Login or Register
Welcome , Settings |  Logout

Grover Norquist's Right to Be Wrong

Thursday, 29 Nov 2012 12:23 PM

By Lanny Davis

Share:
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
I strongly disagree with Grover Norquist and his anti-tax pledge. But I believe his views are sincere. And I condemn those who substitute personal attacks on Norquist for factual arguments to prove him wrong.

First, I don’t get why my fellow Democrats and liberals blame Norquist for the “pledge” — rather than those who sign the pledge.

Last time I looked, no one forced 285 members of Congress at gunpoint to sign the pledge prior to the November elections — 238 of 242 House Republicans and 41 out of 47 Senate Republicans.

They freely signed a commitment to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses and to oppose net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate.

These members of Congress signed the pledge voluntarily, last time I looked. And if they change their minds, which they are allowed to do, they will be held accountable by the voters — or at least should be, if voters disagree with the change of position.

Second, why don’t we use facts to persuade voters that Norquist and those who signed the pledge are wrong — and that history proves them so?

For example, let’s look at the factual evidence of Bill Clinton’s two terms to make our case. In 1993, anti-tax conservatives opposed President Clinton’s tax increase of $250 million (through increasing marginal rates).

Fact: That budget was passed in the House and the Senate without a single Republican member of either chamber voting for it.

Fact: Republicans took to the floor of both chambers and predicted that the Clinton tax increases would — as Grover Norquist now says about increasing taxes today — cause a recession and increased joblessness.

Fact: They were proven wrong and Clinton was proven right. Clinton began his tenure in January 1993 with a $300 billion deficit and a slow economic recovery, and eight years later left office with a $500 million surplus, 23 million new jobs, and a 65 percent approval rating — unprecedented for a second-term president.

I also think Norquist is wrong because he gives too little weight to the economic and moral issues if America doesn’t substantially pay down our $16 trillion national debt. If we don’t adopt the across-the-board approach of Simpson-Bowles, I think America runs a serious risk of becoming another Greece, with a GDP exceeded by our national debt in the foreseeable future.

For me, not addressing the national debt is also a moral issue. I have two younger children. I think it is flat-out immoral for today’s generation of adults to use credit cards and hand over the receipts and tell our children and grandchildren (and probably, the way things are going, great-grandchildren) to pay the tab for our spending.

That is my opinion. I think I am right.

Norquist disagrees with me. He thinks I am wrong.

I am willing to concede that Norquist might not be entirely wrong. I do worry about the recessionary effects of raising taxes in our already stagnant economy with unemployment nearly 8 percent. It won’t kill me (or my fellow Democrats) to concede that Norquist might have a point about the risks of raising taxes at this particular time.

But I don’t need to attack Grover personally because I disagree with him. In fact, I know him and like him. He’s a good dad, good husband and a good person, with tolerant views toward gay rights, civil rights and those who disagree with him.

If more people in America were willing to disagree rather than personally attack someone with different political views, we might actually have a chance to solve problems rather than continue the red/blue polarization that has paralyzed Washington in recent years.

I wish my fellow Democrats who personally attack Norquist would remember the words of President Clinton: “I hope that I’ll live long enough to see American politics return to vigorous debates where we argue who’s right and wrong, not who’s good and bad.”

Lanny Davis is the principal in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Lanny J. Davis & Associates, which specializes in strategic crisis management. He served as President Clinton’s Special Counsel in 1996-98. Read more reports from Lanny Davis — Click Here Now.




© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Share:
More . . .
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax community.
Register to share your comments with the community. Already a member? Login
Note: Comments from readers do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of Newsmax Media. While we attempt to review comments, if you see an inappropriate comment you can block it by rolling over the comment, clicking the down arrow and selecting "Flag As Inappropriate."
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
 
Hot Topics
Top Stories
Around the Web
You May Also Like

The 'Purple' Michael Smerconish Show

Thursday, 02 May 2013 10:25 AM

I recall very well the first time I was on the Michael Smerconish radio talk show on WPHT in Philadelphia. He was doing  . . .

George W. Bush, the President and the Man, Revisited

Thursday, 25 Apr 2013 09:59 AM

Lanny Davis’ Perspective: Today, April 25, on the Southern Methodist University campus in Dallas, four living presidents . . .

Wrong Purple Moment for Obama, Boehner

Thursday, 21 Mar 2013 09:35 AM

I have been writing this “Purple Nation” column for a long time, waiting for the “purple moment” when President Obama an . . .

 
 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved