WEBVTT - Grover Norquist Talks Tax Bill in the House

0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:07.880 --> 0:00:10.200
<v Speaker 2>While the so called one Big Beautiful Bill got its

0:00:10.240 --> 0:00:12.960
<v Speaker 2>name from President Trump, many of its core ideas come

0:00:12.960 --> 0:00:16.560
<v Speaker 2>from Republican ideas that pre date Trump's terms in office.

0:00:16.760 --> 0:00:19.160
<v Speaker 2>One conservative leader getting credit for the tax and spending

0:00:19.200 --> 0:00:22.320
<v Speaker 2>cuts is Grover nor Quist. A recent Salon column went

0:00:22.360 --> 0:00:24.360
<v Speaker 2>as far as calling him the father of the Big

0:00:24.400 --> 0:00:26.800
<v Speaker 2>Beautiful Bill. Now that the bill has made its way

0:00:26.840 --> 0:00:28.480
<v Speaker 2>from the Senate back to the House, we want to

0:00:28.480 --> 0:00:31.280
<v Speaker 2>get his take in an exclusive interview. Grover Norquist is

0:00:31.360 --> 0:00:34.199
<v Speaker 2>president and founder of Americans for Tax Reform, and he

0:00:34.280 --> 0:00:37.240
<v Speaker 2>joins us now from our bureau in Washington. Grover, thanks

0:00:37.240 --> 0:00:40.000
<v Speaker 2>for joining us today. Would you agree with that characterization

0:00:40.120 --> 0:00:41.720
<v Speaker 2>you as father of the Big Beautiful Bill.

0:00:43.000 --> 0:00:45.599
<v Speaker 1>Well, I run Americans for Tax Reform, which works on

0:00:45.680 --> 0:00:49.080
<v Speaker 1>reducing taxes across the board, and we've obviously worked with

0:00:49.159 --> 0:00:53.160
<v Speaker 1>President Trump and President Reagan before him. What President Trump

0:00:53.159 --> 0:00:56.080
<v Speaker 1>has put forward in the bill back in twenty seventeen

0:00:56.240 --> 0:00:59.440
<v Speaker 1>and now really builds on the successes that Reagan had

0:00:59.720 --> 0:01:03.320
<v Speaker 1>taken marginal tax rates down. What Trump did was he

0:01:03.360 --> 0:01:06.360
<v Speaker 1>took the highest corporate rate in the world, the United States,

0:01:06.400 --> 0:01:08.959
<v Speaker 1>at thirty five percent and brought it down to twenty

0:01:09.000 --> 0:01:11.720
<v Speaker 1>one percent and has made it clear he plans to

0:01:11.760 --> 0:01:15.440
<v Speaker 1>go to fifteen. That has made America much more competitive.

0:01:15.520 --> 0:01:19.240
<v Speaker 1>You talk to the companies, they're raising more money through

0:01:19.280 --> 0:01:22.800
<v Speaker 1>the corporate rate at twenty one percent than they would

0:01:22.840 --> 0:01:26.679
<v Speaker 1>have at thirty five percent because of growth. And that's

0:01:26.760 --> 0:01:30.480
<v Speaker 1>the model Reagan had on individual income taxes. But moving

0:01:30.520 --> 0:01:34.680
<v Speaker 1>to expensing as dramatically as Trump did, as the Republicans

0:01:34.680 --> 0:01:38.520
<v Speaker 1>did in twenty seventeen, making that permanent. The big change

0:01:38.600 --> 0:01:40.880
<v Speaker 1>right now is that the good ideas in the twenty

0:01:41.000 --> 0:01:44.120
<v Speaker 1>seventeen bill will now be made permanent. They're not going

0:01:44.200 --> 0:01:47.040
<v Speaker 1>to be negotiated every five or ten years. There won't

0:01:47.080 --> 0:01:51.880
<v Speaker 1>be spending requirements attached to them. Is this will help

0:01:51.920 --> 0:01:55.040
<v Speaker 1>set the country on a path to serious growth because

0:01:55.120 --> 0:01:59.000
<v Speaker 1>companies and investors know what the rules are, and the

0:01:59.080 --> 0:02:00.400
<v Speaker 1>rules are good.

