E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNBC's Domenico Montanaro reports that although some Republicans have changed their tone on a new-no-taxes pledge, they aren't putting tax rate increases on the table.
Some Republicans appear to be softening what was once a hard stance on their no-taxes pledge as the end-of-the-year deadline on the so-called “fiscal cliff” approaches.
But it’s not clear how far they would go – if they would raise rates on the wealthiest, as President Obama wants, or if they are simply willing to go along with eliminating some loopholes and deductions to raise revenue. And those who have been outspoken on the topic thus far are not seen as the key players in the ongoing negotiations.
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Select Committee on Intelligence ranking member Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) gets on the Senate subway as he leaves after a hearing on the Benghazi attack November 16, 2012 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia told a local TV station from his home state. “If we do it his way then we’ll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that.”
Chambliss is one of several congressional Republicans who have indicated they might break with an anti-tax pledge pushed by activist Grover Norquist.
NBC's Chuck Todd tells Savannah Guthrie that House Republicans are stalling a compromise in the "fiscal cliff" debate, unlike the Senate, where members are more keen to strike a compromise.
On the Sunday shows and Monday morning TV, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bob Corker (R-TN), as well as Reps. Eric Cantor (R-VA) -- the House minority leader -- and Peter King (R-NY), joined Chambliss in downplaying the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.” Norquist’s 58-word pledge has been a mainstay in Republican politics since 1986. In 2011, every GOP presidential hopeful, including Mitt Romney (and excluding Jon Huntsman) signed it.
NBC's Domenico Montanaro reports on the increased number of pledges that Republican presidential candidates are being asked to sign in this campaign. One pledge stands apart, a no-new-taxes pledge, whose creator has influenced day-to-day legislation and is vowing to fight any effort to get find revenue in the new congressional supercommittee charged with closing the national debt.
“I agree with Grover — we shouldn’t raise rates,” Graham said on ABC, “but I think Grover is wrong when it comes to we can’t cap deductions and buy down debt.” Graham added, “I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform.”
Corker told CBS on Monday: “I’m not obligated on the pledge. I made Tennesseans aware, I was just elected, the only thing I’m honoring is the oath I take when I serve, when I’m sworn in this January.”
King, of New York, said on Meet the Press Sunday: “I agree entirely with Saxby Chambliss -- a pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that Congress... I think everything should be on the table.”
Norquist, in fact, says the fact that no House Republican has voted for a tax increase in 22 years is directly a product of his pledge. Norquist does not just mandate that lawmakers not vote for tax increases, but also that any bill they sign onto has to be “revenue neutral.”
In other words, cutting deductions and loopholes, for example, would also be out if not offset by further tax cuts. But Republicans and Democrats face an end-of-the-year deadline to try and figure out a way to avert the steep military and domestic spending cuts and taxes going up for everyone when the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year.
USA Today's Susan Page, American Bridge 21st Century President Rodell Mollineau, and YG Action Fund Senior Adviser Brad Dayspring join Chuck Todd to talk about the impending fiscal cliff.
That some senators appear ready to talk revenue is not as significant as what House members say. It is widely believed that a deal would be struck between the White House and the House GOP, not with the Senate.
House Speaker John Boehner has said that “revenue” is on the table, but the president wants to raise rates for the wealthiest. Obama campaigned on the idea, but it’s not at all clear whether the House Republican rank-and-file would sign on to any rate increase.
Cantor, who wields some influence with the GOP conference’s more conservative members, is seen as more of a keystone, and he, too, seemed willing to go along with at least some revenue increases.
“There has been a lot said about this pledge,” Cantor said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Monday. “When I go to the constituents, it’s not about that pledge. It’s about trying to solve problems. House Speaker John Boehner went to the White House and said, ‘Hey, Republicans in the House are willing to put revenues on the table.’ That’s a big move.”
House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., sits down with Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, John Heilemann, and Mike Barnicle to talk about Israel, Egypt, the Grover Norquist tax pledge, the future of fiscal cliff negotiations, and why not everything is on the table in tax talks.
“We were elected to fix problems,” Cantor said, before adding, “Even if you raise all those taxes, it doesn’t fix your problem.”
