Norquist: Tea Party II will dwarf Tea Party if Obama pushes us over the cliff

posted at 12:11 pm on December 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Plenty to unpack from the most contentious roundtable on yesterday’s talk shows.  Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform squared off against CNBC’s Jim Cramer, who angrily challenged Norquist over his apparent protection of the “two percent” on NBC’s Meet the Press.  Norquist parried by arguing that he supports growth rather than continued confiscation, and that Reaganomics would generate much more revenue over the next ten years than higher taxes and Obamanomics.  If Washington doesn’t learn that lesson, Norquist warns, then the next version of the Tea Party will make the first look like, er … a tea party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvj-19Xtwro

MR. CRAMER: Well, he’s talking about seducing that the Republicans have been seduced. He talked impure thoughts. This is not a pornographic debate, Grover. What this is about is avoiding a recession which is going to happen. I know you don’t want a recession. You don’t want people laid off. You’re going to sacrifice that on the cross of two percent. Is that what you want?

MR. NORQUIST: No. You have to listen to both what the Republicans are talking about. And again, I’m supportive of the Republican position, which is we need to have economic growth, not higher taxes. If we grew at four percent a year instead of two percent a year, Reagan levels instead of Obama levels, for one decade we’d net five trillion in additional revenue. That would pay down the debt that Obama has run up with the slanderous, stimulus stuff. That is…

MR. CRAMER: Clinton did so much better at the stock market with these rates.

MS. BARTIROMO: Well, that was– that was a different time where– where– where we’re at the edge of the new innovation, internet boom.

MR. NORQUIST: No Obamacare, no threat of regulations. Understand how ugly the next four years are going to get. Everything in Obamacare that Obama didn’t want you to focus on or think about, the– the ninety percent of his trillion dollar tax increase was pushed over till after he got himself safely re-elected. All those regulations you’re now hearing about, okay, that are being rebelled about, those all hit after the election. We had four bad years of regulation taxes. He wants to add higher taxes to that. Tea party two is going to dwarf tea party one if Obama pushes us off the cliff. Let’s not pretend who’s pushing us over the cliff.

When did we go from the “one percent” to the “two percent”?  The “two percent” reference appears no fewer than eight times, six of them from Tim Geithner and Claire McCaskill prior to Cramer’s parroting of it here. Sounds like a talking point is being birthed.

Bartiromo pushes back on the “Clinton rates,” but fails to point out as so many conservatives have that the Clinton rates were married to Clinton levels of spending.  Spending as a percentage of GDP during that time was significantly lower — and dropping, in fact:

That’s another reason for the late-90s boom, as well as lower regulation — we had just escaped HillaryCare, if you’ll recall — as well as the cusp of the Internet boom years.  We are now well past the peacetime peaks of federal spending as related to GDP, and that’s still going up, not down.  That’s the reason for our staggering deficits, and unless we reform the drivers of that spending (entitlements), we can’t possibly raise taxes fast enough to make up that ground.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Hey Norquist,

I’ll do what I want!

Thank you for your concern,
The Tea Party

Psst, Groveman, it’s never good to tip your hand, don’t call my bluff and all.

We are the 98%! Whatever, sheesh… I should lay off the caffeine.

Fallon on December 3, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Aw, durnit. A Bishop, too? Well, unless someone is being moderated and then this won’t make any sense anyway.

Fallon on December 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM

He is right about Tea Party II. That group has no where to go but outside the political parties. These are the people who believe they are being used

Tea party reps fought the budget deal and got slapped down by the party big shots who put themselves int this trap

Boehner and crowd are working the WH, but no one is working the public, probably because the GOP position is uncertain. By keeping the GOP leadership jumping through hoops, the WH has shut down their public voice

Silence is not golden. To Tea Party types, silence is infuriating

The WH meanwhile is working the public. They have the MSM. The GOP needs a different venue. They ought to pass a bill and ride on it

entagor on December 3, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Buy Danish on December 3, 2012 at 6:07 PM

I’ll check into watching it, maybe it is just the ticket

Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 7:27 PM

I’ll check into watching it, maybe it is just the ticket
Cindy Munford on December 3, 2012 at 7:27 PM

You can get it via Netflix streaming.

Buy Danish on December 3, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Blaming the Tea Party for this loss? What a pantload.

trl on December 4, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Thought I should add this news item. There is Tea Party, the mass of citizens who are infuriated at the country being jacked by both parties, and then there are the ‘tea party organizations’ set up by various folk for various purpose

Tea Party Group Chief Quits, Cites Internal Split 12-04-12

A confidential contract obtained by the Associated Press shows that Armey agreed in September to resign from his role as chairman of Washington-based FreedomWorks in exchange for $8 million in consulting fees paid in annual $400,000 installments. The person behind the payout is Richard J. Stephenson, a prominent fundraiser and founder and chairman of the Cancer Treatment Centers of America, a national cancer treatment network.

any surprises there?

entagor on December 4, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2