0:02:00.080 --> 0:02:01.720
<v Speaker 2>So it sets us up for growth. But at the

0:02:01.760 --> 0:02:04.280
<v Speaker 2>same time, the legislation, with this four and a half

0:02:04.320 --> 0:02:06.800
<v Speaker 2>trillion dollars of tax cuts, also features one point two

0:02:06.840 --> 0:02:09.560
<v Speaker 2>trillion dollars in spending cuts. That leaves us with a

0:02:09.600 --> 0:02:12.920
<v Speaker 2>pretty big gap. Is that getting the job done? As

0:02:13.000 --> 0:02:14.079
<v Speaker 2>John Thune had said.

0:02:14.960 --> 0:02:18.840
<v Speaker 1>Well, it certainly is we're moving both rate tax reduction

0:02:19.360 --> 0:02:22.760
<v Speaker 1>as far as we can with the votes and spending

0:02:22.800 --> 0:02:25.079
<v Speaker 1>reduction as far as we can with the votes. You

0:02:25.120 --> 0:02:27.560
<v Speaker 1>can't do everything if you don't have the votes, and

0:02:27.639 --> 0:02:31.520
<v Speaker 1>so you move as you can. But most importantly, the

0:02:31.960 --> 0:02:35.880
<v Speaker 1>pro growth parts of this tax bill are estimated by

0:02:36.000 --> 0:02:39.000
<v Speaker 1>Kevin Hassett, the economist at the White House, to take

0:02:39.040 --> 0:02:43.200
<v Speaker 1>us to three percent growth, and that increased annual growth

0:02:43.240 --> 0:02:46.160
<v Speaker 1>over a decade would get you four trillion dollars more.

0:02:46.200 --> 0:02:49.320
<v Speaker 1>Those these are standard building on the CBO numbers over

0:02:49.480 --> 0:02:52.880
<v Speaker 1>years used to be two and a half billion. For

0:02:52.919 --> 0:02:54.560
<v Speaker 1>every one percent growth you got a one and a

0:02:54.560 --> 0:02:58.080
<v Speaker 1>half percent plus inflation. You're looking at four trillion dollars

0:02:58.120 --> 0:03:02.560
<v Speaker 1>in additional revenue from growth, not higher tax rates, but

0:03:02.720 --> 0:03:05.760
<v Speaker 1>economic growth. And we have to grow our way away

0:03:05.760 --> 0:03:08.200
<v Speaker 1>from the debt and deficit as we did after World

0:03:08.240 --> 0:03:10.480
<v Speaker 1>War two. World War two weight one hundred percent of GDP.

0:03:11.240 --> 0:03:14.480
<v Speaker 2>You are known for your objections to tax raises, of course,

0:03:14.560 --> 0:03:16.480
<v Speaker 2>or pro tax cuts. You are also known for wanting

0:03:16.480 --> 0:03:18.600
<v Speaker 2>to shrink the government down. But if you buy the

0:03:18.680 --> 0:03:21.400
<v Speaker 2>argument that weighs fraud and abuse are the only categories

0:03:21.400 --> 0:03:25.079
<v Speaker 2>of spending being eliminated for medicaid. This bill actually expands

0:03:25.480 --> 0:03:27.680
<v Speaker 2>the size of role of government in some ways right

0:03:27.720 --> 0:03:31.680
<v Speaker 2>because Washington is now determining winners and losers in chips

0:03:31.760 --> 0:03:34.600
<v Speaker 2>and certain forms of renewable energy. Even as it drops

0:03:34.639 --> 0:03:37.840
<v Speaker 2>eedie credits for companies like Tesla. It also tells states

0:03:37.840 --> 0:03:40.240
<v Speaker 2>what they can and cannot do with their own money

0:03:40.280 --> 0:03:43.520
<v Speaker 2>in areas like healthcare. How do you square that well?

0:03:43.600 --> 0:03:48.040
<v Speaker 1>I would certainly support taking many of the legislation, much

0:03:48.040 --> 0:03:52.000
<v Speaker 1>of the legislation that deals with means tested programs welfare,

0:03:52.240 --> 0:03:55.480
<v Speaker 1>and block granting those to the states. That we're moving

0:03:55.520 --> 0:03:58.520
<v Speaker 1>in that direction. I think it'll take more time to do.