In a follow-up interview, Cantor’s office stressed that he remains against raising tax rates.
“Republicans aren't against tax rate hikes because of any one man or pledge,” spokeswoman Megan Whittemore said. “We are against hiking rates, because they're bad for the economy and hurt jobs. We've put ideas on the table that bring more money in while keeping tax rates where they are to produce job growth. It's now time for President Obama to put his ideas on the table for spending cuts and entitlement reform if he truly embraces a balanced approach.”
For his part, Norquist isn’t backing down. In a statement to NBC News, he took shots at the GOP senators and expressed confidence that no one would violate the pledge.
"Chambliss has been pushing this line since he joined the Gang of Six,” Norquist said. “Lindsey Graham has for two years said he would raise taxes if he got a 10:1 ratio of spending cuts through entitlement reform that could not be undone. There is no news in these two 'changing.'”
And he added, “They have not voted for a tax hike. They have had impure thoughts on present. Their impure thoughts did not change a single GOP vote in the 2011 fight over the debt ceiling which had a real deadline looming. One might have argued that the pledge died in 1990 when a sitting president and many in House leadership broke the pledge. However, the opposite happened, the pledge became more powerful when breaking it was seen to have very real consequence in 1992. After the 1994 election a majority of the House and Senate had signed the pledge."
Leave a Comment:
If you had a friend/relative who continually borrowed money and never paid it back, would you work more to lend them more money? NO! Why would you ever want to give our tax and spend government any more money either?We need less government, not more. The government should find a way to live wihthin its means. Only spend what you collect and don't borrow from the future.
Move if you hate America too much to pay taxes here. I'm tired of listening to you republicans constantly bad mouth America! Leave now! No one here will miss your constant bitching about how America is the most evil nation on earth!
Not bad mouthing "America", badmouthing idiots and calling them out on bizarre childishness that has us now in a debt crisis that will destroy the global economy.
If you idiot republicans would let us take in as much as we spend we wouldn't be in debt! But no... You morons have this demented idiot Rush Limbaugh that taught you that the less we take in the more we take in. Less taxes = more revenue. If any of you idiots could do math at a two year old's level rather than a FOX News level America would have a balanced budget just like we did when Clinton was president.
Hey Einstein... the only reason there were several surpluses in the 1990's was because of the Republican Congress ( remember when they proposed the changes in welfare - Clinton and other Dems screamed bloody murder ). Also the 90's were the time when computer and internet use became widespread thus creating the tech boom - which consequently fizzled.
Right... You republicans hated Clinton's policies so much the first thing you republicans did when you got that Bush you worshiped into office was to double the national debt.
BTW... When are you republicans going to subtract the cost of the two wars and TARP from Obama's total and add it to you God Bush's total?
Clinton started this crisis by forcing banks to make bad loans. Banks were even forced to give mortgages to people on welfare. Then we blame the banks because they couldn't make the payments.
BS - Fox talking points. Most houses that are underwater and have been underwater since late 2006 are middle to upper middle class home.
"Tether" you really need to quit listening to the Right Wing Propaganda machine. "Clinton started the crisis by forcing banks to make bad loans". What a crock. Nobody "FORCED" the banks to do anything. They WILLINGLY gave out bad loans and LITERALLY threw out the sound banking/loan principles that had worked since Glass-Steagall Act. Clinton can DEFINITELY be blamed for backing the end of Glass-Steagall as well as his push for "Free Trade". But the rest falls SQUARELY on Republican sponsored and endorsed regulations. In particular Gramm-Leach-Bliley, TheCommodities Future Modernization Act of 2000 and the The Bear/Stearns Exemption. Just to name a few. I would advise you to actually do some RESEARCH.
Progressive,
To deny a mortgage to those on welfare was considered as descrimination. Because Bill Clinton said everyone should own a home. Didn't matter if they could afford one or not.
Since the pledge to Grover supersedes any pledge made to America... Toss any politician who took both pledges into prison for Treason.
Right next to Obama! I agree! They can share cells! Problem solved!
