Start A Petition

Grover Norquist, Enemy of the State?

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: abuse, americans, congress, constitution, corruption, dishonesty, ethics, Govtfearmongering, healthcare, housing, media, politics, propaganda, republicans, taxes )

- 2030 days ago -
Norquist has connived over the years to get hundreds of members of Congress to violate their own oath of office by pledging to keep billionaires' taxes low.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Kit B (276)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 10:22 am
(Photo Credti: Alternet)

Is it possible that Grover Norquist, the multi-millionaire K-Street lobbyist long funded by billionaires, is an enemy of the state?

Pretty strong language, but consider that he has connived over the years to get hundreds of members of Congress to violate their own oath of office by pledging a higher oath to keep billionaires' taxes low than their pledge to the Constitution itself.

The requirement for Members of Congress to swear an oath to our country is in the Constitution itself, in Article Six: “The Senators and Representatives … shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

So, starting with the first Congress, in 1789, members were sworn in by saying, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

But during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln supported, and Congress passed on July 2nd, 1862, legislation requiring an oath that added that members of Congress had not previously engaged in any “criminal or disloyal conduct,” which would have included pledging loyalty to the Confederacy. It was called the “Ironclad Test Oath,” and was designed to keep Confederate sympathizers out of Congress. If a member swore it, and it was discovered he’d previously violated it by swearing an oath to the Confederacy, he would be prosecuted for perjury.

After the Civil War, that oath was replaced with one that didn’t specifically exclude former members of the Confederacy, but still required members to pledge an oath, first and foremost, to the Constitution. Now called the “Modern Oath,” it was enacted in 1884 and is used to this day. Its first sentence says: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;…”

And the Constitution, to which they take the Modern Oath, explicitly says that Congress has the explicit power to impose taxes, both to pay for our defense and to provide for the General Welfare of the nation. The very first sentence of Article One, Section Eight, says: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;…”

So, how is it possible that, when the Constitution explicitly says that one of the specific jobs of Congress is to “lay and collect taxes,” and the oath they take explicitly says that they take will do so “without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,” that a member of Congress could possibly swear an oath to a multimillionaire K-Street lobbyist to refuse to perform one of their Constitutional duties?

And what sort of member of Congress would willingly swear an oath to a front man for a small group of billionaires, that that member of Congress would violate the oath he or she swore to follow the Constitution without “mental reservations” or “purpose of evasion”? Is not a man who essentially uses threats – blackmail – that billionaire money will be used to politically destroy members of Congress who refuse to sign his pledge an enemy of the state itself – or at least an enemy of the very Constitution that lawmakers have sworn to upholdwithout mental reservation or evasion?

Grover Norquist has led hundreds of Republican lawmakers to the brink of treason, swearing to him that they will carry into office mental reservations about the taxation power the Constitution gives them. It’s high time to de-throne Grover, and let Congress go back to doing its Constitutionally-mandated job of taking care of the nation’s defense and general welfare, instead of just looking out for the nation’s defense contractors and cranky billionaires.

By Thom Hartmann | Alternet |

lee e (114)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 1:22 pm
I think most of our problems are still associated with the conferacy - Norquist is another anomoly altogether! Perhaps there will be enough RINO'S to create a mutiny! I hope so!!

Angelika R (143)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 4:10 pm
oh, that "a pledge is a pledge is a pledge dude...gee, he is an undertaker ...and has the nerve to go against Buffet saying he is mistaken! Get rid of him, soon!

JL A (281)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 4:21 pm
He certainly was to the State of CA, where he got pledges from the minority GOP before taking his show to Congress...and that pledge dynamic led to CA's credit downgrade when budget was long past due and the GOP were all afraid to do their sworn duty for CA because they'd signed it. Jan. will be better since no GOP votes will be required for passing a budget next year and thus the impact of the pledge is removed.

Diane O (194)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 4:37 pm
Have you seen a balanced budget from Obama in four years? No? Why not?

Diane O (194)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 4:38 pm
Obama couldn't get his own democrats to pass his budget because it was ridiculous. Obama hasn't done his job. No budget from Obama. But you folks are okay with that.

