I don’t want to get political :) but I just wanted to point this out… Doesn’t the refusal to vote in favor of the American Jobs Act violate Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge: “I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the (____ district of the) state of ______ and to the American people that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates” which 95% of Republicans in Congress signed? If the bill does not pass, a previously enacted 2% payroll tax cut for all wage earners will expire and marginal tax rates on income will go up by 2%. This can be viewed as either an increase to the marginal income tax for individuals and families, or an elimination of deductions and credits. I don’t care which interpretation is more correct, it is clear that not passing this legislation would violate at least one, if not both of the points made in the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. In fact, Mr. Norquist already clarified his position on this matter when the Bush era tax cuts were set to expire that he does not support the allowance for in place tax cuts to expire because it would result in a tax increase for the American people. Here’s that video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/grover-norquist-bush-tax-cuts-tax-hike_n_905624.html.
I don’t know why nobody is mentioning this even if it is simply for the reason that it is hypocritical and it is always fun to catch politicians (and well publicized lobbyists) going back on what they previously stated. How do you think Jon Stewart makes a living? But also, how come Mr. Norquist only raised this issue when it was the tax breaks for the top 1% that were about to expire? Why did he support republican efforts to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, but he isn’t raising the issue now when taxes for everyone are about to increase and Republicans who signed his pledge are not supporting the extension of the payroll tax cuts?
I don’t know why nobody is mentioning this even if it is simply for the reason that it is hypocritical and it is always fun to catch politicians (and well publicized lobbyists) going back on what they previously stated. How do you think Jon Stewart makes a living? But also, how come Mr. Norquist only raised this issue when it was the tax breaks for the top 1% that were about to expire? Why did he support republican efforts to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, but he isn’t raising the issue now when taxes for everyone are about to increase and Republicans who signed his pledge are not supporting the extension of the payroll tax cuts?
I don’t get it. I really don’t get it. Usually in this situation Norquist would be making ominous statements about how he will remind the voters which are constituents of these pledge signers, that their representatives are breaking the pledge. He says the pledge relates to all tax increases which relate to the American people. Here is a clip of him saying this: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388996n. So where is he now with ominous statements now that it’s Republicans who are going to let cuts expire for everybody?
It kind of makes you think that either he’s on vacation and not able to make it to the numerous news show appearances that he usually rounds, or he is really just going to side with the republicans and that this pledge is really all about protecting the richest in this country and his days of masquerading as a for-the-people reformist are numbered. Perhaps his pledge wasn’t really about the people and not truly a reform idea (which the group he represents, Americans for Tax Reform, would certainly suggest) to begin with. Pledging to not increase taxes doesn’t exactly amount to reform does it? It doesn’t make the system any simpler, it doesn’t even make the system different. By not allowing increases it just keeps it at whatever level it was when you wrote the pledge, and that in effect says “tax levels were at the perfect settings when we made this pledge, don’t mess with them unless you’re making them lower.” That’s not reform. Reform is “the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.” This is a lack of amendment which says only that increasing taxes is wrong. I simply can't see how that unilaterally equates to reform and I can't see how this contradictory behavior leaves Mr. Norquist with any credibility in him, his lobbying organization, or his pledge.
It kind of makes you think that either he’s on vacation and not able to make it to the numerous news show appearances that he usually rounds, or he is really just going to side with the republicans and that this pledge is really all about protecting the richest in this country and his days of masquerading as a for-the-people reformist are numbered. Perhaps his pledge wasn’t really about the people and not truly a reform idea (which the group he represents, Americans for Tax Reform, would certainly suggest) to begin with. Pledging to not increase taxes doesn’t exactly amount to reform does it? It doesn’t make the system any simpler, it doesn’t even make the system different. By not allowing increases it just keeps it at whatever level it was when you wrote the pledge, and that in effect says “tax levels were at the perfect settings when we made this pledge, don’t mess with them unless you’re making them lower.” That’s not reform. Reform is “the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.” This is a lack of amendment which says only that increasing taxes is wrong. I simply can't see how that unilaterally equates to reform and I can't see how this contradictory behavior leaves Mr. Norquist with any credibility in him, his lobbying organization, or his pledge.
Link to Republican opposition of American Jobs Act: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-votes-to-extend-payroll-tax-cut/2011/12/17/gIQAJ6tR0O_story.html
Link to taxpayer protection pledge site: http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge
No comments:
Post a Comment