I call GOP senators signing into a pledge made by a private individual as committing treasonous and unpatriotic and plain stupid...
First, it wasn't a private individual but a group. Second, all senators and congressmen do this all the time. They will sign pledges to protect the environment, increase education funding, etc. It maybe stupid, but they all do it.
raising taxes on the rich is symbolic and will do NOTHING to pare down the obscene debt. Almost all repubs were on board for a reasonable tax hike IF-IF the crazy nutso spending were stopped and cuts were made. A sound and sane grown-up approach to living within ones means and something the infantile dems have been unable and unwilling to do. So tired of the destruction of my and my kids future at the hands of true idiots and megalomaniacs.
What a load of crap! You idiot republicans held the American working man hostage for continued tax cuts fir billionaires!
OICY, you offer nothing but insane frothing and foaming of what??? Silliness and illogical ranting that achieves nothing. Worse, you are the poster child of the brave new world of dysfunctional stupidity that threatens us all with an economic collapse.
Stupidity? Look who's talking. You're one of those idiot republicans who let FOX News and Rush Limbaugh tell you that Less Taxes = More Revenue. How stupid is that?
Less taxes equal more economic activity OICY thus creating more revenue.
Show me some evidence to support this?
From 2001-2010 the wealth of the Forbes 500 increased 5 times. The wealth of the middle class went down. This was true even in 2007 before the recession.
Jersey......and that created more revenue for the federal government since the wealthy pay a much higher tax rate than the middle class. You have to ask yourself why the wealth of the middle class went down (it didn't go down before the recession, it went up, just not as fast as the wealthy).
OICY, show some evidence you are not Iranian?
If you big mouth liberals are so patriotic why not everyone's taxes go back to old rates. I am not over $250K but I would be willing to pay more taxes if increases apply to all and were used to reduce deficit and not just more handouts.
I love the liberal bash, just as an FYI the last GOP president to balance the budget was EISENHOWER.
I doubt you were even born yet.
I was around when Eisenhower was President didn't he have a mistress like JFK. Maybe Dems and Repubs are not so different.
More insanity propped up and excused by the propaganda machine of the new Wehrmacht. Government needs more, more control, more money to waste, more influence in regular folks lives and best of all, more control over the markets and creators of wealth.
Sounds like you want all wealth to go to the top 1% like in the 1880-1920. How did that work out?
carol, save it they will never get it because to them big government is the solution. You know someone to look out for the small guys but they also know it comes with costs such as Government dictating to them. The sad thing is they think it is a fair trade off.
Right on the nail... If this happens it will benefit the Dems immediately, let the Bush cuts expire, put in the Obama cuts instead (just middle class)... This will be the complete takeover of the house and the historic demise of the Republicans.
But, can they be so absolutely blind not to see this?
Truman: 7.2% deficit inherited, 1.7% deficit left (5.5% reduction)
Eisenhower: 1.7% deficit inherited, 0.6% deficit left (1.1% reduction)
Kennedy/Johnson: 0.6% deficit inherited, 0.3% surplus left (0.9% reduction)
Nixon/Ford: 0.3% surplus inherited, 2.7% deficit left (3.0% INCREASE)
Carter: 2.7% deficit inherited, 2.6% deficit left (0.1% reduction)
Reagan: 2.6% deficit inherited, 2.8% deficit left (0.2% INCREASE)
Bush I: 2.8% deficit inherited, 3.9% deficit left (1.1% INCREASE)
Clinton: 3.9% deficit inherited, 1.3% surplus left (5.2% reduction)
Bush II: 1.3% surplus inherited, 9% deficit left (10.3% INCREASE
~posted earlier by
And Carol....which party was responsible for writing those budget and policy. In the case of Clinton, the republicans were in charge of passing everything he signed. In the case of Bush, the democrats were in charge of his last two years.
lol she starts after FDR, as Dems usually do because he was the worst in history on the Debt, even before WW2.
The Dems ran Congress under Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush 1, they get half the blame for all deficits under them.
