« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Saxby Chambliss’s Fuzzy Math

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  November 25th, 2012 at 11:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Last Wednesday, speaking in reference to Grover Norquist’s tax pledge, Senator Saxby Chambliss revealed himself to be a big government statist.  Then again, we always knew that.

He told a local TV station that if we hold the line on the anti-tax pledge, “then we’ll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that.”

This line of thought is emblematic of Republicans involved in the Gang of 6 or any other bipartisan gang.  It’s not that they feel we need to compromise on taxes in order to get spending cuts.  Democrats will never agree to legitimately downsize government in any compromise.  It’s that they fundamentally agree with the governing model that has led to annual budgets as large as $3.7 trillion.  They believe in the entitlement and welfare society; they believe in the Departments of Energy, Education, and HUD; they believe in a federal government that is unbridled by the Constitution.

To that end, big government Republicans like Chambliss believe that the only way we can balance the budget is by raising taxes.  Lindsey Graham is even more agog with glee over his part in the deal.  The irony is that even if we acceded to Obama’s tax increases, we would only bump up revenue by $84 billion per year.  Remember that the monthly deficit for October was $120 billion. Moreover, as all the high-tax states have proven, we would only recover that revenue the first year.  After that, the depressed economic growth would result in a revenue loss.

Saxby’s comments are quite instructive for conservatives as we confront a Republican Party that is committed to capitulation.  This imbroglio over the fiscal cliff was never about the budget – spending or revenue.  It is about the fundamental role of government in a Constitutional Republic that inherently restrains the size of government.  As such, even if raising taxes on the rich would be fair (it’s not; they already pay 37% of the income taxes), and even if it would be economically prudent; it is the wrong thing to do.  Any additional revenue would be used to grow the size of government at a time when it needs to be cut in half.  On this core issue, Republicans like Chambliss and Graham side with Democrats.  We side with the Constitution.

That’s why this has never been about Norquist and his tax pledge.  If Democrats would genuinely agree to a deal that would wind down the welfare and entitlement programs and eliminate full departments of the executive branch, conservatives would reluctantly go along with some form of revenue increases.  Raising taxes is unfair and counterintuitive, but if that is what it would take to get Democrats to come onboard with our efforts to shrink government, then it would be a deal worth making.

The real narrative here is that Democrats will never agree to downsize the budget in any consequential way.  And with Republicans like Saxby Chambliss, why should they?

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • MiamiDave

    I hope they both see strong, articulate, and most importantly conservative challengers in their respective primaries. The idea that dark-red State’s like Georgia and South Carolina are represented by men who buy into this sort of nonsense is a sad indictment of how far we let our Party drift to the center on spending and big Government.

  • actionsspeaklouderthanwords

    There is only one establishment in DC. The RNC and the DNC are about as different as the AFC and the NFC. Either way, it is the same game.
    There will always be enough Republican “defectors” to get the things done the establishment wants done. It is all theater. Just enough rhinos will come across to get the job done. When they aren’t needed, they vote like conservatives, and someone will dutifully report their high percentage of votes for conservative causes. But they are only allowed to vote conservative when it doesn’t matter.

  • alaskaescapeartist

    You’ve proved your own point in that even the semantics have drifted… $16 trillion in debt is not center, a balanced budget by definition… is “center”.

    Your points are well taken.

  • commonsenseobserver

    While no Conservative has advocated for abolishing the entire federal government, there are leftists who support a massive expansion of Washington and large hikes in taxation. So, even the “center” ground is pretty far out to the left.

  • veritaseequitas

    “The real narrative here is that Democrats will never agree to downsize the budget in any consequential way.”
    And apparently neither will the GOP. What a bunch of toads. What can we believe in anymore? Nobody in the GOP means what they say when they are running for office.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Typical of the Vichy-Republicans, Mr. Chambliss has told us what he does not believe in as a deflection for substantive discussion.

    In place of a balanced negotiation in which we articulate positions that must be satisfied- the leadership instead telegraphs they will take the best deal Democrats are willing to give.

    What exactly does “everything is on the table mean”? It sure is a nice platitude, but it sounds very much like “we will surrender on basic principles”- if past is prologue.

    I am fairly convinced this leadership learned it’s negotiation skills by studying the Treaty of Munich.

  • sjccoach

    The Republican squishes are pretending to surrender again. They are Democrat lites. Our country has a one party system just like Norh Korea. The elites in DC are all in agreement. They all want to grow the government. Until the right is willing to take to the streets and take action the farce in DC will continue.

  • bk

    It doesn’t matter what Republicans propose – the question is what are they willing to shut down the government over? The Establishment GOP has proven time and again they will vote with Democrats as soon as the Democrats claim the Establishment GOP is being held hostage by the tea party. I expect nothing different this time.

