Why is the federal government incapable of spending restraint? Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist joins the Overton Window Podcast to discuss why soaring tax revenues seem to make no difference in closing the national deficit or paying down the debt.

“We need to recognize that the problem is spending, particularly spending as a percentage of the economy,” says Norquist, whose tax pledge has become an essential commitment for Republican lawmakers. “I mean, if you have a very big government but a very big economy, you could survive that. But if you’ve got a really big government and a teeny economy, you're in real trouble. So what percentage of the wealth that the American people create every year is snatched away by government? That’s the number you want to focus on.

“You get a deficit when the politicians want to spend more money, but they're afraid to steal it directly. So they take it in borrowing, which leads to inflation and other challenges. So yes, I understand when people talk about the deficit, but watch out: The Democrats will agree with you on the deficit and then raise your taxes. And we want to make sure that we’re talking about reducing spending and accelerating growth.”

Norquist points to the continuing power of Americans for Tax Reform’s pledge, which binds politicians to oppose all efforts to raise the marginal income tax rate or reduce deductions and credits without a dollar-for-dollar reduction in tax rates.

“[President George H.W.] Bush had taken that commitment in 1988 when he ran for president, Norquist says. “He defeated [Republican Sen. Robert] Dole, who refused to make the pledge. All the Republicans said we're not raising taxes, all the presidential candidates, many of the House and Senate. Dole, when asked on TV just before the New Hampshire primary, ‘Will you sign this pledge?’ — which they kind of tossed into his lap — he reacted like a vampire having a crucifix tossed into his lap. It was not good TV. Dole lost New Hampshire. Bush won with ‘Read my lips, no new taxes.’

“But then two years later in 1990, he broke his pledge, and he was finished. And he had no idea that the American people took the pledge that seriously. He was defeated in the next election by Bill Clinton, who was from Arkansas, which at the time wasn't even technically a state. Where did that come from? Bush was beaten by a nobody because he broke his word on the taxes, on the pledge.”

Keeping the pledge, according to Norquist, has been essential since the Republican legislative surge in 1994.

“We did pretty well up against the second two years of Clinton,” he says, “when Republicans won the House and Senate. Clinton had been elected president in the 1992 election, and he had some tax increases in his first budget. He was planning on spending every penny of it, plus $200 billion, because he said, ‘Well, Reagan had $200 billion deficits, so I can.’ The tax increases that Clinton put forward were always viewed as additional spending in his budgets that were planned and written out and made available to be looked at. So every once in a while, he likes to say, ‘Well I reduced the deficit.’ No he didn’t. The Republicans looked at him and said, ‘All those new spending ideas of yours, none of them, none of them happened.’

“That’s what took spending down, because it didn’t jump the way Bill Clinton wanted it to. It was when the Republicans took the House and the Senate and they said, ‘We’re not letting you spend the money.’ That's when we balanced the budget, by slowing the growth of spending. And that was hugely helpful.”

Another flattening of the spending curve occurred in the lattter part of the Obama administration, a largely forgotten achievement Norquist also attributes to the divided government of the time.

“As long as the Republicans say, ‘We're never raising taxes, we will now discuss debt deficit and spending,’ then they win,” says Norquist. “Remember when Obama wanted to have a $2.5 trillion dollar increase in the debt ceiling, and the Republicans said, ‘We can do that for you if we get $2.2 trillion in spending restraint.’ Obama said, ‘OK, $2.2 trillion in debt reduction.’ The Republicans said no to that because we need spending reduction — not deficit reduction, which perhaps can mean tax increases. Obama kept pretending he didn’t hear. We got to the final precipice, and at the end, all $2.2 trillion was spending reduction, not tax increases. Because Republicans said, ‘Love to help you. Hands are tied. Promised everybody I wouldn’t do this. So that’s not happening.’ And even though there were some Republicans who in private had impure thoughts about tax increases, it never happened.”

Listen to the full conversation on the Overton Window Podcast.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.