Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: While the so called one Big Beautiful Bill got its
Speaker 2: name from President Trump, many of its core ideas come
Speaker 2: from Republican ideas that pre date Trump's terms in office.
Speaker 2: One conservative leader getting credit for the tax and spending
Speaker 2: cuts is Grover nor Quist. A recent Salon column went
Speaker 2: as far as calling him the father of the Big
Speaker 2: Beautiful Bill. Now that the bill has made its way
Speaker 2: from the Senate back to the House, we want to
Speaker 2: get his take in an exclusive interview. Grover Norquist is
Speaker 2: president and founder of Americans for Tax Reform, and he
Speaker 2: joins us now from our bureau in Washington. Grover, thanks
Speaker 2: for joining us today. Would you agree with that characterization
Speaker 2: you as father of the Big Beautiful Bill.
Speaker 1: Well, I run Americans for Tax Reform, which works on
Speaker 1: reducing taxes across the board, and we've obviously worked with
Speaker 1: President Trump and President Reagan before him. What President Trump
Speaker 1: has put forward in the bill back in twenty seventeen
Speaker 1: and now really builds on the successes that Reagan had
Speaker 1: taken marginal tax rates down. What Trump did was he
Speaker 1: took the highest corporate rate in the world, the United States,
Speaker 1: at thirty five percent and brought it down to twenty
Speaker 1: one percent and has made it clear he plans to
Speaker 1: go to fifteen. That has made America much more competitive.
Speaker 1: You talk to the companies, they're raising more money through
Speaker 1: the corporate rate at twenty one percent than they would
Speaker 1: have at thirty five percent because of growth. And that's
Speaker 1: the model Reagan had on individual income taxes. But moving
Speaker 1: to expensing as dramatically as Trump did, as the Republicans
Speaker 1: did in twenty seventeen, making that permanent. The big change
Speaker 1: right now is that the good ideas in the twenty
Speaker 1: seventeen bill will now be made permanent. They're not going
Speaker 1: to be negotiated every five or ten years. There won't
Speaker 1: be spending requirements attached to them. Is this will help
Speaker 1: set the country on a path to serious growth because
Speaker 1: companies and investors know what the rules are, and the
Speaker 1: rules are good.
Speaker 2: So it sets us up for growth. But at the
Speaker 2: same time, the legislation, with this four and a half
Speaker 2: trillion dollars of tax cuts, also features one point two
Speaker 2: trillion dollars in spending cuts. That leaves us with a
Speaker 2: pretty big gap. Is that getting the job done? As
Speaker 2: John Thune had said.
Speaker 1: Well, it certainly is we're moving both rate tax reduction
Speaker 1: as far as we can with the votes and spending
Speaker 1: reduction as far as we can with the votes. You
Speaker 1: can't do everything if you don't have the votes, and
Speaker 1: so you move as you can. But most importantly, the
Speaker 1: pro growth parts of this tax bill are estimated by
Speaker 1: Kevin Hassett, the economist at the White House, to take
Speaker 1: us to three percent growth, and that increased annual growth
Speaker 1: over a decade would get you four trillion dollars more.
Speaker 1: Those these are standard building on the CBO numbers over
Speaker 1: years used to be two and a half billion. For
Speaker 1: every one percent growth you got a one and a
Speaker 1: half percent plus inflation. You're looking at four trillion dollars
Speaker 1: in additional revenue from growth, not higher tax rates, but
Speaker 1: economic growth. And we have to grow our way away
Speaker 1: from the debt and deficit as we did after World
Speaker 1: War two. World War two weight one hundred percent of GDP.
Speaker 2: You are known for your objections to tax raises, of course,
Speaker 2: or pro tax cuts. You are also known for wanting
Speaker 2: to shrink the government down. But if you buy the
Speaker 2: argument that weighs fraud and abuse are the only categories
Speaker 2: of spending being eliminated for medicaid. This bill actually expands
Speaker 2: the size of role of government in some ways right
Speaker 2: because Washington is now determining winners and losers in chips
Speaker 2: and certain forms of renewable energy. Even as it drops
Speaker 2: eedie credits for companies like Tesla. It also tells states
Speaker 2: what they can and cannot do with their own money
Speaker 2: in areas like healthcare. How do you square that well?
Speaker 1: I would certainly support taking many of the legislation, much
Speaker 1: of the legislation that deals with means tested programs welfare,
Speaker 1: and block granting those to the states. That we're moving
Speaker 1: in that direction. I think it'll take more time to do.
Speaker 1: But if you say to the states, you got ten
Speaker 1: billion dollars last year for this project, you can have that,
Speaker 1: but it's not going to be growing faster than inflation
Speaker 1: over time. That really bends the cost curve down dramatically,
Speaker 1: and we would have fifty states competing. As Clinton did.
Speaker 1: He did this for welfare, he block granted it to
Speaker 1: the states. Fifty states took different approaches. The average state
Speaker 1: dropped its cost thirty percent. We should do that with
Speaker 1: more welfare programs. Soon had a good idea, so there.
Speaker 2: Was a procedural motion during the Senate debate that really
Speaker 2: surprised a lot of people. It failed to pass, but
Speaker 2: it got everyone's attention, and that is eighteen Republican senators
Speaker 2: voting for an amendment to raise the top tax rate
Speaker 2: on the super wealthy. What was her reaction? Were you shocked?
Speaker 2: Were you frustrated?
Speaker 1: Well, what happened is all the Democrats voted against it,
Speaker 1: so it was a meaningless vote.