Norquist is not elected and I don't believe he could stand the venting of any election. Therefore, he gets others to do his bidding. I don't like anyone not in office making policy, Norquist pledge or ALEC are two terrible examples. Taxes need to go up for the rich. Remember the crisis happened after the tax breaks and jobs didn't get created they were lost. So lets go back to the old rate. And when he says he will go after anyone that breaks the pledge is a threat against the American public that vote people to make policy and that was not Norquist.
I want to know where the money would go if the "rich" pay more taxes ... ??? Is it to pare down the annual deficit or our $16,000,000,000,000.00 + debt ???? Or is it to "invest" in more programs ??? Which is it ????
I don't usually post, although I do read a lot to see how people truly feel vs what polls say they think. This is a different situation and I feel like putting my two cents into the pot. Regardless of your feelings about raising or not raising taxes it should be an affront to each and everyone of us that the first thing an elected official does when getting to Washington is sign a pledge to a lobbyist. They are OUR representatives and should be accountable to us not to the Norquists of the country. My tax rate was at 25% last year, I don't want to pay more than I have too, but I like the interstate road system, the feeling I can fly safely, the security that FEMA is there in case a Sandy hits me, the ability to buy good, safe food, and etc, etc,....It all costs money and we all know how much cost have risen over the years. Waste in gvt?...most certainly. Greed is rampant everywhere, why should gvt be any different. They just have access to more money than the average person and it isn't theirs so why not skim a bit. Enough said, we have lots of problems and a pledge to Norquist is but a small pimple, but it is also an indication of what's wrong with the system. We need elected representatives with the gonads to stand up and do what they were hired to do. Remember to vote if they don't.
That is right. Raise taxes on the wealthy and the corporations.
After all they can afford it. Especially since they will simply raise their prices to cover the costs of the higher taxes. Then every time we buy something it will cost us more. But hey you guys are the smart ones with the answers I am sure you have already thought of that. Wouldn't it be easier to just give the government our middle and lower class pay checks and be done with it?
No they won't raise the prices due to competition. That argument has never stood up to reality and is used to justify not raising taxes. Weak sauce.
You are right. They will just go out of business. They are going to get their 5-7% profit margin one way or another, or it isn't worth them staying in business.
Tether what's your solution?
You seem long on shallow statements and insults but short on recommendations.
Enlighten us, please! Then again, you really lost me on that silly "Clinton forcing banks..." nonsense in an earlier post. Never mind...
The solution is simple Quit spending money we don't have.
Instead of attacking those who pay taxes how about attacking those who cheat the system for a free ride while the rest of us work for a living. I am not talking about those who can't make it on their own. I am talking about those who could but don't.
I don't mind paying taxes, but I do mind having my money taken to suppport the lazy theives who could but won't work.
The government is not a zero-sum operation especially right now. No one wants to support people cheating the system. BTW, the deficit has been gouing down for the past three years. I don't know it's being kept a secret, but it has.
Is it being reduced as quickly as it should be is probably not up for debate. Like employment, we all want to see it progress more rapidly.
The fact is... The billionaires are NOT the job creators! Not even close! No one will ever create a single job unless he has no other choice. When an employer can no longer meet demands, he hires someone else. Giving tax cuts to billionaires will not create a single job! EVER! Give the tax cuts to the working class that buys the goods and services and tax the hell out of the billionaires!
That will create jobs!
Yeah that's right tax the hell out of them cause it's not like the money they invest to make them more money does any good for creating jobs! We'll show them Billionaires!
There's so few billionaires, they're really not worth discussing, for terms of balancing the budget. As far as creating jobs....yes-- all the people they hire to staff their mansions, and maintain the grounds.
....and they buy top quality things which pay high wages in the production thereof
.....and their wives buy clothes at shops where the sales people's commission is enough for a middle class income, unlike lower end clothing stores
....and they're more likely to eat at expensive restaurants where the waiters get much higher tips and overall income.
....and they buy more new cars than poorer people do, which results in more high wage jobs.
So the money they spend, unlike the poor and middle class, goes to creating more high wage jobs. And the money they save, is invested with their broker in stocks or other securities/investments, which provides capital for entrepreneurs with good ideas but no cash to put them into effect.
