Breaking The Norquist Spell

By Rod Dreher • November 26, 2012, 11:32 AM

One of the many depressing things about obsessive Norquist coverage: It genuinely counts as news in DC when someone stands up to a thug

— Chris Lehmann (@lehmannchris) November 26, 2012

I see the partisan point, but it really is news that Norquist is finally getting Sister-Souljah’d. Norquist has — or had — a stunning amount of power over the fiscal direction of the US government, given his ability to extract the tax promise from conservatives, and to enforce it. Breaking the Norquist spell doesn’t mean that raising taxes is a good idea, necessarily; the value of it means that the Republican Party is moving from ideology towards prudence. More broadly, it means that the GOP frees itself to think more creatively about policy and strategy. The Norquist pledge was the kind of thing that added value to the GOP brand back in the day, by ensuring that the Republicans were the Anti-Tax No Matter What Party. Now he’s seen as a deadweight, because his pledge keeps the GOP from being flexible and practical on policy.

This puts me in mind of Bruce Bartlett’s TAC piece today.

Posted in Economics, Republicans. Tagged Bruce Bartlett, GOP, Grover Norquist, Republicans, taxes.

26 Responses to Breaking The Norquist Spell

Will in Mississippi says:

November 26, 2012 at 11:58 am

I’ll give one cheer for taking down Norquist. A doctrinaire rejection of taxes–really income taxes–at all times and in all places is completely unrealistic. The Bruce Bartlett piece is very worthwhile. His experience illuminates problems with doctrinaire approaches to taxation and the conservative movement’s general “groupthink”.

And yet…I don’t see raising taxes as an answer to current problems. It may, depending upon what you argue, postpone financial difficulties, but it fails to address the underlying questions. The Romney/Republican practice of regurgtating Reagan-era rhetoric doesn’t fit the situation today, but then diverting high rates of GDP to large, impersonal, inefficent organizations doesn’t help either. How does pitting the 1980s against the 1960s address present difficulties?

There seems to be a pattern of conservatives mugged by movement orthodoxy and Bush era Republican enforcers turning to this or that progressive thought as an answer to recent failures. One sees it in foreign policy too. The problem is that progressive nostrums failed in their own day or at least imposed burdens society refused to bear. Isn’t there a different choice?
Hoboken says:

November 26, 2012 at 12:22 pm

“Breaking the Norquist spell doesn’t mean that raising taxes is a good idea, necessarily…More broadly, it means that the GOP frees itself to think more creatively about policy and strategy.”

My fear is that the GOP is just ready to surrender on the tax issue in order to keep spending like crazy. To me , if they were thinking creatively, they’d push to end the deduction of state & local taxes. (See Instapundit’s “repeal the Hollywood Tax Cuts” posts for other examples)

Personally, I think the debt ceiling limit is the real test. If deficits of $X are no good, why allow a few more years of it? If the House thinks we should only have a deficit of 500 billion for the next four years, raise the debt limit only by 2 trillion, then have a mix of tax hikes & spending cuts to get to those numbers.
Nick says:

November 26, 2012 at 12:22 pm

“because his pledge keeps the GOP from being flexible and practical on policy.”

Flexible and practical–great joke! Thanks for the giggles.
seaoctopus says:

November 26, 2012 at 12:48 pm

When even an elimination of a tax loophole is seen as a tax increase, how can you be reasonable?
Bugg says:

November 26, 2012 at 12:56 pm

“And yet…I don’t see raising taxes as an answer to current problems. It may, depending upon what you argue, postpone financial difficulties, but it fails to address the underlying questions. The Romney/Republican practice of regurgtating Reagan-era rhetoric doesn’t fit the situation today, but then diverting high rates of GDP to large, impersonal, inefficent organizations doesn’t help either. How does pitting the 1980s against the 1960s address present difficulties?”

Exactly. Without addressing the size of and spending of government with tax increases you have merely dealt with a symptom rather than curing the disease.
Cannoneo says:

November 26, 2012 at 1:26 pm

Maybe this “rebellion” against Norquist is a real and meaningful thing … maybe.

What its members are mostly saying is that they’ll buck Grover by agreeing to raise revenue via reduced deductions, but they will not support raising rates under any circumstances (even rates on the rich which are at historic lows). And they will only agree to look at revenues at all if the Democrats sign on to “serious entitlement reform,” ie benefit cuts, age and income restrictions, etc. So whether it is real or not, the Norquist storyline is allowing them to sell what is effectively the Romney-Ryan plan as a huge compromise on their part.

