SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Senate Republicans Abandon Norquist

JONATHAN CHAIT JUNE 14, 2011

Senate Republicans Abandon Norquist

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

A pretty surprising and important thing happened today: Senate Republicans opposed Grover Norquist en masse.

The drama was buried in a minor vote that will go nowhere, but that fact obscures the import of what happened. Norquist runs Americans For Tax Reform, the sponsor of a no-tax pledge signed by virtually all Republicans. Norquist's pledge has held absolute sway over the party for two decades -- Republicans at the national level have opposed on principle any tax hike whatsoever. Any agreement to reduce the deficit is going to require Democratic support, which in turn will require some increase in revenue. Some Republicans negotiating this deal want to get this revenue by closing tax loopholes or credits, which they (accurately) see as a form of spending through the tax code. Norquist opposes any deal as a violation of the party's anti-tax theology.

Sen. Tom Coburn has an odd role in all of this. He was involved with budget negotiations, then bizarrely jacked up his demands and then bolted the negotiations. But before he did that, he started laying a trap for Norquist. Coburn proposed to eliminate the tax subsidy for ethanol, which conservatives have long opposed. Of course, the subsidy is a tax credit, which means that eliminating it would be a tax hike. Norquist has forcefully opposed eliminating the ethanol subsidy, arguing that the ethanol subsidy may be bad, but it can be eliminated only if the revenue is used to reduce revenue. Eliminating even an unjustified tax subsidy in order to reduce the deficit is strictly forbidden. Indeed, according to Norquist's rule, a bill that cut federal spending by 50% and eliminated the ethanol credit would be forbidden if it did not cut other taxes by at least as much as the ethanol credit. Coburn's bill exposed the conceptual absurdity of the anti-tax pledge, which has become the most important impediment to a budget agreement that restrains the size of government.

Even though Coburn remains absent from the budget negotiations, he brought the issue to the Senate floor today. Democrats opposed his bill for unimportant and obscure procedural reasons. Anyway, the point was not to kill the ethanol subsidy. The point was to establish the principle that Republicans can vote to eliminate a tax credit without plowing the money back into other tax reductions. Amazingly, 43 34 Republicans voted for Coburn's bill. It's a clear signal of at least theoretical willingness to violate anti-tax orthodoxy.

This is not the end of Norquistism in the Republican Party. It's not even the beginning of the end. But it may be the end of the beginning. The House remains a strong bastion of anti-tax absolutism, and I remain skeptical than any balanced deficit deal could pass the lower chamber. And the GOP presidential campaign will reinforce the party's anti-tax absolutism, with candidates pushing the boundaries of supply-side devotion ever farther. Still, the Senate's show of dissent is deeply significant.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 14 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

14 comments

Yay. And the Koch Brothers also opposed Norquist, I suspect that made a huge difference.

- AllanL5

June 14, 2011 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Democrats opposed his bill for unimportant and obscure procedural reasons. " makes the Democrats more dangerously stupid to America than Grover Norquist (who is the real poison in the GOP well). Senator Coburn seems to be the only Senator with a brain AND integrity - and he is correct to condemn both parties today. There is no hope if we can not end the corn ethanol subsidy and the sugar ethanol import tariff (both of which Obama supported in 2008 which was a sign of his weakness for special interests)

- K2K

June 14, 2011 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wonder what the real story is here. Norquist is a mindless bully who most people of both parties loath yes, but I wonder. I doubt that Coburn and the Koch Brothers suddenly decided to embrace sane tax policies that will actually reduce the deficit (something I doubt they give the first hoot about). Maybe Norquist tweeted someone's daughter something naughty or something. This whole thing just doesn't add up.

- WandreyCer

June 14, 2011 at 5:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah, from caps to bolding. It is still grammatical Tourette's. This is incredibly significant. As I have written here recently, the Norquistain stranglehold on the Republican Party will be broken eventually, but Lord, how long? A Zen koan: What is the sound of one Tea Party clapping? A: Lunacy.

- liberalref

June 14, 2011 at 5:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. K2K over W. here, definitely. There are precious few genuine deficit hawks on the right, but Senator Tom Coburn is one of them. Most Republicans are deficit frauds, i.e., they rail against deficits only when Democrats have the commanding heights. When someone who purportedly follows politics cannot distinguish Tom Coburn from, say, Paul Ryan, that is pretty bad.

- liberalref

June 14, 2011 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Boehner kept saying over and over that we needed to have an adult conversation about the budget (Now I understand Weiner's photos). Then, while shaking their baby rattle, they insisted on no tax increases. Then they complained when Obama left them to balance the budget with what options remained. Then they complained that their death to medicare was distorted. They want it one way, their way, and if not, they pout. Really adult.

- Nusholtz

June 14, 2011 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is a huge and inane idea in our political discourse which calls, a no taxes under any and all circumstances including World War III, pledge as "fiscally conservative." I tend to think Norquist is not going away anytime soon. Norquist serves the uber rich and he is well funded by them. As loathsome as he may be as a human being, the rank and file GOP fear him like nobdoy else because of that. This vote is more about Koch, (another source of big money) influence. You will quickly see all those GOP Senators back to responding, "How high?" when Norquist says jump next time.

- MikeB.

June 14, 2011 at 9:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nusholtz, it is almost comical, if it wasn't so ridiculous and harmful for the country, when Boehner pulls the "adult conversation" line about the budget and then puts in his fingers in his ears and says, "nyah, nyah, nyah," when taxes come up.

- MikeB.

June 14, 2011 at 9:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Libref, despite your incessant whining, Allan still uses caps, and JC still writes about Ohio. Perhaps if you had any of those hermeneutic skills you're always blathering about, you'd realize that they don't give a shit about your opinions. Just a thought. Allan, keep doing what you're doing, man.

- bunthorne

June 15, 2011 at 12:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I saw Tom Coburn on TV this morning or last night or somewhere in between, and he was very unapologetic about what he'd done, essentially saying, we're going to get shit done on the revenue side when it makes sense to do so.

- Curran1

June 15, 2011 at 7:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

libref, you were the one who posited using bold and italics for emphasis instead of all caps. When did this bug crawl up your butt? Nush, I don't disagree with you. But I seem to recall liberals in these parts kvetching about Obama's unwise "silence" in leaving Republicans to balance the budget for themselves. And in any case let's not celebrate too hard just yet. It's a good omen, but could be just a fluke.

- GSpinks

June 15, 2011 at 7:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As Tom Coburn opposes nearly everything I stand for, I'm rather concerned to have to rely on him as the voice of fiscal sanity within the Republican party. Nonethless, while almost always wrong, he is at least principled and reliable in his views, rather than the typical chamelonic hypocrite. If he's taking a stand on this one, good for all of us. FYI, Coburn's already stated he's not going to run for reelection in 2016, so Norquist has nothing to threaten him with. I oppose term limits, but self-imposed ones actually seem to be working out well here. And libref...good god, man. Are you now opposed to emphasis of any kind? Seriously? If you're going to tilt at windmills, why not pick one that would at least be admirable, like mounting an expedition to find Paul Ryan's sense of decency or Mitt Romney's principles?

- janus

June 15, 2011 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I must have missed something. Why is the vote going to "go nowhere", as Jon put it, and why would the Dems care about a procedural hiccup on an issue it seems everybody other than Grover can get behind?

- Tristan

June 15, 2011 at 8:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You can please some of the people some of the time but you can never please libref.

- tealeaves

June 15, 2011 at 6:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close