OICY, Facts are not facts just because you say, and I quote "The Fact is..." You should just sit back and revel in your win! Your guy won! Own it! Enjoy it while you can... maybe another 12 months, or so.
Grover who???????????
This JERK is a self-appointed, one-trick-pony who has already used up his allocated 15 minutes of fame.
Haul is a$$ to the curb with the rest of the trash.
Grover? oh yeah I remember him from Sesame Street, I didn't realise he had the last name of Norquist how ever. In short Grover you are nothing but a cartoon character these days...your a joke who's punch line has grown stale. Go away Norquist, no one likes you...and your fat!
3 for 1, Welfare State Cuts to Tax Hikes, and the Tax Hike Pain has to be Shared Across All Income Groups!
Or no deal, liberals, Suck on That!
So, if we cut welfare handouts by 300 billion in this year's budget, then we'll agree to $100 billion in tax hikes on the rich, the middle class and the poor, an equal percentage for each, with the highest dollar amount paid by the rich of course.
So if we raise taxes on the 1 millionaire by $10,000, we have to raise taxes on the hundred thousand-aire by $1000, and the ten thousand-aire by $100.
Or No Deal. Suck. On. That.
There is no reasonable argument for raising anyone's tax rates. Reform the tax code, eliminate all loopholes and many/most deductions and bring the rates down for everyone, individuals and corporations. With lower rates we could treat all income (earned and investment income) alike and walk away from this divisive class warfare. After an exclusion for poverty level earnings, flat is the most fair. Everyone should pay something towards the income tax (payroll tax is for long term retirement and medical insurance, it is not the same argument).
Do not give an inch on increased tax revenue without serious spending cuts and long term entitlement reform. Our current and projected levels of spending is a much larger issue/danger than our tax rates and we must get this under control, now, not in 10 or 20 years.
From the article: "Graham added, “I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform.”
"Entitlement Reform" is a recurring theme from Republicans quoted throughout this article. The problems? One they are not "ENTITLEMENTS". They are PAID FOR PROGRAMS by American citizens through taxes.
And two: Entitlements do not need "REFORM". Social Security DOES NOT contribute to the deficit. In fact, with minor tweaking, is should be fine. Medicare and Medicaid definitely need work, but the "reform" for both of these programs should consist of cutting waste/fraud, getting rid of the Republican bill that the government is not allowed to negotiate prices on prescription drugs and last but far from least, eliminate BOTH Medicare and Medicaid in favor of a single payer system for ALL Americans. Why is America the ONLY industrialized nation with for profit medicine? The answer? Because insurance, healthcare and pharmecutical companies are enormously powerful and funnel tremendous amounts of money to our politicians. And that goes for BOTH parties.
Prgressive....if they were paid for programs, they wouldn't be running hundreds of billions in deficits.
Republicans have been sabotaging the economy ever since Obama was elected. If these republicans thought Obama's policies would hurt the economy, would a republican who has been busy sabotaging the economy stand in his way? No... That republican would help Obama destroy the economy.
What the republicans fear is that Obama's policies would help the economy and that is unacceptable to those who have been sabotaging the economy. The republicans know that Obama's plan will create jobs and if they allow that to happen it will prove everything they have been saying on FOX News, Rush Limbaugh and everywhere else is 100% pure bull@!$%#! The republicans who have been sabotaging the economy will stop at nothing to prevent Obama's plan from fixing the economy!
Yeah that's why he focused on Obamacare when he had the majority in the HOR and Senate. You know important @!$%# instead of say trying to create jobs.
Panic little girl. Obama is going to prove everything you ever heard on FOX News to be complete BS!
Nice retort there OICY!
How come the republicans who have been sabotaging the economy are not helping implement Obama's plan if they believe it will help destroy America's economy?
Obama's been sabotaging himself with his own crap policies.
Chesty fortunately for the country (and even you) the majority of the country doesn't agree with you.
OICY, You're a troll. A very familiar troll...
We won't be fooled by Republicans again. Mid-terms will be here before you know it and it will give progressives a chance to do more house keeping and kick out more Republicans and destroy the Teaparty once and for all.
