The (Anti) Tax Man

CBS News' Brian Goldsmith Interviews Club For Growth President Pat Toomey

(CBS)  CBSNews.com: And I know you're still fleshing out Mitt Romney's economic record. But do you think he's running a different kind of campaign for president, particularly on economic issues, than he did for Governor or Senate in Massachusetts?

Pat Toomey: Well, it generally seems that there's a change, at a minimum in tone and emphasis, and it might be more substantive than that, when you compare his run for the Senate to his current run for the presidency. But there, too — to be fair to Gov. Romney — you've got to look at the context in which he led Massachusetts, an overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic legislature and political culture generally. And that constrains what a governor can do. You know, what we're hoping to really flesh out is the policies that he advocated, and put that in the context of what was achievable, so that we get a fair assessment of his record.

CBSNews.com: Do you want a Fred Thompson or a Newt Gingrich to enter the GOP field? Do you think there's an economic conservative vacuum?

Pat Toomey: It's not clear to me whether there is an economic conservative vacuum, but there is a political vacuum. There is clearly an opportunity for somebody to consolidate the center of the Republican ideological spectrum, the heart of where the big numbers of voters are. Rudy Giuliani and Sen. McCain clearly occupy the left-wing of the Republican political spectrum.

There are plenty of guys competing on the right. Gov. Romney has had an opportunity to consolidate the center, but he hasn't achieved that yet. And that's why I think Fred Thompson is going to get in this race, because he's the guy with national name recognition and a record as a sort of a standard, middle-of-the-Republican-ideology kind of conservative. So, it's a big opportunity for him and I think he's going to jump in.

CBSNews.com: How important are economic conservatives in determining not just who can raise money, but ultimately who can win the Republican nomination? Do you have a research that shows the influence of economic conservative views on GOP primary voters?

Pat Toomey: We have it in a variety of anecdotal ways. I can't give you comprehensive, national polling data to show this. But there's no question in my mind that the most powerful common idea, common principle that unites the Republican coalition is the idea of limited government and economic freedom.

We are a broad coalition that includes people that are very socially and culturally conservative, and some that are more liberal. We've got people who disagree on foreign policy and defense, differ on matters like gun control and states' rights.

But the thing that almost all Republican voters agree on is that we need smaller, smarter government, with less spending and lower taxes. There's almost no debate, or I should say no disagreement, amongst Republicans on that. And a successful presidential candidate in the Republican primary needs to acknowledge that and get the support of that big, big segment of Republican voters.

CBSNews.com: So if economic conservatism is the greatest common denominator of Republican primary voters, is it conceivable — and I know you're an economic and social conservative — for somebody who's an economic conservative but a social liberal to win the Republican nomination?

Pat Toomey: Yes, it is entirely conceivable. Mayor Giuliani clearly would fit that description. And I think it's entirely possible that he could win this race. It's too early to predict that he will, but he's a very strong candidate. He's got very strong support. I think he's leading in the national polls. His fundraising is going very well. And, yeah, it's entirely possible.

CBSNews.com: David Brooks recently wrote a column in which he said, "The conservative movement has grown a collection of special interest groups that restrict its mobility. Anybody who offers unorthodox tax policies gets whacked by the Club for Growth." How do you respond to that?

Pat Toomey: I think David doesn't understand the tremendous consensus amongst Republicans for limited government, less government spending, and lower taxes. As I said earlier, there's almost no disagreement amongst the vast majority of Republican voters on this. And there is a liberal element in America, generally, and a tiny fringe liberal element even within the Republican party — you know, the Christie Todd Whitman types — who are OK with higher taxes and bigger government. But that's a fringe element. Republicans are united by their belief in the kind of economic policies that we advocate. And a successful presidential candidate is going to acknowledge that.

[bellal-2009]

. besides anarchy followed by rebuilding show me an alternative or two.
Posted by ToolMangler at 10:47 PM : May 05, 2007


Shrink govt. and get rid of coroprations (impossible).

The baby boomers will look back at their lives and see how corporations took their country from them and ruined it. We may retire wealthier than our parents but look what we've sold out to.

[randalds]

Anarchy may not be necessary. I still hold out a slim hope that enough people will finally wake up and see that the government that is supposed to belong to them is slowly being taken away. The so-called leaders of today frighten the masses with boogymen like bin Laden and Saddam and use them to scare small children and republicans into handing over to them the very rights that thousands died winning for them and hundreds of thousands died protecting. I have no doubt that the generations of soldiers and Americans that came before this one are turning in their graves in disgust at the cowardice of today's citizens who hide under their beds and in their closets every time the government tells them they are in danger. Still, there may yet be a tiny chance to avoid anarchy. A very tiny and rapidly shrinking chance.