Theodore Shayne (56)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 4:41 pm
You want to keep rich boys taxes low? Fine I don't have a problem with that so long as you reduce the tax on the poor and middle class. Reinstituting Glass-Steagal; closing the Delaware/Kale loopholes and streamlining capital gains so that all income is taxed at one rate for the rich boys income; say at 35% - fine, go ahead - make my day bonehead...

Thomas P (280)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 4:57 pm
Noted. Diane O....."No budget from Obama." Wow, 3 times for effect. Here's one for you: Four more years, four more years, four more years...

Kit B (276)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 5:10 pm

I just wonder if that abuse of the filibuster might have something to do with no budget. In fact, I know it does. So does anyone that has bothered to follow the "do nothing" Senate or "do nothing" House. Obstructions should not complain when they cause the problems.

Jason S (50)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 5:11 pm
The dictatorship of the U.S and on his was out of door.

Diane O (194)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 5:20 pm
Thomas, four more years is what we have. I have accepted that. However, it does not negate the issue that Obama hasn't produced a budget for the American taxpayers. Long overdue, wouldn't you say?

Kit, no, I don't agree with what you are saying. The pendulum swings both ways. Remember what President Bill Clinton did during his second term. This is key to progress.

Joanne Dixon (38)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 5:21 pm
Isn't it strange that so many of Grover Norquist's supporters seem to be the same people who believe with horror that the President is a Muslim (he isn't), so I don't understand their slavish adherence to someone whose wife is a practicing Muslim, who will not give a straight denial when asked if he is therefore converting to Islam (, and who has done much to "advance the causes of radical Islamists." ( Not that I myself care two hoots what someone's religion is, but apparently they do.


Kit B (276)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 5:41 pm

True Joanne, it is strange but are you asking for sound thinking from "birthers"?

I wonder would that be the same president that days ago you called "Slick Willy" just days ago?
Not buying it, Diane.

Kit B (276)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 5:42 pm

Was it 2 or 3 days? Ummm, I might have to go and dig that out.

Diane O (194)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 5:48 pm
Don't dig. Absolutely I called him "Slick Willy" because of his sexual appetite in the White House AND as governor. Please, you haven't forgotten that he was impeached for lying under oath? Bill Clinton is weak when it comes to women. Obviously, Hillary isn't enough for him. This is exactly why I refer to him as "slick willy." Beyond that, if it's possible and I believe it is, Clinton, when faced with a republican congress, Clinton knew exactly what he needed to do. I don't believe Obama is capable of compromise. He has a childish ego IMO and it will rear its ugly head. That's my prediction.

I'll always stand by what I have stated.

Diane O (194)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 5:50 pm
Kit, you play games. How's that working for you?

Kit B (276)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 5:54 pm

Better than Romney worked for you.

Angelika R (143)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 5:57 pm
:-)) it was on Sunday, diane now suggesting that the president should rob SS out of the trust fund? ("This is key to progress. ")-?? :-))

Angelika R (143)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 5:59 pm
That was what she accused Clinton of having done, remember?

JL A (281)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:01 pm
You are so right Kit--the responsibilities for a budget are by no means exclusively the PresPOTUS's responsibility... puts it in easy laymen's terms:
Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress should prepare a budget?
Each year, Congress, in conjunction with the President, creates a Federal budget for the purpose of spending money on projects for the benefits of the citizens of the US. Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress should prepare a budget?

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
It is not part of the constitution. In fact the "President's Budget" which is released every year in February dates back to 1921.
The Federal budget cycle can be divided into three distinct phases that are generally sequential and yet intertwined. The first phase, which culminates in the transmittal of the President's budget proposals to Congress, is called the budget formulation phase. In the next phase, Congress acts upon laws that together constitute the enacted budget. Once the laws have been enacted, executive agencies carry out the laws in the budget execution phase. The Federal budget cycle is governed mainly by the following six laws,

1 Budget and Accounting Act.
2 Congressional Budget Act.
3 Antideficiency Act.
4 Impoundment Control Act.
5 Government Performance and Results Act.
6 Federal Credit Reform Act.