0:03:58.600 --> 0:04:00.760
<v Speaker 1>But if you say to the states, you got ten

0:04:00.800 --> 0:04:05.240
<v Speaker 1>billion dollars last year for this project, you can have that,

0:04:05.320 --> 0:04:07.480
<v Speaker 1>but it's not going to be growing faster than inflation

0:04:08.040 --> 0:04:11.080
<v Speaker 1>over time. That really bends the cost curve down dramatically,

0:04:11.440 --> 0:04:15.400
<v Speaker 1>and we would have fifty states competing. As Clinton did.

0:04:15.680 --> 0:04:17.920
<v Speaker 1>He did this for welfare, he block granted it to

0:04:17.960 --> 0:04:21.480
<v Speaker 1>the states. Fifty states took different approaches. The average state

0:04:21.560 --> 0:04:24.400
<v Speaker 1>dropped its cost thirty percent. We should do that with

0:04:24.480 --> 0:04:28.320
<v Speaker 1>more welfare programs. Soon had a good idea, so there.

0:04:28.200 --> 0:04:30.800
<v Speaker 2>Was a procedural motion during the Senate debate that really

0:04:30.800 --> 0:04:33.080
<v Speaker 2>surprised a lot of people. It failed to pass, but

0:04:33.160 --> 0:04:36.320
<v Speaker 2>it got everyone's attention, and that is eighteen Republican senators

0:04:36.760 --> 0:04:39.560
<v Speaker 2>voting for an amendment to raise the top tax rate

0:04:39.600 --> 0:04:42.800
<v Speaker 2>on the super wealthy. What was her reaction? Were you shocked?

0:04:42.839 --> 0:04:43.600
<v Speaker 2>Were you frustrated?

0:04:44.600 --> 0:04:47.240
<v Speaker 1>Well, what happened is all the Democrats voted against it,

0:04:48.000 --> 0:04:49.560
<v Speaker 1>so it was a meaningless vote.

0:04:49.960 --> 0:04:51.560
<v Speaker 2>It wasn't going to go on as well, but it

0:04:51.600 --> 0:04:53.960
<v Speaker 2>still was held anyway, and they're on the record for

0:04:54.040 --> 0:04:54.640
<v Speaker 2>voting for it.

0:04:55.720 --> 0:04:57.920
<v Speaker 1>Yes, I think it was unwise to do so because

0:04:57.960 --> 0:05:00.799
<v Speaker 1>it will be portrayed as an endorsement of higher tax

0:05:01.240 --> 0:05:03.479
<v Speaker 1>What it was actually about was this, They're saying, we

0:05:03.480 --> 0:05:08.040
<v Speaker 1>should have money for rural health care, and so what

0:05:08.120 --> 0:05:10.560
<v Speaker 1>you saw was people with rural areas, we're told this

0:05:10.640 --> 0:05:12.839
<v Speaker 1>is a pro rural health care thing. It doesn't matter,

0:05:12.920 --> 0:05:15.520
<v Speaker 1>it's just a gesture, and so they voted for it.

0:05:16.040 --> 0:05:18.240
<v Speaker 1>The good news is that most people said this is

0:05:18.279 --> 0:05:22.480
<v Speaker 1>not a serious idea. There were proposals about maybe we

0:05:22.520 --> 0:05:25.120
<v Speaker 1>should raise the top rate, and this was put forward

0:05:25.120 --> 0:05:27.680
<v Speaker 1>by some left wing Democrats and a couple of big

0:05:27.680 --> 0:05:31.120
<v Speaker 1>spending Republicans. Luckily there aren't too many of them, and

0:05:31.160 --> 0:05:34.520
<v Speaker 1>that got shot down by the President dramatically as well

0:05:34.520 --> 0:05:37.080
<v Speaker 1>as the House and Senate leadership. Remember, eighty five percent

0:05:37.080 --> 0:05:39.600
<v Speaker 1>of Republicans have signed the pledge never to raise taxes.

0:05:40.000 --> 0:05:41.400
<v Speaker 1>That's not going to happen, Grover.

