Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (620423)	7/21/2011 11:01:17 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584171

Oops! Norquist sees a loophole in his own pledge? Maybe I don’t pay close enough attention to the nuances of Grover Norquist’s bizarre rhetoric, but this strikes me as new. With a handful of exceptions, every Republican member of Congress has signed a pledge against increasing taxes. Would allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled in 2012 violate this vow? We posed this question to Grover Norquist, its author and enforcer, and his answer was both surprising and encouraging: No. In other words, according to Mr. Norquist’s interpretation of the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, lawmakers have the technical leeway to bring in as much as $4 trillion in new tax revenue — the cost of extending President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for another decade — without being accused of breaking their promise. “Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase,” Mr. Norquist told us. So it doesn’t violate the pledge? “We wouldn’t hold it that way,” he said. Norquist doesn’t want Bush’s budget-busting tax cuts to expire, but that’s not the point. Republican lawmakers are terrified of violating his pledge, and here’s Norquist, on the record, saying GOP members can keep their word and allow a return to Clinton-era rates. Steve M. notes that Norquist seemed to say the exact opposite a year ago, but why quibble? If Norquist wants to leave his allies with some wiggle room to increase revenue, I’m delighted. It is an awfully odd ideology, though. If Congress wants to end $4 billion in tax subsidies to the already-profitable oil industry, Norquist says that’s a violation of the rules. But if Congress allows $4 trillion in tax cuts for individuals to disappear, that’s fine? Has Norquist really thought this through? Either way, this seems like quite a loophole. The extent of Norquist’s influence over the Republican caucuses isn’t always clear, but if expiring tax cuts no longer count as tax increases, it seems like Democrats should be able to use this.