Grover Nodquist and Bush tax cuts

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/02/grover-norquist-this-is-obamas-pound-of-flesh-because-he-won-the-presidential-election/

While Blitzer suggested that Republicans supporting the deal would essentially be backing a tax increase, Norquist disagreed and clarified:

"They're not voting for a tax increase, they're voting to save tax cuts for as many people as they can over Obama's objections."

Okay, so let's clarify. The bill increases taxes for some but preserves old taxes for the rest. Grover says that Republicans vote only for one part, which is to preserve old taxes, but not vote to tax increase. But hey, it is the same bill! Republicans did not vote for parts of the bill, but for the WHOLE bill!

By that definition Republicans will never vote for ANY tax increase. Say, there is a bill that both increases taxes and changes the date of the Daylight Saving Time. Then Grover can always say that Republications only voted for the Daylight Savings Time, but not tax increase. This is classic BS. 

By the way, I think his argument would be true if the bill that is voted would ONLY lower taxes on the middle class which previously increased (when Fiscal Cliff really happened). But that is not what happened. The bill was clearly related to expiring Bush taxes and made some permanent and some . 

Besides, why majority of Republicans in the House voted against it by claiming it is tax increase? Are they confused?

 Finally, here is Grover Nordquist himself clarifying that actually what happened was a vote for tax increase. So he reversed his position for the convenience of the situation. 

=============================

 http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/grover-norquist-pledge-gop-bush-tax-cuts-compromise.php

Sahil Kapur June 12, 2012, 5:58 AM 4087

Ahead of the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts, an influential activist known for enforcing GOP anti-tax absolutism is reinterpreting his famous pledge, making it harder for Republicans to compromise in a way that ultimately raises federal revenues.
All but a handful of congressional Republicans have signed — and strictly adhered to — Grover Norquist’s pledge to “oppose any and all efforts” to raise taxes or revenues. But the White House’s insistence that President Obama will veto attempts to extend all of the Bush tax cuts creates a new incentive for Republicans to cut a deal with Democrats after the election. For that reason, Norquist is insisting on an interpretation of his pledge in which failing to prevent a tax increase — or even voting to partially cut a lapsed rate — would constitute a violation.
“I think the American people would look at anything that raised taxes from where they are today to be a tax increase,” Norquist told TPM Monday. “Everybody knows this has been coming.”

===============

Other:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/grover-norquist-bush-tax-cuts-tax-hike_n_905624.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/02/1175852/-Grover-insists-Democrats-are-the-party-of-low-taxes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/01/grover-norquist-vote-for-deal-is-vote-to-cut-taxes/
- so are the heroes, those who voted for or against the bill?

Does cutting taxes increase growth? No clear evidence ....

Congressional Research Service: Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945 (pdf)

Figure 1. Average Tax Rates for the Highest-Income Taxpayers, 1945-2009

Figure 2. Top Marginal Tax Rate and Top Capital Gains Tax Rate, 1945-2010

Figure 4. Labor Productivity Growth Rates and the Top Tax Rates, 1945-2010

Figure 5. Real Per Capita GDP Growth Rate and the Top Tax Rates, 1945-2010.

=============

From www.maddowblog.com:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/02/14889448-the-report-mitch-mcconnell-doesnt-want-you-to-see?lite

From Rachel Maddow - don't like results of report, kill it!

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

CBO: http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/09/15053167-cbo-higher-taxes-on-rich-wont-harm-economy?lite

CBO: higher taxes on rich won't harm economy

By Steve Benen

 - 

Fri Nov 9, 2012 1:28 PM EST

26

Just yesterday, as talks over taxes and spending grew a little louder in Washington, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) cited an "independent" report that found tax increases on the wealthy would "cost our economy more than 700,000 jobs."
The argument, not surprisingly, was debunked months ago. But the rhetoric raises a worthwhile question: what would happen if a bipartisan agreement fails to materialize, and tax increases automatically kick in on Jan. 1?
Yesterday, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported the looming tax hikes and spending cuts would undermine the economy in 2013, but the "least harmful component of the coming fiscal consolidation is precisely what Democrats are demanding: the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for high earners."

CBO doesn't examine the top bracket Bush tax cuts directly. But it does look at two competing scenarios: One where all of the expiring tax cuts except for the payroll tax cut are extended; another where all of the expiring tax cuts except for the payroll tax cut and the Bush tax cuts for top earners are extended.
The former, CBO says, would increase employment by 1.8 million full time equivalent employees in 2013 relative to allowing everything to lapse. The latter would increase employment by 1.6 million. The difference, 200,000 full time equivalent jobs, is attributable to the expiration of the top bracket Bush tax cuts alone.
By comparison, other layers of the fiscal cliff save less money and have far greater economic consequences. Failing to extend the expiring payroll tax cut and expiring emergency unemployment benefits through 2014 would cost the economy about 800,000 jobs, according to CBO. The two halves of the sequester -- the defense cuts and the domestic cuts -- would each cost the economy about 400,000 full time equivalent jobs.

So, according to the CBO, the Democratic priorities do more to help the economy, and the Republican priorities do less. The 700,000 figure cited by the House Speaker has no basis in reality at all.
Maybe Republicans will try to suppress this, too?