It looks like some Republicans including some in their leadership are backing away from the anti-tax pledge. See link. It will cost at least some of these members their careers.
Democrats had used the Norquist pledge to move to the center on fiscal policy and to argue the GOP into a position perceived as extreme. Essentially, they agreed that spending needed to be dealt with in a meaningful way but that they weren't willing to deal with it without a tax increase (or an even more lax position of - "more revenue"). This is the so-called "balanced approach." Essentially they moved Right (and gained favor with the public) by giving the appearance of reasonableness without having to face any consequences of doing so or put anything on the table, because they assumed the GOP would always rigidly stick by their Norquist pledge. I think it made the difference in the election. Had Obama run on only tax increases and not addressing spending, I think he would have lost decisively.
In light of the election, the GOP is putting tax increases on the table. The GOP base and its donors can and will bellyache about that, but frankly, they're doing the right thing. The public clearly wants a tax increase, and they're going to get it for better or worse.
However, the Democrats' position was always a ruse, because even using their own numbers, the tax increase they called for (eliminating the Bush tax cuts on those making over $200K and families making over $250K) was never enough to make a serious dent in the deficit, and they knew it. So now that their bluff is being called, will they actually address spending? Specifically will they address the 80 percent of spending that isn't on national defense?
If they do, then they're going to piss off their base. However, if they don't, then they're much more likely to get blamed for there not being a deal, and they're going to open the door for the GOP to turn the tables and argue them into the inflexible position they had up until now. It'll be a wild scene to watch.
Democrats had used the Norquist pledge to move to the center on fiscal policy and to argue the GOP into a position perceived as extreme. Essentially, they agreed that spending needed to be dealt with in a meaningful way but that they weren't willing to deal with it without a tax increase (or an even more lax position of - "more revenue"). This is the so-called "balanced approach." Essentially they moved Right (and gained favor with the public) by giving the appearance of reasonableness without having to face any consequences of doing so or put anything on the table, because they assumed the GOP would always rigidly stick by their Norquist pledge. I think it made the difference in the election. Had Obama run on only tax increases and not addressing spending, I think he would have lost decisively.
In light of the election, the GOP is putting tax increases on the table. The GOP base and its donors can and will bellyache about that, but frankly, they're doing the right thing. The public clearly wants a tax increase, and they're going to get it for better or worse.
However, the Democrats' position was always a ruse, because even using their own numbers, the tax increase they called for (eliminating the Bush tax cuts on those making over $200K and families making over $250K) was never enough to make a serious dent in the deficit, and they knew it. So now that their bluff is being called, will they actually address spending? Specifically will they address the 80 percent of spending that isn't on national defense?
If they do, then they're going to piss off their base. However, if they don't, then they're much more likely to get blamed for there not being a deal, and they're going to open the door for the GOP to turn the tables and argue them into the inflexible position they had up until now. It'll be a wild scene to watch.
