« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Regarding Saxby Chambliss

Saxby Chambliss is waffling around like a dog off its leash for the first time.

He says he does not care about a “twenty year old pledge” he signed. He’s talking about the Americans for Tax Reform pledge that says he pledges not to raise taxes. He has clarified his remarks to mean he wants tax reform that increases revenue through job growth.

Everyone knows that Saxby meant he was happy to raise taxes. Now, under pressure back home, he is waffling. He covets his seat in Washington and is fearful of being primaries. Georgia has primary run-offs, whichs means he can be taken out. He cannot bring himself to say he wants to raise revenue through changing in the tax code that will cause taxes to go up, so he dances around. Behind the scenes, we all know he will work to structure a proposal that increases taxes on Americans, but he’ll cleverly make sure there are enough votes so he can vote against it. He is active and has been actively complicit with Mark Warner (D, VA) and others on raising taxes.

I started working on Saxby Chambliss’s campaign in 1994, the year he beat Craig Mathis. Mathis, who still has a bumper sticker stuck to a light pole next to Vineville Baptist Church in Macon, Georgia, ran as a typical Southern Democrat. Saxby campaigned that Mathis would join Bill Clinton in raising taxes on the American people. A symbol of his commitment to not raise taxes was the Americans for Tax Reform pledge. Saxby won in the 1994 Republican wave with a brilliant campaign manager named Rob Leeburn, who went on to be his Chief of Staff for a number of years.

In the campaigns of 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2000 — all of which I actively volunteered on his campaign so much so that I had a key to the office and occasionally slept on the nasty, but incredibly comfortable couch in the back office — Chambliss kept an oversized copy of his ATR pledge at the front door of his campaign office. When his signature would begin to fade, he’d re-sign the pledge on top of his old signature.

In the seventeen years Saxby Chambliss has been in Congress, expenditures have outpaced revenue in all but four of those years. Those years happened to be during the Clinton years during the height of the dot-com bubble people forget when talking about Clinton tax rates. Since that time, and for the entirety of the time the Republicans controlled Congress, outlays have exceeded receipts. But Saxby and the GOP stuck to their no new tax pledge.

Saxby Chambliss has been one of the culprits in Washington’s spending addition. Forget the War on Terror, etc. While national security matters explain a good bit of the deficits, they do not explain all of them. For example, Saxby Chambliss was a major proponent of agricultural largess. After the Democrats took back Congress in 2006, Saxby Chambliss personally lobbied the entire Georgia delegation to support the Ag bill he favored. All the House Republicans from Georgia, except Phil Gingrey, broke with Chambliss on that.

Chambliss has been a huge spender for agriculture and defense, two key constituencies he has always had. He has, in short, spoken like a champion of limited government, but voted like a free spending liberal for his own constituencies. Now, in the ultimate sign that Chambliss is ready to throw in the towel on any pretense, he signals he wants to raise taxes . . . . errrr . . . . “revenue.”

Revenue has gone up significantly since Saxby Chambliss first got to Washington. While it dipped between 2007 and 2009, even the drop into 2009 yielded higher revenue than existed in 2004 during George Bush’s re-election. Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, but Saxby Chambliss, being part of that problem, cannot see it. Instead, he sees a growing gap between spending and revenue and thinks it must be closed by increasing revenue.

Saxby Chambliss has been part of the problem and remains part of the problem.

A couple of years ago a mutual friend from Macon went up to see Saxby. There was a tea party rally going on. As our mutual friend sat in the office waiting for Saxby, his staff stood around ridiculing the tea party activists going by as simpletons, uneducated, hicks, and nuts. Chambliss himself has been overheard talking disparagingly of tea party activists in the Capitol Hill Club and elsewhere.

He has become entrenched in Washington, DC and thinks that we here in Georgia are the problem, not him. In 2005, he was convinced that we here in Georgia were the problem on immigration. Since then he’s been convinced that we here in Georgia are the problem by not sending enough money to Washington, D.C.

In fact, we here in Georgia should convince Saxby that we are a problem — his problem in his path to re-election. We can and should make him fight for it and, the Good Lord willing, drive him from office in 2014. Georgia requires that a candidate in a primary secure 50% of the vote to get to the general election. A couple of well funded challengers could pull Saxby below 50% thereby forcing a runoff fight between Saxby and a conservative challenger. Saxby, being from South Georgia, has a weakness in the metro-Atlanta area. That weakness, combined with a libertarian four years ago, forced Saxby into a runoff election.