Speaker 2: It wasn't going to go on as well, but it
Speaker 2: still was held anyway, and they're on the record for
Speaker 2: voting for it.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think it was unwise to do so because
Speaker 1: it will be portrayed as an endorsement of higher tax
Speaker 1: What it was actually about was this, They're saying, we
Speaker 1: should have money for rural health care, and so what
Speaker 1: you saw was people with rural areas, we're told this
Speaker 1: is a pro rural health care thing. It doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: it's just a gesture, and so they voted for it.
Speaker 1: The good news is that most people said this is
Speaker 1: not a serious idea. There were proposals about maybe we
Speaker 1: should raise the top rate, and this was put forward
Speaker 1: by some left wing Democrats and a couple of big
Speaker 1: spending Republicans. Luckily there aren't too many of them, and
Speaker 1: that got shot down by the President dramatically as well
Speaker 1: as the House and Senate leadership. Remember, eighty five percent
Speaker 1: of Republicans have signed the pledge never to raise taxes.
Speaker 1: That's not going to happen, Grover.
Speaker 2: But we know the President himself, though, has openly and
Speaker 2: repeatedly brought up the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy,
Speaker 2: saying that he would be okay with it in order
Speaker 2: to reduce the deaf sit And I know that you
Speaker 2: are firmly opposed to his stance on that. I'm curious
Speaker 2: what kind of conversations you've had with him on that front.
Speaker 1: Specifically, we did talk about it, and the next day
Speaker 1: he made the announcement. This was not happening, And there
Speaker 1: was a month long effort to try and push this
Speaker 1: idea of the President campaigned on no tax rate increases
Speaker 1: on anyone, not upper income, middle income, lower income business income.
Speaker 1: He said that at the State of the State address.
Speaker 1: He said it again and again. His opponent, Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: wanted to have the top rate stay higher. Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: lost the election. Trump won the election, and Trump made
Speaker 1: it clear that that was not going to happen.
Speaker 2: So you're saying you convinced Trump to change his mind.
Speaker 1: No, no, Trump, Trump was never for that. Trump to
Speaker 1: discusses many issues. And remember the policy from House, Senate
Speaker 1: and White House was to say everything's on the table,
Speaker 1: everything's on the table. Everything they said that for two
Speaker 1: months was all you were supposed to say is everything's
Speaker 1: on the table. So don't panic. If anyone told you
Speaker 1: something was on the table. The people who said that
Speaker 1: would also call me on the phone and say, you
Speaker 1: know what, this is never happening. We're not allowed that.
Speaker 1: We have red lines until we get to the very end.
Speaker 1: So the good news as there was no support for
Speaker 1: taking the top rate up, the President made it clear.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Nonetheless, the present saying that is very significant because,
Speaker 2: as you mentioned, although the other vote was simply a gesture,
Speaker 2: it is a meaningful gesture. Nonetheless, in the past, we
Speaker 2: know that you've been credited with rewriting the dogma of
Speaker 2: the Republican Party, tax cut, smaller government, all of that.
Speaker 2: Since twenty sixteen, though, the President has really changed Republican
Speaker 2: Party and his base is different than the GOP of
Speaker 2: the past. Right, it's more diverse, it's lower income, it's
Speaker 2: more pro union. For instance, Do tax cuts make as
Speaker 2: much sense for this group of voters? Prover?
Speaker 1: Oh? Absolutely, Look, the Republicans are begetting more and more
Speaker 1: of the middle class vote, of the blue collar vote
Speaker 1: the base. Organized labor used to represent thirty five percent
Speaker 1: of Americans. Now it's ten percent, and half of those
Speaker 1: are government workers. So organized labor bosses have nothing to
Speaker 1: say about what middle class union members or blue collar
Speaker 1: workers actually feel. They don't represent most blue collar workers.
Speaker 1: In construction, ten percent of construction is unionized and the
Speaker 1: rest is not. So we are in a post union
Speaker 1: world for most of the industries. And so talk to
Speaker 1: workers and to blue collar people about what they want.
Speaker 1: They support lower taxes, not higher taxes. And you see
Speaker 1: this not just in Washington, but across the states. In
Speaker 1: those red states, Republican states where Republicans are sweeping, getting
Speaker 1: two thirds of both houses, carrying the middle class strongly.
Speaker 1: They are one phasing their income taxes to flat rates.
Speaker 2: Right, but they also want to see their services cut
Speaker 2: as well. Their Medicare and Medicaid.
Speaker 1: Well, they're two things. The changes on Medicaid are you
Speaker 1: have to be a citizen and you have to be working.
Speaker 1: That does not scare any person who is an able
Speaker 1: bodied adult who is working or looking for work. That's
Speaker 1: not a challenge. I know the left has tried to
Speaker 1: misconstrue it. Since it's not going to happen, they can
Speaker 1: talk about it. It's not going to scale scare anybody
Speaker 1: in the House of the Senate. It's not true. What
Speaker 1: we can do is say, both on food stamps and
Speaker 1: on Medicare and Medicaid that states should have more a
Speaker 1: decision to make sure how to focus where that goes.
Speaker 1: And again, Bill Clinton did this. This is not a
Speaker 1: solely Republican idea. Bill Clinton did it with aid to
Speaker 1: families with dependent children and saved a lot of money
Speaker 1: and did so without all the things the left said
Speaker 1: was going to have people starve in the streets. The
Speaker 1: left said. Bill Clinton looked them in the eye and said,
Speaker 1: you're lying, and the Republicans can do the same.
Speaker 2: Okay, we got to leave it there. Grover Norquist as
Speaker 2: President and figure of Americans for Tax Reform, joining us
Speaker 2: from Washington,