On Monday night Grover Norquist appeared on Bloomberg TV’s “Street Smart.” Grover discussed what was then the potential government shutdown as well as the debt ceiling.
Mark Drajem and Mario Parker of Bloomberg news wrote an article “Conservative groups Oppose Compromise Effort For Ethanol”:
“The only reform to this failed government mandate should be to repeal the RFS,” Tea Party Nation, Americans for Tax Reform and 19 other groups wrote in a letter to lawmakers today. “Let consumers and the marketplace determine how much ethanol should be blended with fuel.””
Shane Goldmacher wrote an article for National Journal entitled “Grover Norquist: Father of the Blood Oath.” Goldmacher explains how the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is a litmus test for those who run and hold office.
“In the last quarter-century, no purity test has held as much sway as the one crafted by antitax advocate Grover Norquist. His pledge is a simple 65 words, including the signer's name. Those who sign—219 current House members and 39 senators, according to Norquist's tally—vow never to raise taxes. "The pledge," as it is known, is meant to last a lifetime.”
Grover Norquist wrote an Op-Ed for the Huffington Post entitled: “How we got to “Shutdown””
“The Democrat Senate run by Nevada's Harry Reid decided not to actually write or pass a budget in the years 2010, 2011, and 2012. Perhaps to avoid having vulnerable Democrats have to vote for a level of government spending that might be unhelpful in getting re-elected. When the Republicans captured the House in 2010 they passed the Ryan budget in 2011 and 2012 that reforms welfare, entitlements and outlines tax reform.”
Ezra Klein of The Washington Post interviewed Grover Norquist. Ezra asked Grover about the government shut down.
“Ezra Klein: So, do you think a shutdown is good for the issues and ideas you’re trying to push?
Grover Norquist: Not necessarily. I think the original plan for the Republicans was to move the continuing resolution past the debt ceiling and then to sit down with Obama and decide whether he would be willing to trade some relaxation of the sequester for significant reforms of entitlements. That was something Obama might well do. Democrats in the House and the Senate are very concerned about caps and limits in sequestration. Republicans could get significant long-term entitlement reform — all on the spending side, I’m assured by leadership — for some relaxation of sequester.
Something like that might’ve worked out. There was also the possibility, and I was an advocate, of pushing for delay. I thought Obama might do that. And even if he didn’t, I liked the idea of a two-month conversation over how Obama has delayed Obamacare for big business and big contributors and organized labor but not for you. So how about all Americans get treated equally and we have rule of law and delay everything? Obama was thoughtful enough to time Obamacare and its taxes to kick in after he was safely reelected. Those senators running in 2014 were not given the same courtesy. Why not give them that?”