I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy with Norquist on board and all that, but it’s point is clearly as a negotiating ruse, one that brilliantly exploits the weakness of the commentariat for dramatic tales of bipartisanship.
Dakarian says:

November 26, 2012 at 1:50 pm

I think the idea is that by eliminating a sacred cow, you force others to let go of theirs.

Because it really doesn’t help negotiations when Democrats sigh, put down the cow and say “ok, maybe we can find cuts to entitlement programs” and get backhanded by a Republican cow in response.

Republicans shouldn’t be holding tax cuts sacred. They shouldn’t be caving into tax increases. They SHOULD be putting their tax cut and military cows on the ground, fingertips touching to grab it in an instant, and say “ok, put your cows down..and we’ll let go in 3, 2…”

The country doesn’t immediately die when a tax increase happens (remember that 2 year depression that occurred when Bush Sr and Clintong raised taxes? The breadlines were incredible!). The world won’t explode if Medicaid gets a slice. We may not even have to do either. We just need some conversation that’s deeper than “Do what I want, and SHUT UP!”

I can, and have said the same on the Democratic side. Bah, myself I have both a government service and a tax situation that may make or break me next year and *sigh* I’m willing to put and risk both to get a conversation going.

It’s painful, but that’s what it means to live in a Democratic (republic) country. You learn to bite some bullets while making sure you don’t bite off the whole round.
MikeCLT says:

November 26, 2012 at 1:51 pm

The GOP has become irrational on the tax issue and the Norquist pledge has a fair amount to do with it. No new taxes ever has become an immutable ideology that has blinded the GOP to reality.

For example, the US has engaged in two wars in the past ten years and piled up hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars in debt. The GOP has called these wars a vital and essential to our national interest. Yet mainstream conservatives refuse to consider tax increases even to pay for wars they consider vital to our national interests. This is irrational and irresponsible and cannot be considered conservative.

Read Bartlett’s article.
Nick says:

November 26, 2012 at 1:52 pm

Hey Rod, when the GOP stops putting faith over reason WRT policy, then maybe we can start making progress.
Clint says:

November 26, 2012 at 2:05 pm

No House Republican has voted for a tax increase in 22 years.

Bush’41 had to learn the hard way what breaking The “No New Taxes” Pledge meant.

The TEA Party means, “Taxed Enough Already”.
BN says:

November 26, 2012 at 2:34 pm

I think all this Norquist stuff is pure theatre. The GOP pols who are getting all “mavericky” against him aren’t going to budge in real negotiations. This public repudiation of Norquist is all they’ll muster.
BCaldwell says:

November 26, 2012 at 2:38 pm

Norquist believes that we should starve the beast that is government to the extent that we could figuratively drown it in a bath tub. He believes that it is possible and even desirable to reduce government spending to 1890-1910 levels and that would unleash a burning hot growth rate. It’s kind of pollyanna-ish in the least and from a practical standpoint does not work well when it comes to dealing with a fiat currency as opposed to one that was in fact backed by gold at the time he so longs for. That being said Norquist sees tax increases – any tax increase anywhere on the spectrum as a violation of the pledge and that includes increased tax revenues. Norquist wants to see less tax revenues to the federal government and however that happens is OK by him.

Before politicians sign something, it should be incumbent on them to actually read the document and figure out what it means.
Sam M says:

November 26, 2012 at 2:41 pm

“… his pledge keeps the GOP from being flexible and practical on policy.”

I am not sure this is exactly right. I used to go to the Wednesday meetings from time to time, and it seems to me that Norquist kept the GOP from being flexible and practical on TAX POLICY. He made it clear to all the other groups, however, that they needed to stand in line. So whether you were a pro-life group, or a missile defense group, or anyone else, you came and tried to get your issue closer to the top rung. The very top rung was occupied, but everything else was subject to shuffling and repositioning. So you had people from Cato in the room with people form Phyllis Schlafly’s office jockeying for position.

The question becomes: Who’s the next Norquist? Which issue takes precedent as the organizing force in “conservatism”? Someone has to come in and crack knuckles and keep people in line, otherwise the coalition falls apart.

Again, Norquist’s GOP wasn’t inflexible or unwilling to compromise. It compromised all the time on immigration, on foreign policy, etc.

