POLITICS

Grover Speaks! Says He Didn’t Give on Taxes

Updated: July 22, 2011 | 1:21 p.m.
July 21, 2011 | 9:45 p.m.

Americans for Tax Reform chief Grover Norquist speaks while visiting National Journal in July.  (PHOTO: RICK BLOOM)

Did Grover Norquist give House Republicans permission to raise taxes?

Do House Republicans need his permission?

Do they secretly crave it because Norquist—and only Norquist—can provide them political cover if they do raise taxes, thereby breaking the no-tax-increase pledge of his group, Americans for Tax Reform?

No, no, and NO.

“The commitment from Speaker [John] Boehner and the Republican leadership is stronger than the pledge,” Norquist told National Journal. “That’s the left’s fantasy, that I can give them permission. I can’t. This brouhaha has proved that.”

Norquist fielded calls on Thursday morning from nervous conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill and elsewhere wondering if in a two-hour editorial board meeting with The Washington Post he had green-lighted higher taxes as part of a deal to increase the nation’s debt ceiling. “I got questions like, ‘Is Grover opening the back door of the castle to let the barbarians in to raise taxes?’ No.”

It all started when Norquist told The Post that—by the letter of the pledge—it isn’t always a violation to allow temporary tax increases to expire. Norquist told National Journal the issue crops up regularly in state legislatures where tax increases are often passed as temporary measures to address a specific budget crisis. More than 1,200 state legislative figures—including 13 governors and five lieutenant governors—have signed the pledge and ATR monitors changes in tax policy at the state level avidly to track permanent and temporary policy changes.

From Norquist and ATR’s point of view, if a temporary tax increase lapses, no one has voted to cut taxes. They have merely adhered to existing policy. By that same logic, if a temporary tax cut is passed—say a specific tax incentive for an industry or a short-term lifting of a portion of the state sales tax—allowing that temporary policy to lapse is not a tax increase. “If nobody voted on anything, who would you shoot?” Norquist asked. “Nobody. Because nobody broke the pledge.” ATR would adjudicate and say a politician broke the pledge if he or she voted to extend a “temporary” tax increase beyond its promised duration.

Norquist’s contention was the basis for a Thursday Post editorial indicating he might be open to a federal tax increase as part of deficit-reduction deal linked to raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

“I’m not mad at The Washington Post,” Norquist said. “We haven’t had to articulate this on the federal level as much and we need to articulate it better.”

Norquist thinks allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is a bad idea and that it “wouldn’t pass the laugh test” to say that allowing tax cuts valued at $4 trillion over 10 years to lapse wouldn’t amount to a tax increase on millions of Americans. “If everybody looks at it and says it’s a tax increase, it’s a tax increase.”

The Bush tax cuts were passed under Senate rules of budget reconciliation, which placed them within a 10-year budget horizon. Norquist says the pledge’s application has been tested by constant extensions of “temporary” tax credits and yearly “patches” to the Alternative Minimum Tax to protect middle-class taxpayers from rates imposed in the 1960s designed to bite super-rich families who paid no federal income tax. All these “temporary” tax policies are now, from Norquist and ATR’s perspective, permanent. Therefore, allowing them to expire constitutes a tax increase and a violation of the pledge—which, by the way, 234 of 240 House Republicans and 40 of 47 Senate Republicans have signed.

The Post's editorial set in motion rampant Hill speculation, especially among Democrats, that Republicans had been given dispensation from Norquist’s anti-tax increase orthodoxy. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said, “I think Mr. Norquist has made a very important statement that I hope they [Republicans] each take into consideration. I am hopeful Speaker Boehner, who has indicated that he wants to have a large, grand design, will be able to purse that in a balanced way.”

But Boehner wasted no time in slamming a door Norquist unintentionally opened.

“I’ll let you and the other pundits decide what it means,” Boehner said. “I’ve never voted to raise taxes and I don’t intend to. That would not be my goal in any way, shape, or form.”

Top House GOP aides said the kerfuffle made no dent in negotiations with the White House or attempts to pass a deficit-reduction package linked to a debt-ceiling increase. House GOP aversion to tax increases—shared by Senate GOP leaders—is dictating negotiating strategies and bottom lines, not Norquist’s pledge, he agreed.

“The pledge is not to me. The pledge is to the voters of a given district or state. If a politician breaks the pledge do you honestly believe they will go home and say ‘Don’t be mad; Grover said it was OK?’ ”

This article appears in the July 22, 2011, edition of National Journal Daily.

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
Latest Edition
SUBSCRIPTION ONLY

Today's cover story: "Both Parties Face Tricky Balancing Act at IRS Hearings" -- Even amid crisis and scandal, the two parties remain as divided as ever—especially when it comes to finding solutions.That much should be evident on Friday morning when the top Democratic and Republican tax writers gather for the first in a series of hearings about problems with the Internal Revenue Service’s screenings of tax-exempt advocacy groups.

Read this and all of the stories in the latest digital edition of National Journal Daily.

National Journal Daily
Columns
Charlie Cook: The Cook Report

Republicans Should Go Easy on Obama, At Least in Public

May 16, 2013
As a tactical matter, a subterranean campaign will score more direct hits on the president.
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

How the White House Scandals Could Hurt Republicans, Too

May 16, 2013
By enraging the base and strengthening the faction least willing to compromise with Obama, the IRS and Benghazi affairs could hurt a GOP shot at the presidency.
Norm Ornstein: Washington Inside Out

Eric Cantor’s Caucus Thwarts His Push for an Alternative Agenda

May 16, 2013
Cantor has learned that the tea-party movement he helped foster won’t fall in line behind his efforts to push an alternative conservative agenda.
More Columns »
Expert Opinions
Transportation Experts

Oops! Judge Slams Local Public-Private Deal

May 17, 2013

Latest Response by Robert L. Darbelnet: Public Scrutiny Essential

Energy Experts

Should Washington Go Small on Energy and Climate Policy?

May 17, 2013

Latest Response by Jack Gerard: Minor Policies, Major Consequences

Energy Experts

Should Washington Go Small on Energy and Climate Policy?

May 16, 2013

Latest Response by Jonathan Silver: Woefully Little, Better Than Nothing

More Expert Opinions »