Why is the Budget and Accounting Act important?

Before this law, which was enacted in 1921, there was no annual centralized budgeting in the executive branch. Federal Government agencies usually sent budget requests independently to Congressional committees with no coordination of the various requests in formulating the Federal Government's budget. The Budget and Accounting Act required the President to coordinate the budget requests for all Government agencies and to send a comprehensive budget to Congress. It created the Bureau of the Budget, now the Office of Management and Budget, to help the President implement these requirements. It also required the President to include certain information in the budget. Congress has amended the requirements many times and has codified them as Chapter 11, Title 31, U.S. Code. These are some of the requirements:
* "On or after the first Monday in January but not later than the first Monday in February of each year, the President shall submit a budget of the United States Government for the following fiscal year."
* "Each budget shall include a budget message and summary and supporting information. The President shall include in each budget the following...." The provision goes on to list about thirty items, such as expenditures and receipts for the past year through the fourth year following the budget year, information on debt, financial information, and information on employment levels.
* "Under regulations prescribed by the President, each agency shall provide information required by the President in carrying out this chapter. The President has access to, and may inspect, records of an agency to obtain information."
* "Estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the legislative branch and the judicial branch...shall be submitted to the President before October 16 of each year and included in the budget by the President without change."

Thomas P (280)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:01 pm
Diane, le'ts be reasonable. It is President Obama who has shown he is willing to compromise, not the Repubs in the House. He didn't want to extend the Bush tax cuts last year, but he did to keep the Teabaggers from sending the country into default. It is the President who has said he will offer spending cuts, but that rates being raised has to be a part of the discussion, yet Repubs dig their heals in as always. RE: President Clinton, the Repubs shut down the Gov't and were excoriated by the public. Then they came back to the table...and compromised.

Diane O (194)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:04 pm
Nice try, Angelika, but we all know that Clinton in order to show a surplus took the money out of SS and replaced it with IOU's. He isn't perfect because he is a politician. We all agree that politicians are a piece of work.

Romney is a good man. He will always be a good patriot IMO. He has an accomplishment under his belt that Obama will never achieve and that is he is an astute businessman. He was also a governor. Obama was never a governor and never a mayor. He showed up as a community organizer. He is good at rallying his base supporters. However, his base will soon realize that Obama is a failed leader. Obama is a man with deep seeded unresolved issues in my opinion.

Post your catty remarks. That's the best you have. However, the truth cannot be altered even by the democrats on Care 2.

Diane O (194)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:06 pm
Thomas, do more research. And get into the "realist" zone and know the facts. My prediction is that we'll see Obama's childish ego get in the way of compromise. He isn't in the White House for us. He is in the White House for him. Therein lies the difference. This is one of those "wait and see" moments. We'll have to watch to see how it unfolds.

JL A (281)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:11 pm
Fact Check: Although there was a Clinton Impeachment trial, Clinton was NOT impeached.
"With the necessary two-thirds majority not having been achieved, the President was thus acquitted on both charges and would serve out the remainder of his term of office lasting through January 20, 2001."

Thomas P (280)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:11 pm
Diane, even the likes of hypocrites like Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich at the time somehow found it in them to eventually do the right thing for the country (albeit after shutting down the gov't) and compromise with Pres Clinton, who despite the show trial in the house that impeached him, will be remembered by historians as one of the most successful presidents in history. And I refer to the above two Repubs as hypocrites because at the same time they were standing in judgment of the Pres Clinton, each was having his own affair.

Diane O (194)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:18 pm
Thomas, you missed the point. You are comparing apples to oranges.

JLA, President Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Remember Jennifer Flowers? There were two other women he had as paramours while governor. John F. Kennedy did the same thing as well as Lyndon B. Johnson. I could go on but I won't but what needs to be said here is that both parties have had their candidates cheat on their wives. In France, it is understood and accepted that men in high places have "paramours." It won't end. We'll see more of it in the future because it's the nature of the beast. Look at Patraeus. It happens. However, for President Clinton, he lied under oath.