So. Who’s the new boss? Who should be?
SDS says:

November 26, 2012 at 3:41 pm

GOP no longer irrational on taxes; good thing. Now if they can finally be rational on spending (military) that would be better yet.
I have yet to hear any serious talk of what spending can be cut….by either side…
When can we hear some serious proposal on cuts from; well…. ANYBODY?

(….crickets….)
stef says:

November 26, 2012 at 3:55 pm

A revolt against the Norquist doctrine is necessary because conservatism does not equal libertarianism, and the “starve the beast” philosophy is straight-up libertarianism.
M_Young says:

November 26, 2012 at 3:59 pm

Fanatical anti-tax man, and open-borders man, too.
JonF says:

November 26, 2012 at 6:42 pm

Re: How does pitting the 1980s against the 1960s address present difficulties?

Huh? No one (at least no one anywhere near real power) is suggesting a return to the 1960s’ rates. The President’s proposal is far more modest: a return to the 1990s’ rates for a small fraction of taxpayers only.
jason says:

November 26, 2012 at 7:07 pm

I say lets go all out. I am tired of the slow waltz to the cliff. Approve all democrat plans. If I am right we as a nation will fall very quickly due to a myriad of problems. Once that happens, most will see the error of their ways (some will not) and work can begin to pick up the pieces and we can go down the path to becoming a great nation once again. If I am wrong, there will be no pieces to pick up as we will have somehow overcome trillions of dollars of debt, dependance on the government will be our new religion and I will be an outcast to society.
William Dalton says:

November 26, 2012 at 7:19 pm

An attack on the “no tax increase” pledge misses the primary point which is the source of our government’s fiscal problems- too much spending. It is ludicrous to speak of Tea Party policies “starving the beast” when the beast has never been stronger or heavier.

There is merit in pointing out that deficit spending is a just another form of taxation, and one that weighs most heavily on the elderly and the prudent, who will see their savings evaporate to leave them in penury in the old age or unable to leave anything to their children. So, yes, there are preferable forms of taxation available to fund necessary public functions. But that doesn’t compel the needed debate as to what public functions are necessary in an economy which is on an inexorable road of slow growth if not actual decline.

The Federal budget must be slashed, in absolute and not just in relative terms. Succumbing to another round of Keynesian spending in order to spur the economy will never supply a spur equal to the cost born by the economy, either through direct taxation or through deficit spending and deferred taxation. The amount to be sequestered if Congress does not act before the “fiscal cliff” is met is still only a small portion of the cuts which are required, from both military and non-military spending, if sanity is to be restored, and “kicking the can” down the road by “compromising” to achieve lesser cuts now only makes the cuts which must and will eventually be made (ask the folks in Greece, Spain and Russia) that much more onerous.

The current debate being conducted in the media hoping to influence Congress to be “responsible” and implement “judicious” tax increases and non-existent spending cuts is the greatest irresponsibility of our age and deflects the nation’s attention from the difficult decisions which truly must be made.
billy says:

November 26, 2012 at 7:57 pm

Norquist does represent a rigid ideology that conservatives should find repulsive. That said, I worry that all this anti-Grover stuff will just cede to the left the idea that we really only have a revenue problem rather than a spending problem. These “mavericks” who want to buck the pledge (like Lindsey Graham) could give a damn about raising taxes as long as the military doesn’t get cut. In some ways Norquist’s pledge did (does?) serve a legitimate purpose by forcing at least one party to pay at minimum lip service to cutting spending.
Clint says:

November 26, 2012 at 8:24 pm

Ronald Reagan,
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
Glaivester says:

November 26, 2012 at 9:28 pm

It disturbed me greatly that the GOP, as soon as the election occurred, indicated that it was willing to give away the store on immigration but was willing to fight to the death on the issue of taxes.
JonF says:

November 27, 2012 at 5:34 am

Re: . It is ludicrous to speak of Tea Party policies “starving the beast” when the beast has never been stronger or heavier.

Exactly the point. Low taxes create the illusion that government programs are cheap. Make something cheaper and people buy more of it. A tax increase might get the point across that these things don’t come from Family Dollar and they cost real money. Make government more expensive and people will demand less of it.
CK says:

November 27, 2012 at 9:48 am

Uh, let me object to this whole post here. Breaking the Norquist spell is not a good thing, especially when coming under the ridiculous spell of Bruce Bartlett.