A conservative from metro-Atlanta could put Saxby Chambliss in peril and we should work to make that happen.

COMMENTS

  • mmish

    Erick Erickson…you are awesome! I love this article. I so agree with you and please keep up your good work!

  • jpkoch

    Erik,

    Chambliss’s political strategy sounds very familiar. Work with the other party to craft an expensive bill as possible, but in public vote against it (withholding a vote that was never needed in the first place) thereby satisfying the constituents back home.

    Politicians in many states in both parties perfected this strategy. It is a conspiracy of Beltway Insiders intent on keeping spending as high as politically possible. This so-called Fiscal Cliff crisis will probably end up a a case study somewhere detailing the perfection of this dark political art. I also find it fascinating that so many stories are now cropping up in the MSM decrying the evils of the Fiscal Cliff. From stories about the demise our F-35 programs to stories about how women and children will be devastated by the sequestration (of course, Boehner gets the blame, and not Reid or Obama) to predictions about economic collapse, the Media shows again that it is nothing more than a propaganda instrument for the Dem dominated Beltway.
    We all know how this will end up. Higher taxes for “millionaires and billionaires” tied to an agreement that will “look into the possibility of proposed decreases in the rate of spending cuts”.

  • bgmacaw

    Here’s the problem I see.

    Chambliss is just another good ole boy ex-Democrat like Nathan Deal and a slew of other politicians we have here in Georgia. They’ll talk a good conservative game come election time but, in office, they wheel and deal to get their buddies plush deals at taxpayer expense.

    The conservatives that get elected to Congress and to the state house/senate seem to be too fringe/nutty to win a statewide general election against a ‘reasonable’ Democrat. For example, if Broun ran, I’m almost certain he would say something off the wall, like Todd Akin did.

    Do we have a conservative waiting in the wings somewhere?

    Chip Rogers seems to be bowing out, unless he’s clearing his calendar to prepare for a run against Chambliss. Plus he has the “Agenda 21″ conspiracy theory thing to deal with and you know the Democrats will pound him with that.

  • Colin Carr

    Very good post, Erick.
    If Saxby would stop talking about new revenue and start talking about spending cuts, he would be in better shape for the primary.
    It’s not a big deal if Saxby takes new revenue IN EXCHANGE for big spending cuts, but he is not taking that tone. That’s the problem.

  • commonsenseobserver

    True, but then the media keeps focusing only on the revenue part, which means even if pols do think and talk about spending cuts, no one knows.

  • Tbone

    The guy is just another lying, crooked politician who got his early training in ethics, like so many politicians, in law school. He has discovered the availability of the public purse to buy votes for his reelection. Having been elected to the House in 1994, he has now been effectively unemployed for 18 years but living the life of an American Patrician. I bet the guy hasn’t bought lunch since he has been there. Like the Obamaphone lady, his cell phone is provided by you. The only difference between is.. well, there really is none.

  • edintexas

    He will happily accept, in exchange for tax increases, the standard Democrat promise of future spending reduction in the rate of growth to just a little more than the rate of inflation – err – spending cuts

  • WY_Cowboy

    If you primary him, please just make sure it’s with a Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, or Mike Lee and not a Todd Akin.
    Setting aside Chambliss, I would not be opposed to Republicans in the Senate or House following a strategy where they state they are open to increasing taxes or “revenue” so long as it is accompanied by entitlement reform. They could even capitulate entirely on taxes if they cement the relationship between taxes and entitlement reform. You can’t have one without the other. Obama and Democrats simply will not even discuss entitlements. So, it all leads to the same place; no deal and over the cliff. Once Obama takes us over the cliff, they will be desperate for tax reform and we will be in a better position to negotiate a good reform package. From my view, if you are a Dem or Obama, you want a permanent deal this year. If you don’t get it, you’re in real trouble. Three little letters: AMT.
    It’s okay if the Republicans play a little politics here. Say they will give on taxes if Obama gives on entitlements. We know Obama won’t, but it will have been him who said no and took us over the cliff.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Doesn’t Chambliss support the FairTax though? Intriguing.

    In the long run, though, we ought to consider rebalancing the tax burden towards consumption, while protecting low- and middle-income earners.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Under the CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario, revenues would return above the historical average to 18.5% of GDP by 2022.

