Mediaite
Bob Corker: I’m not obligated on the Norquist anti-tax pledge
“Are you prepared, as others are doing, to sort of say ‘I’m going to forego the pledge because it is outdated and the country’s problems are too big,” Charlie Rose asked.
“I’m not obligated on the pledge,” Corker replied. “The only thing I’m honoring is the oath I take when I serve when I’m sworn in this January.”
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: « Previous 1 2
And I agree with you that Norquist is a useful idiot for Islamists. I don’t trust him at all.
thebrokenrattle on November 26, 2012 at 10:50 AM
So you think that the Republican’s backing away from this is a sign that they are going to shrink government and not raise taxes?
I see it the opposite, that the Republican’s are going to buckle, raise taxes, and increase spending…dramatically.
It may have not been the “perfect” pledge, but the basis of “I don’t support raising taxes” is the issue…the Republican’s are showing where they really stand, and they are using the “it’s a bad law” as an excuse, as if it had somehow evolved from a “good thing” to a “bad thing” on it’s own…
right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Why announce this on TV?
I’d like to see these guys try to sell something on Pawn Stars.
Corker and Lindsey are like the Chumlee of the Senate.
faraway on November 26, 2012 at 10:56 AM
It’s not a coincidence that Norquist is not only an absolutist on protecting the rich from higher taxes, but also a huge supporter of open borders and amnesty for illegals. He’s not a conservative, he just serves the interests of the GOP’s corporate donors, who also want to preserve the flow of cheap labor.
Jon0815 on November 26, 2012 at 10:57 AM
That would be true if the tax increases were out in the open, if their was a line on your tax returns of “Income_____ Taxes_____ Net income_____”.
But that is not how it works, look at your cell bill, a bunch of hidden taxes, water bill, prescription drug companies, gas tax, utility taxes, road tax, auto registration, auto yearly checks, fees,building fees (amazing how slow the building economy is, but no reduction is permit costs and the number of people who inspect buildings), etc.
The problem is the taxes are “hidden” so the effect is gradual, 1% here, 1% there…and it all adds up to a huge burden. And often the “taxes/fees” are on industry, EPA, OSHA, EEOC, on and on, so what do the business do? Pass those fees onto you, they have to stay in business…taxes on businesses is a tax on you…something that the public has a difficult time to understand.
right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 10:59 AM
You, and other conservatives don’t get it…Norquist is not the problem, it’s that the Republican’s are afraid of fiscal constraint, they don’t know how to sell it.
The Norquist challenge could have been removed from him, just come up with a better, more comprehensive policy and cut him out, they let him control the debate, rather than defining it and taking it to the people.
Spending restraints, both on increase of taxes, and gov. spending, should be an easy sell to the American people…but the Republican’s are afraid, they think (and most of you) that we have to do what the dems say they are doing, giveaway…the irony is that the dems are not “giving away”, they are taking away.
We need to come up with better programs (they are not going away), more effective ones, and control costs, and control taxes…
right2bright on November 26, 2012 at 11:03 AM
It could go either way. I admit that the GOP’s path of least resistance is to make the bad trade-off of increased taxes now in exchange for wimpy pledges to reduce spending later. Then Obama will praise them for “bipartisanship” and when spending roars out of control again, they’ll plaintively whine about “wasteful Washington spending.”
Our job is to keep up the pressure on Boehner not to make that trade. Our message has to be “the GOP is willing to meaningfully compromise on a serious no-tax principle here, but ONLY if you are willing to meaningfully compromise on your serious no-spending-cuts principle.” That’s something that I think most people would find reasonable and bipartisan, while putting pressure on a politically powerful President and Senate to cut spending.
It’s the only play we’ve got.
Outlander on November 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM
All of what you’re saying is true. We paid a “temporary” telephone tax from the Spanish-American War until the 1990s. (That tax has been replaced with the ObamaPhone tax).
That said, people do see the “big ticket” taxes on their W-2s and paystubs–income and payroll taxes. If we go back to Clinton-era taxes on everyone, it will definitely put a dent in people’s pocketbooks. There’s a reason that that John Kasich and Newt Gingrich were able to force Clinton to cut spending in the 90s to balance the budget–people didn’t appreciate seeing a high percent of their income going off to Uncle Sam and being wasted.
Outlander on November 26, 2012 at 11:10 AM
I agree..I would/will not trust him at all..
Dire Straits on November 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM
The US was the freest land and is now the most stupid of them all.
Schadenfreude on November 26, 2012 at 11:49 AM
The US was the freest land and is now the most stupid of them all.
Schadenfreude on November 26, 2012 at 11:49 AM
We are stupider than China? Venezuela? France? Egypt? Vietnam? Zimbabwe? Liberia? Greece? Russia? I beg to differ, sir.
thebrokenrattle on November 26, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2