Remember - the Republicans are the problem with no solutions.
Liberals in a landslide - 2014!
Oh you will win so enjoy your utopia you think you will create until the money runs out!
The government needs to have a balanced budget and then live with in their means and stop raising taxes.Why send more money to these liberal fools to waste.Almost all the comments I have read here show that the writers have no idea about economics or running a business.If the Democrates are so hot to raise taxes to the level when Clinton was in office,then limit spending to that level less an amount to pay toward the national debt.We do not have a tax problem we have a spending problem; unless you want to call the 49% who pay No federal tax a problem
We had a balanced budget until Bush started two wars and didn't pay for them!
Hey,... How did those tax cuts to pay for two wars Bush wouldn't let us win work out for America?
"Yes, we've sucked for 4 years, and will continue to...but Bush sucked 1/3 as much as we do, so...."
--Dems holding to their talking point line
Pigskin, the 47% pay plenty of taxes. Just because they don't write a check at the end of the year makes them not holding up thier end? Please, that old stupidity has been debunked. Please try and keep up.
We have a revenue and a spending problem. No one is "hot" on raising taxes, as you say. The objective is a balanced tax system. The right's goal is to protect their campaign donations. And my guess is that the current adminstration's economic advisors would hand you your lunch in a debate.
OICY used to be Lance Johnson! That's it! Same old hate filled gibberish!
Our government could care less about you or I. They will do what they want regardless of you any of us say or do. Its pretty apparent now.. Their goal is complete control and they will do it through the "Green" movement and the UN Agenda 21 program.. f*k all of them.. they're all in on it and they are being controlled by their own d@mned greed..
So move!
You first magoo! Why are you still here? Your venom is just as acidic as pre election. Obama won. Has nobody told you? Go and party!! Drinks all around!!
It's beginning to look like the gop has not listened to well in the election. Time for another House cleaning come 2014 and send them home with their departing gift, a GPS with their home state programmed in.
Why is this Norquist idiot being allowed to control the entire country???
To date NOBODY has given me an answer, I did not vote for his fat greedy butt, where does he come from and how is it he can DICTATE his beliefs onto an entire country? The only civilized answer I have gotten over the past year is that he is very powerful and he knows a lot of insiders in Washington,
so I ask again why are one individual's demands so much more important than the NEEDS OF MANY (the entire country actually)??? And why has this guy not been arrested and the lying politicians all of whom were elected to PUBLIC OFFICE should have been negated by the simple FACT that they seem to put more weight into this STUPID PLEDGE THAN THEIR OWN OATH OF OFFICE????
It irritates me no end that one jerk can get away with actions such as these the guy should never have been able to strong arm this countries government, why won't the CIA or the FBI or The Department of Homeland Security put an end to this type of behavior???Everybody seems to know who he is and what he has done,
WHY???
And once again, NO ANSWER...
I enjoyed Norquist's snarky little comment to a liberal beech on the CBS Early Show, explaining Obama's strategy and what lessons we should take from the election.
"The President spent hundreds of millions of dollars convincing swing state voters that Romney was a poopiehead and that's how..."
It was good snark.
Norquist's right, unless our trashy, rotten Democratic Party agree to major cuts in their failed programs, which is doubtful. If they don't deliver on big cuts, stick with the no tax pledge.
Because most Republicans need to be told what to do. Why do you think they watch Fox News for crying out loud? It certainly is not because of the intelligent or interesting conversation.
the tax code needs a complete overhaul. make it less complicated and more fair; as a bonus, a simpler tax code could cut gov't spending on a smaller IRS. win-win....unless you work for the IRS.
There are two kinds of people in the world... The makers and the takers. I'm a maker. I work for a living and make stuff. A millionaire gets rich off of the labor I do. He's a taker.
Get it?
maybe the millionaire is a successful maker who created the company that made your labor useful. don't hate success.
How does it feel to be the biggest sniveling cry baby in the world......they have more than me so they must have stolen it. No other explanation.
go easy on OICY. He's never recovered from his mental breakdown when the USSR imploded.
Without the millionaire, you would still be on welfare.