Grover Norquist Would Be Proud: All 8 GOP Candidates Turn Down A 10-1 Budget Deal Because Of Taxes
I already noted this in my round-up of the debate but this moment is worth reviewing again:
Matthew Yglesias comments:
One can say that this was merely politicians playing to their base and some of them know better. And perhaps it was, but it’s extremely difficult to turn around and break a promise like that. So you have the entire Republican Party committed to the view not only that tax increases are undesirable, but that it’s unthinkable to include even small increases in a bipartisan bargain for large spending cuts. In a normal country, that would be an extreme and strange position to take, but I’m not sure it would be a damaging one. The question, after all, would simply be whether such an extreme party can or can’t win a governing majority. If it couldn’t, its weird views would be irrelevant. If it could, then it would deserve congratulations and good luck in its effort to implement an all-cut agenda. But by a series of odd quirks of fate, the Republican Party exercises substantial influence over budget outcomes even if it mostly loses elections. So as long as they stick to this view, it will be neither possible to raise taxes nor to substantially reform major spending programs.
Standard and Poor’s work may be shoddy, but it hardly strikes me as an insane conclusion that this is not the soundest political culture in the world.
I can’t say I disagree, and it’s ironic that, based on his record as Governor and President, Ronald Reagan would have answered differently from all the other candidates.