Grover Norquist Testifies at Deficit Commission?

[sabrina 1]

Why is Grover Norquist given a voice at a Commission set up by a Democratic President?

Not that including these anti-tax, anti-government rightwingers does anything to prevent them from attacking this president as you can see in the beginning of this article.

ATR President Grover Norquist Testimony at Obama's Deficit Commission

Below is a video of Americans For Tax Reform President Grover Norquist explaining the Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card. He explains that the purpose of ATR’s new clever Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card is to protect individuals making less than $250,000 from tax hikes. To quote Grover Norquist,

“This card a tangible reminder that Obama has deliberately broken his central campaign promise not to raise any form of taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000. The last President to break his tax pledge – Bush 41 – served only one term.”

The video embedded in the article shows Norquist testifying before the Commission. He attacks Federal Spending, NOT too little taxes, as the reason for the deficit.

President Obama was against the formation of Commissions as a candidate, so what changed his mind? This link traces the President's statements on Social Security from the time he was a candidate and how they evolved as he got closer to the WH. In this excerpt he dismisses the idea of commissions, but he presents the idea that Social Security 'needs stabilizing' which it does not, not for quite a while:

President Obama on Social Security

OBAMA: We’re going to have to capture some revenue in order to stabilize the Social Security system. You can’t get something for nothing. And if we care about Social Security, which I do, and if we are firm in our commitment to make sure that it’s going to be there for the next generation, and not just for our generation, then we have an obligation to figure out how to stabilize the system. I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we’re going to do that and not just say that we’re going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

Hillary Clinton disagreed with the President regarding the formation of Commissions. She responded to his above statement in the debate which can found at the link below:

Barack Obama on Social Security

CLINTON: With all due respect, the last time we had a crisis in Social Security was 1983. President Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill came up with a commission. That was the best and smartest way, because you’ve got to get Republicans and Democrats together. That’s what I will do.

OBAMA: That commission raised the retirement age, and also raised the payroll tax. So Sen. Clinton can’t have it both ways.

It's pretty clear that he did not approve of commissions, at least at that time.

As you can see, he habitually ties the deficit problems to entitlement programs as he gets closer to the White House. Then last January, after declaring himself 'agnostic' on Social Security, reverses himself on the formation of Commissions to help solve problems.

I don't understand why, when the people elect Democrats because they don't like Republican ideas, a Democratic administration goes out of its way to include those ideas rejected by the American people.

In most polls an overwhelming majority of Americans across party lines want politicians to keep their hands off Social Security. Bush lost a lot of political capital when he tried to do it. So, why is this administration regurgitating all the old rightwing lies about Social Security, despite having available to them some of the best Economists in the business, like Paul Krugman and James Galbraith among many others.

I don't know about anyone else, but voting for Democrats as far as I am concerned, does not mean I want to hear from people like Alan Simpson, Pete Peterson, Lindsey Graham, Judd Gregg or Grover Norquist on the problems that their party created in the first place.

Didn't we kick them out because we already KNEW what their ideas were? Grover Norquist? Is there any reason why he was invited to testify at this Commission?

I can't think of one ....

[xchrom]

1. Norquist gets an airing - but we couldn't get one

For single payer?

And there is no equivalency.
There is NO fundamental soundness
To the things Norquits preaches -- other
Than an historical bridge to Leo Strauss.

[sabrina 1]

3. Absolutely, Norquist has an agenda and is blinded by that

agenda which everyone knows. Surely Obama knows that.

Right off the bat he is WRONG about the cause of the deficit. It was not caused by federal spending, it was caused, as James Galbraith and others have tried to get across to this president, by the financial collapse.

But yes, it seems you have to be a Republican, to have any influence with this White House.

Freidman/Strauss two people who played a huge role in the collapse of this democracy.

[Bozita]

9. +1

[Hydra]

2. Somehow the RW is still in charge

The reasons for why are debatable. What isn't debatable is that we're getting all sorts of crazy ideas pushed through.

All I can say though is "Duh!", Simply because our gov't is buyable. As long as it is, only big money will have a seat at the table.

[Enthusiast]

4. I don't need to hear from

people like Alan Simpson, Pete Peterson, Lindsey Graham, Judd Gregg or Grover Norquist on any issue.

The reason for the 2006 and 2008 election results was that the electorate was done listening to these people. What doesn't President Obama understand about this?

[sabrina 1]

6. Good question. And people were angry at

FDL for associating with Norquist?

Personally I think all these people and their rotten ideas should be flushed down the drain of the nearest bath-tub and that's what I thought we were doing when we were asked to work hard to get a Democratic Majority.

I'd love for someone to explain the growing number of Republicans being placed in positions of power by this Administration. Did people realize this is what we would get when worked for Democrats?

[Octafish]

8. ...allowed to keep power, too. Take Robert Gates.

Please.

[sabrina 1]

13. Thanks for that link. I think that keeping Gates on was one of the

most outrageous decisions made by this administration. And any democrat who voted for that nomination should have a lot of explaining to do.

Anyone who has not read your link, should do so. I firmly believe there is enough evidence to show that Robert Gates DID betray a U.S. president and interfered in his attempts to free the hostages. That seems like a treasonous offense to me, and to many others.

And yet, the Obama administration seems very comfortable with him as SOD.

He is an untrustworthy liar as has been proven over and over again. Yet, there are actually people on this board who are falling for his lies about Wikileaks.

From your excellent link:

Robert M. Gates was the CIA’s Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) from 1982 to 1986. He became CIA Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (DDCI) in 1986, and moved up to Acting Director of Central Intelligence (ADCI) that same year. In 1991, George H.W. Bush nominated Gates to head the CIA (as Langley’s DCI).