    The GOP “leaders” are complete idiots for folding before the negotiations even begin. Democrats will call this “a good first step” and now the only question is how high will taxes go. We know that nothing of substance will happen to entitlements or spending. The “they are trying to hold the safety net hostage before voting for revenue increases they already admitted are needed” press releases are primed and ready to go.

  • bgintn

    Who should run against Sen. Saxby Chambliss in the primary

    Now is the time to run out the name(s) of a better choice, right?

    Rep. Tom Graves, Rep. Tom Price, Rep. Paul Broun, and former Secretary of State Karen Handel?

    Any other ideas?

  • commonsenseobserver

    Gov. Deal himself? Gov. Perdue?

  • rosenstern

    Senators that publicly pledge to pursue a very specific policy direction only to repudiate their pledge once an election is over deserve an electorate with a long memory. It is a political marketplace and if you get bad representation you must exact a price – or else suffer the same again. I believe the electorate values authenticity above almost any other quality. Say what you mean, mean what you say.

  • timcooper62

    Chambliss should go and take his butt buddy Lindsay with him.

  • bgintn

    OK, I have looked hard at Graves and Price all ready.
    A little at Handel.

    Now, the other three.

  • kywn

    Love it. The bigger the fight between Republicans the easier it will be for Democrats to defeat the remaining rump of establishment Republicans and take over the political center. Progressives and Conservatives both know we need to be honest and end this nonsense that we are all just “friends that disagree” – we’re not friends we’re enemies with fundamentally incompatible visions for America. This needs to be a take no prisoners fight to the end.

    In the past I think the biggest obstacle to having this fight was the “can’t we all just get along” liberals, but after the last 4yrs or so I’ve seen that feeling largely disappear from Progressives. We’re ready so now the only remaining obstacle between us is the establishment Republicans. Conservatives need to deal with them so we can get on with a real fight that decides the future direction of the country.

  • WY_Cowboy

    I think the criticism of Chambliss is a bit unfair. Increasing the top marginal rate from 35% to 39.6% isn’t really that big of an increase. It would be better to increase revenue through elimination of credits, unnecessary deductions, and limits on other deductions. However, any capitulation on taxes must be accompanied by entitlement reform. Cement the relationship between the two. You can’t have one without the other. The Dems will NOT even discuss entitlement reform, so GOPers need not do anything more than state they would be willing to give on tax rates if the Dems would give on entitlement spending. It still leads to no deal, and we still go over the fiscal cliff. Actually, I think going over the fiscal cliff is preferable and it will absolutely force Democrats to have meaningful discussions on tax reform and entitlement reform down the road, or risk electoral Armageddon for at least a decade. More on that if anyone is interested. Hint – AMT.

  • WY_Cowboy

    Offensive. You don’t need to use that kind of language to make your point.

  • bk

    I have no problem with the fiscal cliff. As far as I’m concerned, Boehner’s position should be (and should have been for the past couple of years): No deal without a budget to base it on.”

    It seems to me the solution is simple:
    1a) What is the expected total income if we go off the fiscal cliff?
    1b) What is the expected total income if we do not?
    2a) Implement revenue-neutral tax reform based on 1a).
    2b) Revenue growth comes from using 2a) against 1b) instead of against 1a).

    Let the revenue increase come from the growth that the flatter taxes help drive that wouldn’t happen otherwise. If Norquist doesn’t like it he can go pound sand – this is the sort of approach that is needed. Everybody’s a winner right?

  • Finrod

    So who do you propose should run against Chambliss for the GOP Senate nomination in 2014? You won’t have to worry about Chambliss if he doesn’t win the GOP primary.

  • bgintn

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/saxbys-challengers_663750.html

    When a man compromises with socialists and communists, he is not going to come out with a successful solution. Now is not the time, it is time to stand up and fight for doing the right thing.

    On the Club for Growth’s most recent report card, Chambliss scored a 76%, putting him in the lower-third of Senate Republicans. He also has a lifetime score of 75% from FreedomWorks.
    http://congress.freedomworks.org/legislators/saxby-chambliss
    http://www.clubforgrowth.org/projects/scorecard/?year=2011

    http://aliakbar.org/blog/2012/11/saxby-breaks-pledge-with-georgians-not-to-raise-their-taxes/

    Graves, short on money
    Price and Handel, same backers
    Price with 1.5 – 1.6 in the bank that can be used.
    Thought;
    Price for Senate, Handel for his Rep seat, will it work?

    Still looking at the Governors.
    No love between Deal and Price / Handel.

  • MoeLane

    Five minutes to write: five seconds to toss in the trash. Just as well: you’re probably overdue for your daily Why drone strikes are the most marvelous thing EVER self-brainwashing anyway.