0:05:41.560 --> 0:05:44.560
<v Speaker 2>But we know the President himself, though, has openly and

0:05:44.640 --> 0:05:47.560
<v Speaker 2>repeatedly brought up the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy,

0:05:47.680 --> 0:05:50.360
<v Speaker 2>saying that he would be okay with it in order

0:05:50.400 --> 0:05:52.120
<v Speaker 2>to reduce the deaf sit And I know that you

0:05:52.160 --> 0:05:54.960
<v Speaker 2>are firmly opposed to his stance on that. I'm curious

0:05:55.040 --> 0:05:58.039
<v Speaker 2>what kind of conversations you've had with him on that front.

0:05:58.040 --> 0:06:02.359
<v Speaker 1>Specifically, we did talk about it, and the next day

0:06:03.080 --> 0:06:07.560
<v Speaker 1>he made the announcement. This was not happening, And there

0:06:07.640 --> 0:06:09.400
<v Speaker 1>was a month long effort to try and push this

0:06:09.560 --> 0:06:13.960
<v Speaker 1>idea of the President campaigned on no tax rate increases

0:06:14.080 --> 0:06:17.520
<v Speaker 1>on anyone, not upper income, middle income, lower income business income.

0:06:17.720 --> 0:06:19.359
<v Speaker 1>He said that at the State of the State address.

0:06:19.360 --> 0:06:22.480
<v Speaker 1>He said it again and again. His opponent, Kamala Harris,

0:06:22.560 --> 0:06:26.599
<v Speaker 1>wanted to have the top rate stay higher. Kamala Harris

0:06:26.640 --> 0:06:30.440
<v Speaker 1>lost the election. Trump won the election, and Trump made

0:06:30.440 --> 0:06:33.120
<v Speaker 1>it clear that that was not going to happen.

0:06:33.200 --> 0:06:35.640
<v Speaker 2>So you're saying you convinced Trump to change his mind.

0:06:36.279 --> 0:06:38.760
<v Speaker 1>No, no, Trump, Trump was never for that. Trump to

0:06:38.920 --> 0:06:43.279
<v Speaker 1>discusses many issues. And remember the policy from House, Senate

0:06:43.320 --> 0:06:45.680
<v Speaker 1>and White House was to say everything's on the table,

0:06:45.920 --> 0:06:48.680
<v Speaker 1>everything's on the table. Everything they said that for two

0:06:48.720 --> 0:06:50.599
<v Speaker 1>months was all you were supposed to say is everything's

0:06:50.600 --> 0:06:53.080
<v Speaker 1>on the table. So don't panic. If anyone told you

0:06:53.120 --> 0:06:55.840
<v Speaker 1>something was on the table. The people who said that

0:06:55.839 --> 0:06:57.400
<v Speaker 1>would also call me on the phone and say, you

0:06:57.480 --> 0:07:00.200
<v Speaker 1>know what, this is never happening. We're not allowed that.

0:07:00.520 --> 0:07:03.040
<v Speaker 1>We have red lines until we get to the very end.

0:07:03.160 --> 0:07:06.360
<v Speaker 1>So the good news as there was no support for

0:07:06.880 --> 0:07:09.760
<v Speaker 1>taking the top rate up, the President made it clear.

0:07:10.000 --> 0:07:13.400
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. Nonetheless, the present saying that is very significant because,

0:07:13.440 --> 0:07:16.640
<v Speaker 2>as you mentioned, although the other vote was simply a gesture,

0:07:16.640 --> 0:07:19.080
<v Speaker 2>it is a meaningful gesture. Nonetheless, in the past, we

0:07:19.120 --> 0:07:21.680
<v Speaker 2>know that you've been credited with rewriting the dogma of

0:07:21.680 --> 0:07:24.640
<v Speaker 2>the Republican Party, tax cut, smaller government, all of that.

0:07:25.040 --> 0:07:28.680
<v Speaker 2>Since twenty sixteen, though, the President has really changed Republican

0:07:28.720 --> 0:07:31.200
<v Speaker 2>Party and his base is different than the GOP of

0:07:31.240 --> 0:07:33.840
<v Speaker 2>the past. Right, it's more diverse, it's lower income, it's

0:07:33.880 --> 0:07:36.720
<v Speaker 2>more pro union. For instance, Do tax cuts make as

0:07:36.840 --> 0:07:39.640
<v Speaker 2>much sense for this group of voters? Prover?