JL A (281)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:18 pm
The budget is a joint effort between POTUS and Congress as literate readers of the material I posted can tell. Congress drafts the language for the bills. If there are fillibusters in the Senate by any member, including the numerous ones by the GOP widely reported, a bill cannot move--this President's Congresses have to get past the GOP's fillibusters to pass a budget for the President. Fillibuster reform should be coming in Jan. to stop this problem for the future.

Diane O (194)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:20 pm
Thomas, the difference was only one of them was President of the United States....Bill Clinton.

Diane O (194)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:21 pm
Lame, JLA. The American people expect a budget from the president.

Kit B (276)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:23 pm

Because (once again) the Senate has cheated those who elected them by playing this game of "filibuster" without ever actually getting up off their lazy republican butts and doing a real filibuster, Diane. Everyone - even your Fox news has shown that time and time again. Ole Mitch (turtle head) McConnell was so sure of making Obama a one term president he blocked every thing from the Senate floor. Do some research and stop embarrassing yourself.

Thomas P (280)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:24 pm
Diane, with all due respect, you talk to me about doing research, and then you cite "Obama's childish ego." Is that a "fact," or is it your opinion. I HAVE done my research. You've made statements like "trickle down works" without any evidence of that (sorry, but history doesn't support your assertion, nor does macro economic theory). This is not FOX news, and I can't be brainwashed by their minions and shills. You may choose to drink their KoolAid, but I don't. I DO know the facts, and I'm IN the realist zone. Perhaps you should leave the FOX news zone.

Jae A (316)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:28 pm
Well Diane O, all of your predictions for months now that I have seen are coming up zero . Can't imagine why you keep showing again and again how wrong your thoughts are in general...thus I predict that your predictions will once again be a big fat zero as to your score.

...and yes Obama is still ..Black of Skin, Diane O. .. . . and I predict it will remain so beyond that of Four More Years... , thus I suggest you get use to that fact along with the one that Romney Lost the election ...ya know , the one you were so adamantely about, for moments and momths, that Romney would win.

DIane O, , perhaps you should keep what you are trying to sell for just the Teabagger Klan/rightwing extremist or just those who are that are in your private group, where I've been told by one of it's members, is where you first try out such lousy,in this case,budget 'talking point' material...or what you might think of as 'selling points'.. Problem there is , Diane O.... there doesn't appear to be any thinkers buying it once you go public with them..I don't have to ask how that's all working out for you as that's pretty obvious ...not at all...just as with your 'predictions' :-) .

Kit B (276)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:33 pm

Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"

You cannot currently send a star to Jae, Thomas P, J L A, Angelika, Joanne, Theodore, Lee and Elle B. because you have done so within the last week.

Thomas P (280)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:34 pm
Diane...serious question for you. Do you think President Obama is a good man? This is not a gotcha question, and I'll make no critique of your answer. You say Romney is a good man. I have never said he wasn't. I think he's a good family man, I think he actually was somewhat of a moderate Republican at one time, so I don't think he is an evil person. A good man? Yea, ok, I agree with you. I'm just curious what you think about President Obama as a person (not a politician). I'm asking you a serious question as a gentleman (I've never been nasty to you).

JL A (281)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:44 pm
The problem above is very much like what CA's former Governor experienced when he held his big 5 (the leaders of both parties of both houses of the legislature) budget meetings that continued months after the date the Legislature was required to have a budget because the GOP refused to budge on revenues because Grover had tied them up with his pledges (to try to return discussion to the article that Kit posted).

Kit B (276)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:46 pm

Thanks J L, and Thomas that is very fair question. I have yet to hear one decent word about the president from Diane. Many of us have said, that Romney may be a good father and husband, and for what he considered good, than even decent at his line of work. I have yet to see one word in print by Diane that Obama was say, a good father, or a good man. Because beyond the public debate of who we chose as the man to be president, most of also chose a man we respected as a human being.

