More Republicans ditch tax pledge.

[frigidmagi]

Washington Post

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday he was willing to violate Grover Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” to strike a deal with Democrats over the so-called “fiscal cliff,” while a second Republican, Rep. Peter King (N.Y.), echoed the assessment of Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who said last week that Norquist’s pledge may be outdated.

“I agree with Grover, we shouldn’t raise rates, but I think Grover is wrong when it comes to we can’t cap deductions and buy down debt,” Graham said on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” “What do you do with the money? I want to buy down debt and cut rates to create jobs, but I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform.”

While Graham said he was open to capping deductions to raise revenues, he made clear that he remained opposed to raising tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, something President Obama and congressional Democrats have been pushing for as part of a deal.

“I will not raise tax rates to do it. I will cap deductions,” Graham said. ‘If you cap deductions around the $30,000, $40,000 range, you can raise $1 trillion in revenue, and the people who lose their deductions are the upper-income Americans.”

Norquist, who founded the influential group Americans For Tax Reform, strictly opposes tax increases, even during the fiscal cliff negotiations. Graham had previously signed on to the pledge not to raise taxes put forth by Norquist.

Last week, Chambliss drew attention when said he was willing to buck Norquist’s pledge. ”I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge,” Chambliss told WMAZ TV of Macon, Georgia. “If we do it his way then we’ll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that.”

King, who has also signed the pledge, echoed Chambliss’s assessment as he argued that changing times and a different economic climate justify a new approach. The New York congressman said that while he opposes tax increases, he does not advocate taking “ironclad positions” during the negotiations between Democrats and Republicans on the nation’s fiscal issues.

“I agree entirely with Saxby Chambliss. A pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that Congress,” King said on NBC’s “Meet The Press.” He continued: “For instance, if I were in Congress in 1941, I would have signed a declaration of war against Japan. I’m not going to attack Japan today.The world has changed and the economic situation is different.”

Democrats, meanwhile, continued to press Sunday for increasing tax rates on the wealthiest Americans.

“I think the top rate needs to go up, and that’s where I may disagree with my friend, Lindsey Graham,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) said on “This Week.” Echoed Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) on “Meet The Press”: “You’ve got to raise additional revenues including tax rates on the wealthy.”

Durbin said that entitlement reform — with certain conditions — should also be part of the conversation.

“From my side of the table, bring entitlement reform into the conversation. Social Security, set aside. Doesn’t add to the deficit. But when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, protect the integrity of the program, but give it solvency for more and more years,” he said.

Well, I'll be. Turns out if we get pissy enough they do get the message and start moving. Only took 4 bloody years!

[Josh]

This is mildly seismic, especially emerging from Southern pols. It's a direct opposite tack from the Limbaugh wing.

[SirNitram]

I don't trust either of them. At all. Cap deductions? Including the ones the middle class thrives on?

[Rogue 9]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think many people can have a $40,000 income tax bill (the amount Senator Graham said he'd like to cap deductions at) to deduct that much from and still be called middle class.

Not that I agree that the top marginal rate shouldn't be raised. I'm opposed to a purely deduction cap approach because the math doesn't work, not on some sort of anti-low rate principle. But I'm not sure a cap that high would really hurt the middle class.

[SirNitram]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think many people can have a $40,000 income tax bill (the amount Senator Graham said he'd like to cap deductions at) to deduct that much from and still be called middle class.

Not that I agree that the top marginal rate shouldn't be raised. I'm opposed to a purely deduction cap approach because the math doesn't work, not on some sort of anti-low rate principle. But I'm not sure a cap that high would really hurt the middle class.

If it is a 40k cap, it probably won't cause trouble. But you must understand: I don't trust these folks. They've not exactly given reason to be trusted.

[General Havoc]

If it is a 40k cap, it probably won't cause trouble. But you must understand: I don't trust these folks. They've not exactly given reason to be trusted.

So what would you suggest then? You can't condemn the Republicans for being in favor of the tax pledge and then turn around and condemn them for not being in favor of it.

[SirNitram]

If it is a 40k cap, it probably won't cause trouble. But you must understand: I don't trust these folks. They've not exactly given reason to be trusted.

So what would you suggest then? You can't condemn the Republicans for being in favor of the tax pledge and then turn around and condemn them for not being in favor of it.

Because he's being two-faced. Link

"I'm willing to generate revenue," Graham said on ABC. "It's fair to ask my party to put revenue on the table. We're below historic averages."

The South Carolina Republican said he agreed with Norquist that tax rates shouldn't be raised, but that Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, was mistaken in his unyielding opposition to increasing tax revenue.

He's not going to raise tax rates. That's all the pledge is about. This reeks of face-saving. But I'm suspicious. They can change my mind when they actually act, not talk. Anyone can talk.

[General Havoc]

I suppose that's fair enough. I just hope that it does signal some real movement on the subject.

It could very easily not.