    Tax reform with lower rates and base broadening has the potential to increase revenue faster, including and especially by spurring economic growth. Taxation of capital income is more confusing. We see support for everything from eliminating it altogether, to cutting it, to keeping the current rate, to equalizing it with income tax, all of them reasonable.

  • rolandlind

    What does spending have to do with the irrefutable fact that the government is collecting considerably less revenue than it has historically? I agree the government spends too much, as a rule. But for the last four years, it has collected too little, as an exception.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    Tax revenue is higher than it was in 2005. Yes, it has gone down, but that has more to do with unemployment than low taxes. Increases the tax burden on businesses and you won’t solve the problem.

  • rolandlind

    Tax revenue is up 14% since 2005.
    GDP is up 25% since 2005.

    We don’t have a tax code that fits our economy. We desperately need a tax code that fits our economy. But that isn’t going to happen in the short-term, and nor should it.

    In the short-term, we need economic certainty, and a government that is capable of getting things done. The damage done to the Republican brand once we are successfully painted as obstacles will ensure that it doesn’t matter who wins in the primary, because we will lose in lots of generals.

  • gmat

    “Tax revenue is higher than it was in 2005″

    Nominally.

    In constant dollars it’s down 6%.
    In constant dollars per capita it’s down 11%

  • gmat

    “The problem isn’t taxes; it never was. It’s spending.”

    It’s both. unusually low revenues and unusually high spending, both due to an economic crisis.

    I don’t think raising tax rates is a good idea though, and I would be careful about cutting spending, titrating spending cuts to private sector growth.

    Otherwise we get into another recession, revenues drop further, safety net spending rises, and deficits get bigger instead of smaller.

  • mtmnd

    Well this certainly won’t make make Saxby Chambliss happy.

    But it will surely make Dems happy, because rightly or wrongly they will view a far right conservative success in the GA primary as giving the Dems an outside chance at an otherwise impossible seat. It seems impossible to imagine a Dem winning in Georgia, but then again it seemed almost impossible to imagine that a Republican would manage to lose in Indiana.

  • rolandlind

    Or North Dakota. Or Montana. Romney held those states by huge margins. Voters didn’t split their votes for fun.

  • dpmaine

    Ding ding ding

    Step #1 – MORE REPUBLICANS

    Step #2 – BETTER REPUBLICANS

    We can’t sacrifice #1 for #2, unless we really enjoy having no power. And that’s where it’s heading. If we have another 2012 in 2014, it could be another generation before we get back in the drivers seat.

  • commonsenseobserver

    This still does not change the fact that the 2001 tax cuts softened the dip and the 2003 tax cuts allowed revenues to surge until the crisis hit.

  • Finrod

    Depends on whether Tom Price can be convinced to run or not. All it takes is one good candidate.

  • mtmnd

    Here is a thought . . . Perhaps Mr. Erickson is trying to set up a run for his pal, Representative Tom Price. Mr. Erickson is high on Price, and Price seems to fit the description of a “conservative from metro-Atlanta.”

    A possible extra motivation for a Price run? Boehner’s recent snub of Price’s bid for Conference Chair in favor of more moderate Cathy McMorris-Rodgers. Boehner is reportedly a good friend of Chambliss, so a run at Chambliss would we a shot at both Boehner and Cambliss, as well as another shot at the GOP establishment.

    Reportedly the AJC asked Price about a possible Senate bid in the past day or so, and Price predictably responded, ““No, it’s completely premature at this point to even consider that.” Notice he didn’t say no. Would Mr. Erickson start setting up such a bid without Price’s knowledge and blessing?

  • CharleyK

    The only way we’ll get out of this mess is to do what’s necessary to make the economy grow faster. That will give us a twofer: more revenues and less welfare.

    But you don’t make an economy grow faster by sucking cash from people who actually make stuff and hire people…just as you don’t make an athlete run faster by sucking away a bunch of his blood.

    This is also true at the margin, by the way. Sucking away a little cash or blood hurts performance less, but it still hurts performance.

    So unless you can show how businesses can actually **grow faster** because they have less cash and more regulations, you need to reexamine your definition of imprudence. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

  • rolandlind

    You don’t make the economy grow faster by taxing more from the wealthy, absolutely agreed. But that isn’t the point of taxation. The point of taxation is to fund the government.

    The Republicans could have made a deal a year and a half ago that would have cut spending, cut the deficit, and increased confidence in Congress and the economy. That would have made the economy grow faster, and it would have been prudent.