Angelika R (143)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 7:03 pm
Kit, Have we not learned that only business is what counts for Diane? I don't think she would be able to even look at Obama other than as a career failure.. all her expressions in the past do not really leave room for any fair or positive judgement, I think.

JL A (281)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 7:07 pm
Kit, I think you hit on the bottom line. Wish I could remember where I read it, and whether it was a study or meta-analysis research or ? The finding was the single factor that matter most in who people voted for in any election for any office was authenticity and, secondarily, trust. The latter was whether all the pieces they saw, learned, etc. about a candidate fit together as a cohesive and believable person and thus warranted trust. Sure wish I could send you a green star!

Angelika R (143)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 7:12 pm
Unfortunately, the hate that was there before was not erased with the election, on the contrary. Chances are it has even grown now, mixed with a hidden envy of a victor. All different statements are likely nothing more than lip service.

Robert B (60)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 7:14 pm
Diane O. is just pissed because we now have the BEST PRESIDENT for FOUR MORE YEARS. LOL!!!
She can't explain how we went from LOSING JOBS under Bush to GAINING JOBS. since Obama took office.

Robert B (60)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 7:15 pm
P,S, Grover, your 15 min. of BS are OVER!!!

pam w (139)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 7:18 pm
(So are Diane O's.)

Kit B (276)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 7:36 pm

Good night Mister Norquist. We didn't need you before and we sure don't need you now.

JL A (281)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 7:47 pm

Who is Grover Norquist?

Grover Norquist (Twitter: @GroverNorquist) is president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a taxpayer advocacy group he founded in 1985 at President Reagan’s request. ATR works to limit the size and cost of government and opposes higher taxes at the federal, state, and local levels and supports tax reform that moves towards taxing consumed income one time at one rate. ATR organizes the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which asks all candidates for federal and state office to commit themselves in writing to the American people to oppose all tax increases. In the 112th Congress, 238 House members and 41 Senators have taken the pledge. On the state level, 13 governors and 1244 state legislators have taken the pledge.

Norquist chairs the Washington, DC - based “Wednesday Meeting,” a weekly gathering of more than 150 elected officials, political activists, and movement leaders. The meeting started in 1993 and takes place in ATR's conference room. There are now 60 similar "center-right" meetings in 48 states.

Mr. Norquist also:

-Serves on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association of America, the American Conservative Union, the Parental Rights Organization and Center for the National Interest (formerly The Nixon Center.)

-Serves as a Contributing Editor to the American Spectator Magazine.

-Serves as president of the American Society of Competitiveness.

-Authored three books: Rock the House; Leave Us Alone – Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives; and (with co-author John Lott) Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future

In the past, Mr. Norquist served as:

-A commissioner on the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce.

-A commissioner on the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service.

-Economist and chief speech-writer, U.S. Chamber of Commerce (1983-1984.)

-Campaign staff on the 1988, 1992, 1996 Republican Platform Committees.

-Executive director of the National Taxpayers’ Union.

-Executive director of the College Republicans.

Arianna Huffington calls Norquist “The dark wizard of the Right's anti-tax cult.”

According to John Stossel, “No one in modern times has fought harder to shrink the state than the founder of the group Americans for Tax Reform.”

In the words of Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist is “the person who I regard as the most innovative, creative, courageous and entrepreneurial leader of the anti-tax efforts and of conservative grassroots activism in America . . . He has truly made a difference and truly changed American history.”

P.J. O’Rourke says “Grover Norquist is Tom Paine crossed with Lee Atwater plus just a soupçon of Madame Defarge.”

Senator Mitch McConnell says, "It’s because of soldiers like Grover that the conservative movement is so vibrant today and that the liberals who thought they had taken over two years ago are on the run."

Mr. Norquist holds a Masters of Business Administration and a Bachelor of Arts in Economics, both from Harvard University. He lives in Washington, DC with his wife, Samah, and his daughters, Grace and Giselle.

Printed from:


Angelika R (143)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 8:25 pm served to my entertainment in a most enjoyable way when I saw him for first time in an interview with Piers Morgan (CNN) earlier tonight. Piers really had some quite heated discussions there with his guests, incl. Grover N.