[toolmangler-2009]

so I support the democrats, because history over the last fifty years shows that the republicans talk about smaller government (and talk and talk and talk, but it always seems to get much bigger under their watch then under the democrats.
Posted by RandalDS at 10:17 PM : May 05, 2007


Unchallenged laws are pulling this country down the path of defeat. Too many agencies have been given the power to enact laws, rules, penalties and assorted 'Maxims' that erode our basic rights. besides anarchy followed by rebuilding show me an alternative or two.

[toolmangler-2009]

Good'un randalDS.
Sauls statement has stymied me for a tad. I'll get back to you, mebbe.. (grin)

[randalds]

Posted by ToolMangler at 10:09 PM : May 05, 2007

Well traditionally they idea of Noblesse Oblige is most closely associated with the Feudal era when most people were either born into nobility or took it by force of arms. So the wealthy part came first before the pressures to show goodness to the masses. In a more civilized society (like ours) it is hoped that the wealthy would be more generous, though it's still not usually the case. These days it's usually more twisted by some of the very wealthy when they gain power by pushing the idea of charitable organizations rather then using the government to help the poor.

"Indeed you can usually tell when the concepts of democracy and citizenship are weakening. There is an increase in the role of charity and in the worship of volunteerism. These represent the ilite citizen's imitation of noblesse oblige; that is, of pretending to be aristocrats or oligarchs, as opposed to being citizens." %u2014 John Ralston Saul

Personally I think it's possible to be noble AND wealthy, but few wealthy people even try these days. Therefore we tax them.

[randalds]

Randal, it appears to me that our job as citizens is to keep govt. under control because it's natural tendency is to inflate.
Posted by bellaL at 06:10 PM : May 05, 2007

That's true, it does indeed. Actually what seems to happen is a party (either one) that is out of power runs on a platform of fixing the government and cutting the waste, right up until the time they get back into power and then the government puffs up even more. I know some people are pushing for a 3rd party, but as far as I'm concerned it's not realistically going to happen in my lifetime, so I support the democrats, because history over the last fifty years shows that the republicans talk about smaller government (and talk and talk and talk, but it always seems to get much bigger under their watch then under the democrats.

[toolmangler-2009]

"Throughout the history of humanity there has existed an ideal of Noblesse Oblige, literally Nobility Obligates. The idea being of course that the (more) wealthy one is the more of an obligation one has to help out those less fortunate."
Posted by RandalDS at 02:11 AM : May 05, 2007

I ask this by way of curiosity, "How can one be 'Noble' and 'wealthy" at the same time since a truly Noble man will use his possessions to help his fellow man, thereby reducing his former 'wealth' closer to zero and changing his status to somewhat less than wealthy.

Not being antagonistic but merely trying to 'scratch' my curiosity bump..
Any takers?

[bellal-2009]

Randal, it appears to me that our job as citizens is to keep govt. under control because it's natural tendency is to inflate.

[randalds]

Well, it's really that I have faith that our government can be fixed. That's why I'm opposed to people on the far right who say they want to practically do away with government. The government itself is not the problem. The people who are running it sometimes are. For instance while I believe the government should stay out of people's private lives I also realize that there are something so big and important that you must have a strong federal government to deal with them. Like wars, natural disasters, poverty, health care, Social security, etc. The problem really is the people on the extremes. Those who want the government to do everything for them and those who want nearly no government at all. Like with most things the answer is in the middle somewhere, but being in the middle is not a popular place politically these days on this issue. Everyone running for any office seems to be on one side or the other. The government is NOT the answer to everything, but it's not the problem causer other say it is either.

[bellal-2009]

Randal, you obviously have more faith in govt. than me. I think a change would be refreshing and anything to get the power back to the people sounds good. We have laws and a justice system. That should be enough without govt. taxation on every stinking aspect of our lives.

[randalds]

The poor don't pay taxes anyway.
Posted by bellaL at 02:46 AM : May 05, 2007

Nor should they. Taxes should be paid only by those with the means to pay them. After all since they are making more money then it is obvious that it is they who are gaining the most from our free society and therefore should pay more to help maintain the free society that they are gaining there wealth from. Each should help fund the government for all, according to their own means, not their own needs.

