Tag: Deficit Ceiling
View of Deficit Default Crisis from Britain: ‘GOP Seems Even Loonier, Crazier and More Reckless Than They Do Stateside’
British ex-pat Andrew Sullivan, a lapsed supporter of the Republican Party who lives in Washington, has been back home in England for the past couple of weeks. He says the tea-party driven deficit default crisis looks even more bizarre from across the pond:
From this side of the Atlantic, the great game of chicken now being played by the American political class with the debt ceiling is regarded as a sign that America — or rather, America’s Republicans — has gone completely insane. Everyone in Europe is desperately trying to stave off default — and here is the most powerful economy on earth actually hoping for it! When I explain the details of Obama’s last Grand Bargain – a debt reduction built on a ration of 3:1 spending cuts and tax increases – most Brits see it as a Cameron-conservative-style austerity measure. They simply cannot understand why the GOP doesn’t take what would for any sane conservative in any civilized country be a no-brainer. I’m reduced to trying to explain what passes for “conservatism” in America is nothing of the kind – just know-nothing, fundamentalist, Manichean pseudo-conservatism. From this distance, the GOP seems even loonier, crazier and more reckless than they do stateside.
GOP Tax Boss Grover Norquist: Allowing Bush Tax Cuts to Expire ‘Not Technically a Tax Increase’
Washington Post, via Jonathan Chait:
[According] to [Grover] Norquist’s interpretation of the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, lawmakers have the technical leeway to bring in as much as $4 trillion in new tax revenue — the cost of extending President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for another decade — without being accused of breaking their promise. “Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase,” Mr. Norquist told us. So it doesn’t violate the pledge? “We wouldn’t hold it that way,” he said.
Chait responds: “It’s pretty strange, isn’t it? Apparently Norquist interprets his pledge in some ultra-literal way that precludes it, in the case, from fulfilling its primary purpose. On the other hand, a plan to pass a one-dollar tax hike while cutting federal spending in half would violate the pledge.”