Susanne R (235)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 10:43 pm
I'm glad to hear that several Republican politicians have decided to turn their backs on the tax pledge they signed for Grover Norquist, but I'd be more impressed if they had done so BEFORE the majority of American voters made it known that they favored raising taxes on the rich. I'm pleased that the SS Norquist is slowly becoming a sinking ship. I just wished the rats had abandoned it before it started taking on water.

Louise D (44)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 2:22 am
Given the shit storm that George W Bush left, which given he was a businessman was very consistent with his previous performance, everything he took his hand to failed. Grover Norquist in the forum of public opinion is seen as a saboteur to the economy, a traitor and Anti-American. The weakness of the American economy has to do with the actions of this puppet of a man who has created class warfare in America which is having global implications. The American Republic should really implement some of the Ancient Roman laws, particularly the ones on political corruption still I suppose hurling Republican congressmen and senators off a rock would merely block the sewage system in Washington, that and the rats would complain about it.

Daniel Partlow (179)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 6:21 am
The 1% will alway fund their own ajendas and therefore will always continue to get richer.

David C (129)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 7:27 am
I don't know if an 'enemy of the state', but certainly not a patriot or supporter of the USA....

Felix P (94)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 1:16 pm
Why does this unelected creep Norquist and others like him have so much sway over the Congress? Simple. he's the bag for big money and political contributions. It's hard not to stop licking the butt of those that lavish goodies on you.

Speaking of butt lickers, I see Diane O. and her mongrel pack of shills are up to their usual BS and conspiracy propaganda. Drinking a little bit at Norquist's fountain lately Diane?

jan b (5)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 2:20 pm
Grover Norquist ( the anti-tax pledge guy) is married to a Palestinian Muslim who help to run the Islamic free Market Institute which took donations from the terrorism financing SAAR network.
Over 10 years, the total revenue loss from the tax cuts to the weathiest .... comes to $3.9 trillion, according to the US Treasury.
The anti-tax people can afford to pay more taxes but they are hoarders of money and you know that hoarding is a sign of mental illness. But there is no reason we should have to put up with the hoarding ....


jan b (5)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 2:24 pm
Is it fair to blame Obama for war costs four months after he was inaugurated, or tax collections 10 days after he took office? Cuts for income over $250,000 in 2013, would add trillions more to the deficit. (Wash Post -Ezra Klein) Note: Obama's first year's budget was created under the Bush Adm.. .Forbes the capitalist wrote an article that Obama has been tighter with money in the past 2 years than any president since IKE.

Diane O (194)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 3:39 pm
Oh, Janice, you make it so easy. First of all, I would take George W. Bush's deficit back today in a nano second. TARP factored in on his deficit and most of it has been paid back so it would be prudent to deduct that large sum of money from his actual deficit which by simple math puts his deficit in a much better place.

The problem with Obama, Janice, is that he took a deep recession and he enhanced it because he didn't know how to deal with it. His failed $860 billion stimulus using billions of tax payer dollars to invest in private sector green companies all went belly up. That's a disgraceful misuse of taxpayer money.

Troops are still in Iraq. Troops are still in Afghanistan. GITMO is still alive and pulsing, Obama invested in drilling in Brazil instead of the US, he poured our money into the Volt an electric car and it failed, his Cash for Clunkers failed, he extended unemployment benefits so many times I can't remember how many and still unemployment is at the same level. Obama promised many things when he was campaigning in 2008 and he hasn't delivered on any of them. His legacy healthcare bill will put our country in serious debt, costs from that have already reared his ugly head and 27 states have denied participating in it.

So, yes, Janice, I always have a lot to say about the lack of leadership Obama has delivered.

Cuts to the rich won't make a dent in paying down the deficit. It's just political grandstanding. I happen to agree that the rich can take a raise in taxes. I also believe some of the loopholes can bite the dust but even with all of this our debt is out of reach. What we need in Washington DC is major reform with medicare and medicaid. Obama said that himself over and over again but what has he done about it? We waste over $60 billion a year in fraud and abuse in medicare and medicaid and he hasn't done anything about that.