Neocons have been trying to get rid of Norquist because his call for fiscal frugality runs counter to their plans for never-ending war, particularly in the Middle East. Tax increases at these insane levels are unacceptable in any form, especially for the conservative, especially for the common good. Perhaps there is an argument to be made for such increases, but that might be the case at much lower burdens than we have now. Oh, and there’s the fact that Norquist’s wife is a Palestinian Muslim, to which you have idiots like Michelle Bachman ranting how Norquist is part of the jihad against America. Norquist, like others outed by the conservative movement by David Frum, lacks “respectability” which is to say he’s not a warmongering Keynesian to whom the left approves.

And for Front Porch types who are seeking to starve the Leviathan state that has bred atomistic flattened souls, Norquist is an ally. Bartlett, the neo-Keynesian pusher of fiscal profligacy, inevitably pushes for policies that run counter to those that conservatives seek. The only real allegiance that conservatives can find with Bartlett is one that would advance their “respectability”, to which this magazine used to be immune. I see where a cultural conservative who rattles cages like Pat Buchanan can ally with an economic conservative like Norquist. I fail to see where Bartlett, the sell out, fits in.
Noah172 says:

November 27, 2012 at 9:50 am

I don’t like paying taxes any more than the next guy, but it is probably best for the country in the long run for everyone — not merely “the rich,” however defined — to pay more in taxes. The underlying problem with our fiscal situation is that for decade upon decade Americans have wanted more government than they (we) are willing pay for. We have been able to mask the cost of government because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency, and the US is the world’s largest economy, so everybody has wanted to buy our bonds, whose interest payments we have always made. Michael Kinsley (who has terrible views on lots of things, but is a fine writer) once wrote that our deficit spending is a massive, inefficient welfare program for bond investors.

The Bush tax cuts, particularly the second round in 2003, enacted within two months of the commencement of the Iraq War, were among the most irresponsible and calamitous actions of that irresponsible and calamitous administration. One of the very, very few things that I can say in defense of John McCain’s Congressional career is that he voted against the second round, a brave thing to do as he was trying to maintain his viability as a future Republican presidential candidate, and he represented a largely conservative Republican state in which such a vote could give impetus to a primary challenge. (OT: McCain, as a little-known Representative, defied Reagan by voting against the 1986 illegal alien amnesty; boy, how times change!)

If we all get socked with a tax spike in the here and now, it would force us, all of us, to acknowledge the real cost of government; then, and only then, could we have an informed debate over what our priorities should be, and how much government we are willing to pay.

I know a lot of people dismiss this idea as unworkable, but since we as a society no longer feel the moral stigma that used to be associated with debt, we should enact a practical balanced budget amendment. I think it could work if worded very specifically in a way that courts could enforce: for instance, the Treasury could not issue new bonds without a two-thirds Congressional vote for a set period (say, two years). Something along those lines — restricting the practical vehicle, bonds, through which the government runs up new debt — might succeed where a vague, unenforceable prohibition of expenditures exceeding revenues would fail.
Noah172 says:

November 27, 2012 at 3:13 pm

Neocons have been trying to get rid of Norquist because his call for fiscal frugality runs counter to their plans for never-ending war

Hahaha. Norquist’s obsession is taxes, not spending. He is one of those fools who thinks that huge deficits force the government to cut spending, a theory as debunked by experience as anything in politics. He uttered not a peep about Bush’s (or Reagan’s) profligacy, nor Bush’s imperial foreign policy.

Tax increases at these insane levels are unacceptable in any form

Do you know any American history? Marginal income tax rates were at 90 percent during the 1950s, a time remembered fondly by many Americans, especially conservatives, both for its economic and moral conditions. The top income tax rate in the 60s, also a generally prosperous period, was around 70 percent. The post-Civil-War boom, and the first Great Depression in the 1890s, both occurred at a time of no income tax at all. Taxes are but one aspect of economic policy, not some magic lever determining the health of the economy. Current tax rates, or the “insane” 39.6 percent that Obama wants to bring back only for the wealthiest 2 percent, are low relative to the last 80+ years or so (lower than any other point than, I think, the 1980s).

Or if you think personal income taxes are too high, how about brining back tariffs? Good luck finding a prominent Republican, especially a Norquist acolyte, favoring that.

I see where a cultural conservative who rattles cages like Pat Buchanan can ally with an economic conservative like Norquist

Hogwash. Norquist is pro-choice (or at least does not care much about abortion), favors homosexual marriage and other aspects of that movement, favors mass immigration, and, AFAIK, free trade. What is left for common ground with Buchanan?