PoliticOlogy has been following the slow erosion of support for Grover Norquist's tax pledge—a commitment that a legislator will not vote for any tax increase, including the closing of loopholes or reductions, or suffer withering primary attacks from Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform.
In a political season that's become very dangerous for incumbents—see Lugar, Dick—GOP members have been tripping over themselves to sign the pledge. The result was last fall's debt ceiling debacle, in which Republicans were unable to budge on any form of compromise involving revenue; America's credit grade was lowered, and so was the GOP's legislative and popular momentum.
That last part must have caught the attention of some in the party. First, a slew of up-and-coming Republican House candidates indicated that they would not sign the pledge. Next, Jeb Bush, who never signed the pledge while in office (his tenure was a little before the tea party movement) again rejected it, incredulous that members of his party would turn down a 10-to-1 spending cuts to revenue increase package—a conservative wet dream—because it technically raised taxes through closing loopholes.
| Related: Republicans Bucking Grover Norquist's Anti-Tax Pledge |
Now, everybody's favorite entry from men who look like lesbians Lindsey Graham has come out against the pledge. Graham joined with Bush in two primary areas of disagreement: the need to close tax loopholes, especially when that extra revenue can be used to pay down the debt—"When you eliminate a deduction, it's okay with me to use some of that money to get us out of debt," Graham said—and the ridiculousness of turning down insanely conservative legislative compromises over the pledge—"We're so far in debt, that if you don't give up some ideological ground, the country sinks."
This last part was bound to happen eventually. There was no way the GOP was going to be able to navigate the coming taxmeggeddon without at least allowing space for closing loopholes or eliminating deductions, and it was only a matter of time before party leaders acknowledged that revenue was going to be part of any end of the year deal. It helps that we're past the GOP primary, which caused every candidate to declare that they would not support the 10-to-1 plan in an effort to win the Most Severely Conservative Award quarter finals.
Graham says he is willing to go 4-to-1*. Of course, Graham is in a safe Republican district, and isn't up for reelection for another two years, which means he can play a moderating role within his party without suffering immediate consequences. The representatives whom he's encouraging to denounce the pledge might not be so lucky.
| Related: Is Jeb Bush Going Rogue? |
Graham, Bush and some GOP House candidates hardly count as a mutiny, but this is the most push back Norquist has seen to his pledge since before the tea party movement. Norquist remains stalwart that his pledge is as strong than ever, and by sheer number of signatures, he's right. But he can't be happy that some of the more prominent figures of the GOP are coming out against his pledge just months before a looming tax battle.
* PoliticOlogy is ignoring the fact that drastically cutting spending in the middle of a weak economic recovery will almost certainly obliterate any growth we have and send us back into a recession; why ruin a good Norquist post?
---
Follow on Ology: Evan McMurry | PoliticOlogy
Follow on Twitter: @evanmcmurry | @OlogyPolitics
Comments (0)
Be the first to comment!