Yes, Obama has been tighter in spending in some areas but that, in no way, accurately details what Obama did spend during his first four years.

I keep waiting for Obama to lead our country. He hasn't produced a balanced budget. Well, he did produce one but his own democrats wouldn't vote for it.

The people who are hoarding money are the large businesses. Obama has delivered uncertainty with Obamacare and raising taxes.and large corporations stopped hiring and growing their businesses. They are sitting on more cash than they've ever had before. So, the question is, why won't they spend it by hiring new employees and growing their companies? That's an honest question. It deserves an honest answer.

Diane O (194)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 3:42 pm
Janice, here is an interesting read on how the deficit has gone up over the past four years and it is from CBS not Fox News:

CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today's standards, a mere $270 billion dollars.

Mr. Obama doesn't mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it's topped a trillion dollars for four years now.

As part of his "Win the Future" program, Mr. Obama called for "taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it."

His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come.

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms."

JL A (281)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 3:52 pm
Who is Grover Norquist? the topic of this article whose efforts tied the hands of Congress to prevent addressing any fiscal issue with new revenues. As the facts provided indicate, the Congress has the primary responsibility for passing a budget after the President provides them with the agencies' requests and related facts on which they are expected to make their decisions and pass the budget by Oct. (note that once again they missed their legal deadline in 2012).

donald Baumgartner (6)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 4:02 pm
I'm w/ Robert B, Grover's 15 minutes of fame is OVER!!
How can a Budget be passed w/ a "NO" congress, aka; The Repugs!!!
Hilary Clinton in 2016!!!

Angelika R (143)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 4:16 pm
"His failed $860 billion stimulus using billions of tax payer dollars to invest in private sector green companies all went belly up."- PROOF for this please. I have read that green energy has expanded enormously lately.
(On a side note here, it is a darn shame that you evidently prefer drilling at home, Diane)

" We waste over $60 billion a year in fraud and abuse in medicare and medicaid .." PROOF please. I am not denying that there is abuse but I would also not be surprised if that "abuse myth" turns out the same lie and exaggeration as the "voter fraud" myth.

JL A (281)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 4:21 pm
one more publicly announcing nonallegiance to pledge

Theodore Shayne (56)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 4:35 pm
I wonder how Lincoln justified politicians from the South to swear an oath to the Constitution when he broke it in order to have his nasty war of aggression? I guess that's one way to build a nation.

donald Baumgartner (6)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 4:35 pm
How about Diane O for POTUSA on The Republican side??? { out of RESPECT fr you Diane, I spelled the Partys name CORRECTLY}.

Lois Jordan (63)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 5:04 pm
So much time scrolling through the trolls' comments.....When our members of Congress take an oath to someone that isn't in the best interests of the majority of their constituents, they should be booted from office. In fact, a high number of these "pledgers" lost in the last election....and to Progressives. My crystal ball says we'll be seeing much less of Grover & Rover...and they'll both be lucky not to be charged with crimes. Good riddance! Thanks for this excellent article, Kit. *I'm sorry I'm unable to send you a star since I sent one in the past week.

Ann Breeden (65)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 6:02 pm
Thanks for posting Kit. My, this sure did get heated, didn't it? When the signers drew up the Constitution I don't think they were referring to all the poor people of this country footing the bill, I think they meant everyone. And, that also included themselves as well.
As far as Norquist, I think his actions would be considered an enemy of the state. We'll see what develops.

Gene J (290)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 8:34 am
"Is it possible that Grover Norquist, the multi-millionaire K-Street lobbyist long funded by billionaires, is an enemy of the state? "

Of course he is. This self-appointed mini-dictator has, with the consent of those who violate their oath of office to sign his version, usurped the role of the Federal, and local, governments in our country. This one incredibly self-centered man. Why does anyone listen to him at all? Why give him a moments attention? His 15 minutes were over YEARS ago. Anyone pledging fealty to him rather than to this country is, as an elected official, repudiating his or her oath of office. All to keep the rich getting richer. Disgusting is what it is and the "new" committee appointments show the gop hasn't learned a thing from the election just conducted. Which is fine, they can continue their war on women, minorities, voter rights, the GLBT community and watch their "majority" dwindle away to nothing. White males are a declining species, thank goodness, and their time having any kind of influence is very limited anyway. When they go, so too will Grover as no one else listens to him now. Nor should they.

