairs for some people, that there simply are lower classes of people; "the woman's place is in the home" syndrome. It is a fact, that it has been the conservatives, whether Democrat or Republican, that has opposed Every civil rights action since this country was founded, every one; there is a reason for that and it comes down to that fundamental difference Chris talks about.

Also, also, Lovemychris (do you two know each other?) has it right about the 2010 election being about Jobs, not taxes. What is now, 75% of Americans want the taxes raised on the wealthy as part of a "Balanced" budget deal? 75%, that is a big number.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Yes! We want the rich to pay more. They have all the wealth...and not by accident!

Their burden has been shouldered by the middle class. And they are middle no more.

"we are cutting back on programs to get within our means of spending."

What programs? Planned Parenthood and WIC! It's ideology based. You don't touch tax expenditures, nor do you acknowledge that getting rid of the Bush tax cuts will reduce the deficit by 60%.

And sorry--R's specifically say EVERY time, that "tax cuts create jobs"......2003, 2005, 2009....and they never do. They cause the cost of living to go up, and the country as a whole to downgrade.

Here's what I see as the fundamental differenc in philosophies: GOP says "take your money and give it to a ceo"

Dems say: "take your money and give it to the gvt."

BOTH provide services....but one does it for profit in a private bank account, the other for profit of the people....When the people's profit becomes for private..that's when we are in trouble...just take a look around. All these years of stealing the public wealth.....we are out of balance. Obama is the way to get it back.

He is not a crazed ideologue. He is a very sensible man.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Haven't heard it put quite that way before, Lovemychris, well said.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Well, ME....it's not rocket science, i's just so obvious!

Who has prospered....unbelievably btw, and who has not?

And why? Not because they are "so special", but it has been given to them BY gvt policies!

We can have gvt policies that makes them give it back! Well, not give it back, but stops it from continuing.

They should be well happy with the accrued wealth....and they should take a look around and see what it has cost.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I just released a new Hub on "An Analysis of Righ-wing Authorirarian (RWA) followers"; you should get a good idea why the don't see the obvious. Remember, they are wondering the same about us. The two sides have two, very different different value systems and both think the others is very wrong, based on their particular set of assumptions which are taken as the "normal" way of thinking things.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago

AR, you mean "wasteful spending" on Medicare and Social Security?


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Frank Knapp, vice chairman of the American Sustainable Business Council, added in a statement yesterday, “the high-end Bush tax cuts are a big part of the problem – not the solution…It’s obscene to keep slashing infrastructure and services for everybody on Main Street to keep up tax giveaways for millionaires and multinational corporations.”

So glad to see him see it as I, and many others do...a give-away.

Since Reagan. So--can we call them welfare entitlements? Or is that label saved specifically for others?

I would like to hear the rationale for this gvt practice, of taking from the poor to give to the rich.

How is it justified?

It's their money? So, no one should pay taxes? Is that it?

Do they believe this country should operate as a feudal dicatorship, or what?

A corporate oligarchy?

Taxes for military only? Everything else is up to....whom?

Geuss I'd better read your analysis....


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

While I agree with your whole premise, I put it in different terms. First, look at the basic facts, the wealthy DO pay more, as a percentage, of their income in taxes than the rest of us, those that play by the rules, anyway; that is a given. So saying they shouldn't should pay taxes or the such doesn't quite cut it; they do pay taxes and a lot of them.

The question I have, is do they pay enough in taxes to make up for the exta advatages their wealth affords them simply because they live in our society that is not available to the rest of us; I personally do not think they do.

Nor do I think the tax code takes into account natural unfairness built into any unrestrained Capitalist system that, because of its nature and once equality is broken, provides positive feedback to those who succeed and NEGATIVE feedback to those who either "just do OK" or fail; this is the "rich-get-richer and the poor-get-poorer" effect.

This leads back to my first point, because our system supports Capitalism, and rightly it should, the more powerful capitalists become, the better able they are to influence the tax laws effective them, therefore increasing their wealth even further.

Now back to your statement about fuedal dictatorship or, more likely, corporate oligarchy ... left on its own, that is where Capitalism leads when unconrolled. Capitalism naturally redirects wealth from the poor to the rich, I don't call that welfare for the rich simply because it is a function of the operation of Capitalism itself; I like redistribution myself.

Consequenlty, it is my opinion, the government has every right to 1) correct that redistribution and let the less wealthy participate in the bounty of America's success and 2) counteract the ability of the wealthy to positively influence government and financial activity in order to increase their wealth without any productive activity that the rest of us have to put in to earn a dollar.


Pcunix profile image

Pcunix 4 years ago from SE MA

Of course it failed. It wouldn't have mattered if it had not failed. Let's say two or three of the idiots on the GOP side suddenly had their IQ's boosted by twenty points - no, that's not enough, better make it thirty - and voted for some tax increases on the wealthy.

Woud that have been a victory? No, because the other GOP idiots would have immediately pushed through legislation to undo whatever the committee had done.

Until we get rid of these GOP fools majority, we have no hope.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You may very well be right, Pcunix, although there is a chance; thanks for the comment. I suspect though, there may have been a reasonable chance of passage, given the letter signed by a couple hundred Democratic and Conservative Congressmen and women, that Democrats might have pushed the commission result through, ASSUMING, of course, Boehner didn't scuttle it.


LauraGT profile image

LauraGT 4 years ago from MA

Thanks for the thought-provoking hubs. I couldn't believe Grover was on John Stewart the other night. He restrained himself admirably.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You are quite welcome Laura, I try. You're quite right about Grover, he has been rather the engaging the times I have seen or heard him; not the fire-brand that he is.


LauraGT profile image

LauraGT 4 years ago from MA

Hi again! I was actually talking about John Stewart (showing restraint!) but I suppose they both did. ;)

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working