0:07:40.480 --> 0:07:44.240
<v Speaker 1>Oh? Absolutely, Look, the Republicans are begetting more and more

0:07:44.320 --> 0:07:47.640
<v Speaker 1>of the middle class vote, of the blue collar vote

0:07:48.080 --> 0:07:51.239
<v Speaker 1>the base. Organized labor used to represent thirty five percent

0:07:51.240 --> 0:07:54.760
<v Speaker 1>of Americans. Now it's ten percent, and half of those

0:07:54.800 --> 0:07:58.520
<v Speaker 1>are government workers. So organized labor bosses have nothing to

0:07:58.560 --> 0:08:02.800
<v Speaker 1>say about what middle class union members or blue collar

0:08:02.840 --> 0:08:06.520
<v Speaker 1>workers actually feel. They don't represent most blue collar workers.

0:08:06.560 --> 0:08:11.320
<v Speaker 1>In construction, ten percent of construction is unionized and the

0:08:11.360 --> 0:08:14.160
<v Speaker 1>rest is not. So we are in a post union

0:08:14.440 --> 0:08:19.120
<v Speaker 1>world for most of the industries. And so talk to

0:08:19.240 --> 0:08:22.360
<v Speaker 1>workers and to blue collar people about what they want.

0:08:22.680 --> 0:08:26.000
<v Speaker 1>They support lower taxes, not higher taxes. And you see

0:08:26.000 --> 0:08:29.160
<v Speaker 1>this not just in Washington, but across the states. In

0:08:29.200 --> 0:08:32.720
<v Speaker 1>those red states, Republican states where Republicans are sweeping, getting

0:08:32.720 --> 0:08:35.640
<v Speaker 1>two thirds of both houses, carrying the middle class strongly.

0:08:36.080 --> 0:08:39.520
<v Speaker 1>They are one phasing their income taxes to flat rates.

0:08:39.320 --> 0:08:41.400
<v Speaker 2>Right, but they also want to see their services cut

0:08:41.440 --> 0:08:43.000
<v Speaker 2>as well. Their Medicare and Medicaid.

0:08:44.280 --> 0:08:47.120
<v Speaker 1>Well, they're two things. The changes on Medicaid are you

0:08:47.160 --> 0:08:49.400
<v Speaker 1>have to be a citizen and you have to be working.

0:08:49.480 --> 0:08:53.839
<v Speaker 1>That does not scare any person who is an able

0:08:53.880 --> 0:08:56.920
<v Speaker 1>bodied adult who is working or looking for work. That's

0:08:56.960 --> 0:08:58.640
<v Speaker 1>not a challenge. I know the left has tried to

0:08:58.679 --> 0:09:02.280
<v Speaker 1>misconstrue it. Since it's not going to happen, they can

0:09:02.360 --> 0:09:05.559
<v Speaker 1>talk about it. It's not going to scale scare anybody

0:09:05.800 --> 0:09:08.280
<v Speaker 1>in the House of the Senate. It's not true. What

0:09:08.320 --> 0:09:11.520
<v Speaker 1>we can do is say, both on food stamps and

0:09:11.600 --> 0:09:14.800
<v Speaker 1>on Medicare and Medicaid that states should have more a

0:09:14.880 --> 0:09:17.960
<v Speaker 1>decision to make sure how to focus where that goes.

0:09:18.080 --> 0:09:20.600
<v Speaker 1>And again, Bill Clinton did this. This is not a

0:09:21.160 --> 0:09:24.120
<v Speaker 1>solely Republican idea. Bill Clinton did it with aid to

0:09:24.160 --> 0:09:27.640
<v Speaker 1>families with dependent children and saved a lot of money

0:09:27.880 --> 0:09:30.040
<v Speaker 1>and did so without all the things the left said

0:09:30.080 --> 0:09:31.839
<v Speaker 1>was going to have people starve in the streets. The

0:09:31.920 --> 0:09:34.160
<v Speaker 1>left said. Bill Clinton looked them in the eye and said,

0:09:34.160 --> 0:09:37.040
<v Speaker 1>you're lying, and the Republicans can do the same.

0:09:37.400 --> 0:09:39.240
<v Speaker 2>Okay, we got to leave it there. Grover Norquist as

0:09:39.240 --> 0:09:41.760
<v Speaker 2>President and figure of Americans for Tax Reform, joining us

0:09:41.760 --> 0:09:42.280
<v Speaker 2>from Washington,