JL A (281)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 9:18 am
Very well said Gene! You cannot currently send a star to Gene because you have done so within the last week.

Kit B (276)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 10:35 am

Thanks to many of you for actually reading the article and addressing reality. Ideas of yesterday are not standing up to scrutiny and being left where they belong -- in the past. Now it's time for new ideas to test while we look to the future.

Lynn Squance (235)
Friday November 30, 2012, 2:12 am
"...Article One, Section Eight, says: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;…”

So, the constitution says that Congress has the power to 'lay and collect taxes'. So what does 'lay and collect taxes' actually mean? To me it suggests determining tax rates and tax policies. So, by signing Norquist's pledge, have they really gone against the letter of the constitution?

However, where I think that the crux of conflict comes is in the final words there: '...and general welfare of the United States;...'. The 'general welfare of the United States' means ALL the people of the US, not just the 1%

The oath of office --- “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;…”

I do not see Norquist's pledge as a 'mental reservation' but rather as a moral and ethical failing.

Further, the oath of office says '...defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...' --- Anyone that would extort obedience to an immoral and unethical oath, is in my mind an enemy of the state and should be dealt with accordingly. The trouble is, how do you unseat someone who has borrowed his way so deeply into the government mechanics, and is so deeply supported by the monied oligarchy?

Please do not misunderstand me, Grover has to go. I would love nothing better than to see him wearing prison orange for the rest of his natural life. But how to accomplish that when he is such a slippery eel? As for the current crop of Republican/Teabaggers who have allowed themselves to be the victims of extortion, they have to go too. IMO, they lack moral and ethical fibre. Next opportunity is 2014!


Lynn Squance (235)
Friday November 30, 2012, 2:22 am
@ Susanne R --- Some like the fellow from Oklahoma I think, seems to be genuine about getting a deal done. But watch out for Lindsey Graham and his ilk who has said that he would look at cutting the mortgage interest deduction and charitable donations as his way of subverting his Norquist pledge. Mortgage interest and charitable donations would affect the 1%, but they would affect the middle class much more. Not all offers to go against their Norquist pledges are created equal.

Diane O (194)
Friday November 30, 2012, 2:35 am
Our current administration has done nothing but circumvent the Constitution.....starting with ObamaCare.

Diane O (194)
Friday November 30, 2012, 3:17 am
Kit, "new" ideas aren't necessarily taking the country in the right direction. We've experienced four failed years of Obama in the White House trying to take our country in a "new" direction. It isn't working. We are still the wealthiest and strongest country in the world even with all of our problems. America's problem, at the moment, is that we have far too much debt with the majority being spent on medicare and medicaid. Even Obama stated that more than once....of course.....especially when he was campaigning. Actually, he never stopped campaigning over the past four years.

All we need to do is cut spending across the board. That's how we save money to pay down the debt.

Kit B (276)
Friday November 30, 2012, 5:05 am

Have glass of whine and chill-out. New ideas are going to take over whether or not you or any one likes the idea. It's a new world, has been for a while and it's time to deal with those realities; ideas from 20, 30, or 60 years ago just don't cut it any longer. This nation like all nation's live with debt, that is not going to change.

Far too many "cans" have been kicked down the road, how those problems are addressed will need mutual cooperation and new ideas.

JL A (281)
Friday November 30, 2012, 4:25 pm
FactCheck: A President who set the all time record for major legislative initiatives getting through Congress during his first year in office meets no definition of "four failed years."
SCOTUS affirmed ObamaCare was constitutional (a most conservative SCOTUS)--those the consitution deems the ones to determine constitutionality.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.