
May 4, 2007
The (Anti) Tax Man
CBS News' Brian Goldsmith Interviews Club For Growth President Pat Toomey
-
Pat Toomey (Club for Growth)
-
Who's Who 2008 Republican Hopefuls McCain and Giuliani head up the Republican pack chasing the presidency.
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.
By Brian Goldsmith
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."





- 1
- 2
- next
See all 21 CommentsPosted 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.
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.
Sauls statement has stymied me for a tad. I'll get back to you, mebbe.. (grin)
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.
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.
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?
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.
How so?
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.
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.
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.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 21 Comments