    Instead, as in so many fights with the President, the Republicans went for all the marbles, and got none.

  • jiminga

    Saxby has been falsely wearing the conservative cloak for far too long and is a perfect example of why we need term limits. He is one of many who run to the right and fail to deliver on his “reputation” after the election. I live in GA and fervently hope we can put up a viable challenger to Saxby in the primaries…perhaps Karen Handel?

  • davesinsanantonio

    Your first paragraph used to be true, but now the purpose of taxation is to punish the successful for being successful. That is why Obummer insists that it’s for “fairness” sake. He doesn’t really care if increasing tax rates actually lowers government revenue–which it does, as long as he can punish the rich by making them pay more. And, when it doesn’t work, because he doesn’t get enough new revenue, and will actually lose old revenue because the rich have “options”, then he will try to punish them even more. With him it isn’t even about being “fair” even though he uses that word a lot. With him it is about revenge. He hates the successful, and he hate America because it has been successful, and he wants revenge because of that–both on the rich and on America. That is his purpose for his insisting on raising taxes on the rich.

  • davesinsanantonio

    Why not work for another 2010 in 2014. Those TEAParty types are still out there somewhere. Time to re-rally them to the cause.

  • stanleybix

    This is the type of problem that we have with the congress! He has been elected and re-elected 10 times!? He and his cohorts have a mandate to continue business as usual!! Until we make a conscious effort/decision to vote out ALL incumbents (On both sides of the aisle) this is the kind of lunacy that will prevail!!

  • davesinsanantonio

    It seems to be a case of words vs. actions. He is a two-faced weasel (my apologies to actual weasels) who says one thing and does different. He says he is for Fair Tax because it sounds good and will play well in the media, but which way does he “deal”. I don’t say which way does he “vote” because as Erick pointed out he often votes different from what he “deals”. Time to primary him, and win. Losing a primary to him, and others like him, is not enough. So, find the person who can take him on and beat him. And then support that person to the hilt so that he does win!

  • commonsenseobserver

    Spending cuts can be achieved through structural reforms that need not harm private sector growth, but can instead reallocate resources efficiently towards more productive sectors of the economy.

    Revenues will rise with economic growth.

  • daniel22

    I have read these types of postings before it is sad to say. I have observed the last two election cycles that the same type of politicians that is written about here keep getting re-elected! You can talk about McCain in AZ or Reid in NV where they have records and yet they win. Most people will blame candidates as being poor or flawed just like with Romney. However I will blame the voters. This cycle they were very well educated on basic differences. They chose.
    Taxes will go up of that you can be sure. The percentage does not even matter at this point. The economy is tanking. The news in the MSM is only giving the rosy side. The truth is that any increase will accelerate our bankruptcy as a nation. At a projected downward growth of 2% our tax increases will be multiplied on their effect on the economy making it much worse than anticipated. Chambliss? He is just a tool that helps things along.

  • whitetop

    I love that line about being unemployed by living the life of an American Patrician. We in Texas had the same problem with Kay Bailey Hutchinson but she now comes back to Texas to continue that unemployment at taxpayer expense under the retirement program. Hopefully Ted Cruz will not become another Chambliss or KBH.

  • gapch12

    Find me another conservative and I will gladly vote for him. I am totally fed up with all elected officials and vote against every incumbent I find on the ballot.

  • kellcats521

    Tom Price is the ‘right’ replacement for the democrat Chambliss. The real question is who will replace Price in the House – does Karen Handel live in Price’s district?

  • mtmnd

    I thought so too, but judging from reports that Mr. Erickson is “prayerfully considering” a run himself, he may have different ideas.

  • gagirl74

    I said of Chambliss the last time he ran that I would vote for a dang democrat before I’d vote for him again. I didn’t vote for him last time. I will not vote for him in the future. He is duplicitous in word and deed. He cannot be trusted. He is all too willing to participate in “gang” activity with the enemy libs. I would love to see Rep. Paul Broun, a TRUE conservative, run against him. Karen Handel, please stay OUT of the race. You have already proven yourself a loser. Only TRUE conservatives need apply. We have had too many years of this RINO Chambliss and this SHALL be his last term.

  • perdido

    That’s insane. And mostly true.

  • commonsenseobserver

    With all respect, Erick would implode if he jumped to the Senate straight away.