[randalds]

Of course taxing the rich helps the poor, when the money is properly spent and controlled. And of course it's social engineering, but it's necessary because all of government is a form of social engineering itself. No matter who is in power they will social engineer, the only question is to whose benefit, the poor, the rich or the middle class. Just because the current government abuses it's power and throws some money away does not mean that we should throw all of government away or that all of government is a waste. The idea is to fix the corrupt parts of our democratic form of government, not just chuck it and leave the running of the nation to the richest or to market forces. That's social Darwinism and it will always lead to a two class society. In order to maintain a fair democracy for all there simply must be some rules, some laws and some taxes designed to keep the elite in check.

[bellal-2009]

What's that have to do with the tax code Randal? Taxing the rich does not help the poor. It just trhows more money down the endless bottomless pit of govt. Very little really trickles down. IT's really much less effective than the market. Anyway, I hate the social engineering in the tax code. It's just more of the same BS. The largest lobby get a tax break. It has absolutely nothing to do with the poor. The poor don't pay taxes anyway.

[randalds]

Throughout the history of humanity there has existed an ideal of Noblesse Oblige, literally Nobility Obligates. The idea being of course that the wealthy one is the more of an obligation one has to help out those less fortunate then oneself. the reason that this is important in a democracy is that it is assumed that one makes their wealth from the less fortunate members of society, usually by selling them a product or service, so that it makes sense to return some of the wealth back to the same people so they can live such a lifestyle as to be able to continue consuming and not to revolt over their poverty. A graduated tax system is a form of legally enforced Noblesse Oblige and is necessary to maintain a healthy democracy.

[randalds]

Unchecked wealth always leads to abuses by the rich against the poor. It's the power that wealth gives some people. They feel they are above the law or that they know best about what's right for the country. A fine example of this was the late 1800's when robbery barons almost took complete rule of this nation away from the people. The middle class was shrinking quickly and it was only public outrage in the early 1900's at such things as workhouses, poor dying in the streets (esp the elderly) and no child labor laws, that stopped the abuses and instituted checks on wealth like anti-monopoly laws and an income tax system. And excellent book on the change, the revolution, that took place is "The Age of Roosevelt: The Crisis of the Old Order, 1913-1933", by the incomparable Arthur M. Schlesinger

[bellal-2009]

Of course it's social engineering, because if we didn't use the tax code (and other laws) in this manner then the rich would literally own the nation and everyone else would be permanently poor with no chance for class mobilityPosted by RandalDS at 12:51 AM : May 05, 2007


How so?

[randalds]

It's nothing but social engineering and should not exist in a true democracy. A flat tax or consumption tax would be the most fair form of taxation.
Posted by bellaL at 08:37 PM : May 04, 2007

Of course it's social engineering, because if we didn't use the tax code (and other laws) in this manner then the rich would literally own the nation and everyone else would be permanently poor with no chance for class mobility. The fact is that unchecked wealth would destroy America by turning it into a society of rich elite ruling a permanent worker class. A completely "true" democracy can not exist for more then a generation or two since the rich would simply force their will on the rest of the people.

[bellal-2009]

If you lessen or eliminate the estate tax, for example, then wealthy people will tend to hoard their wealth, both in productive and non-productive assets. However, if the estate tax is raised to 60 or 70 percent, these people will spend or distribute more of their wealth, thus helping the economy and thousands of working people.
Posted by cpaide at 12:44 PM : May 04, 2007


How about we quit worrying about everybody else's stuff. Who are we to decide what people do with their money. That's what I hate about the tax code. It's nothing but social engineering and should not exist in a true democracy. A flat tax or consumption tax would be the most fair form of taxation.

[motherjones-2009]

The Club for Growth should find a name more fitting to their philosophy. The Club for Greed fits the bill perfectly.

[cpaide]

If this "interview" actually reflects the views of Pat Toomey and the Club for Growth, then I must say that the Club needs to grow in their understanding of basic economics and tax policy.

A broad-brush approach to cutting all taxes is ignorant and dangerous. All taxes are not alike in their application or their effect. Estate taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc. all serve a purpose.

If you lessen or eliminate the estate tax, for example, then wealthy people will tend to hoard their wealth, both in productive and non-productive assets. However, if the estate tax is raised to 60 or 70 percent, these people will spend or distribute more of their wealth, thus helping the economy and thousands of working people.