As a protégé of the infamous William Casey, and as both deputy director and director of the CIA, it goes without saying that Robert Gates was involved in every geopolitical crime and cover-up of the Reagan-Bush and George H.W. Bush era.

The encyclopedic list includes Iran-Contra, CIA narcotics trafficking, criminal covert operations, the infamous October Surprise, and the Bank of Credit and Commerce (BCCI) scandal.

So how do the party loyalists explain all these Republicans in a Democratic administration? And can anyone explain why we should work so hard again to elect Democrats only to end up with people like this and Grover Norquist et with as much power as if they never lost?

[Poboy]

5. Its like we are in the US of Crazytown.

Seriously, what the fuck?

[asdjrocky]

7. Not a surprise at all, they are in the same club.

Who speaks for the poor on the commission? Anyone?

[sabrina 1]

11. Well, according to highly respected

economist, James Galbraith, except for one economist, all of the appointed members of this Commission are political leaders with an agenda and he says the Commission is not legitimate for that reason. They are not there for the public interest, but for their own personal agendas.

And can any Commission be taken seriously regarding SS, when they have appointed Erskine Bowles as chair and Alan Simpson as co-Chair?

I am waiting to hear Obama come out and condemn what Alan Simpson has revealed about there this commission is going. We were told to wait a 'few days' but that was weeks ago now.

As Galbraith says, any Commission that is holding most of its meetings in secret has to arouse suspicions.

Who speaks for the poor? So far, Alan Simpson I guess. And he calls them 'lesser people'.

[FiveGoodMen]

10. I suppose this time he wants to drown US in a bathtub

[glitch]

12. Paul Craig Roberts explains why the catfood comm would want to hear from Grover, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x491621

Ok he doesn't specifically mention Grover.

[sabrina 1]

14. Paul Craig Roberts should definitely be listened to on this

topic. There is no way to view this Commission as anything but an attempt to privatize Social Security. No way.

I'm waiting for a statement from the WH condemning some of the recommendations, and assuring the public that there will be no Lame Duck vote on any recommendations coming from this commission.

If I do not hear that soon, I will not be supporting Democrats in November. That would destroy the whole foundation of the Democratic Party and NO Democratic President would ever set up Social Security for privatization. He should be out there NOW, screaming over what we have already heard from this Commission. Why is he not?

[JanMichael]

15. "NO Democratic President would ever set up Social Security for privatization"

That's what I used to think was true but that is apparently no longer the case.

I imagine some wishful thinkers would disagree but the reality is that we are screwed.

[joe black]

18. But,but.

Hes only been in office 18 months.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Well that's special. How surprising that Bathtub Boy gets a seat but liberals don't.

Catfood Commission

Perfectly well named.

[sabrina 1]

17. Yes, it is well-named considering that the only thing

they are focused on is cutting programs that have nothing to do with the deficit.

As James Galbraith said when he addressed the Commission about their claims that entitlement programs are responsible for the deficit:

A Financial Crisis, Not A Deficit Crisis

For this reason, a commission report focused on “entitlement reform” rather than “financial reform” would be entirely beside the point. Entitlement cuts, no matter how severe, cannot and will not achieve deficit reduction. They cannot “meaningfully improve the long-term fiscal outlook,” as required by your charter. All they will accomplish is to impoverish vulnerable Americans, impairing the functioning of the private economy and the taxing capacity of the government.

But then, what would he know. He's just a real economist, not a Political hack whose goal it is, is to privatize Social Security.

Why wasn't he on the Commission if solving the Financial Crisis really is the goal?

[IndianaGreen]

19. Why did Obama appoint as chairs two of the most rabid opponents of Social Security?

The truth is self-evident, isn't it?

[sabrina 1]

20. He has never explained that. Because what could he say?

Democrats were opposed to this commission. And so were dozens of Progressive groups who joined together and signed a letter which they sent to the WH asking that they not go ahead with this Commission.

They called it a stealth way of getting an up or down vote on the recommendations which have all along included going after Medicare and SS.

Funny thing, we are told Obama could not get Congress to go along with a PO, but when he wanted this Commission he was apparently very much a leader and did get what he wanted.

So yes, I think the truth has to be faced sad as it is. He knows the truth, he is too smart not to and he has been told it often enough. But he is going along with te 'privatize SS' crowd, and repeating their lies that SS has something to do with the deficit and feeding the lie that it is in trouble.

[Poboy]

21. "Self evident"- yes indeed. -nt

[olegramps]

22. Every day I feel more and more like one of the Pied Pipers victims.

I, like millions of other Americans, celebrated Obama's victory and looked forward to his promised changes in the way Washington did business especially in regard to the working class citizen. He is certainly a better choice than the phony war hero McCain and his stupid bitch running mate Palin. But he sure isn't a FDR or Truman. Obama appears to be actually afraid to challenge the system and take a controversial stand on any major issue.

Although he has made a number of important executive mandated changes in regard to major issues he was provided with an opportunity and he has so far squandered it. It seems that Hilary summed it up nicely when she said, "He gives pretty speeches."

If his support continues to plummet, I wouldn't be in the least surprised to see the Republicans back in the White House with control of both Houses in 2012. Back in power and having totally discredited the hapless Obama administration they will be empowered to deal the final death blow to the New Deal policies that created the Middle Class.

[sabrina 1]

24. If he does not stand up against those who are attempting to

tie SS to the deficit, he will ruin his presidency. Even Bush failed to get away with that among Republicans.

I agree that it is sad that he had an opportunity of several lifetimes to keep Democrats in power for a long time. By going down this road of including Republicans in every major decision he has squandered it. And for what? That's what I don't understand. He is not winning any Republican votes.

But if we do get a Republican majority, I hope no one dares to blame the voters.

[DailyGrind51]

23. He should be a "defendant" not a "witness"!