Advanced Search
Grover Norquist’s Three Laws of Robotics
Grover Norquist, the founder of Americans for Tax Reform, has come under fire for promoting the strict and unyielding tax policies that have derailed budget negotiations in Washington and Minnesota. But recently he admitted that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, as they are scheduled to in 2012, would not violate Americans for Tax Reform’s strict anti-tax pledge.
Although ending these tax cuts would raise tax rates back to their levels under the Clinton administration, doing so would not require any specific action on the part of lawmakers. Therefore, they would not technically be raising taxes.
If Norquist really wants to control our nation’s policymakers, he could learn a few lessons from Isaac Asimov and his three laws of robotics:
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm
- A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First law
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second law
In his classic short story collection I, Robot, Asimov explores the various loopholes and inconsistencies of these laws during an exciting future of robots and technology. Norquist’s recent admittance concerning the Bush tax cuts constitutes a similar loophole.
Currently, ATR’s pledge reads, “I, [name], ...will oppose any and all efforts to increase taxes.” But perhaps ATR should take a cue from Asimov and append the pledge with “or, through inaction, allow taxes to be increased”. That way, conservative signees would be forced to preserve massive tax cuts that primarily benefit the rich and contribute to an unsustainable deficit.
But why stop at the first law? Already it seems like the nation’s conservatives are pushing their agenda with robotic efficiency. The three laws of conservative robotics might look something like this:
- A conservative may not increase taxes or, through inaction, allow taxes to be increased
- A conservative must obey any orders given to him or her by wealthy donors, except where such orders would conflict with the First law
- A conservative must protect his or her own career as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second law
Just like Asimov’s, these laws are cleverly designed such that each one supersedes those that follow it. Some of Eric Cantor’s wealthy donors have reportedly expressed their support for higher taxes. But Cantor’s position hasn’t changed; after all, the first law takes precedence over the second.
Conservatives nationwide have also refused to budge on taxes even as polls show that the majority of Americans support balanced solutions to budget deficits. Poll results in Minnesota suggested the same balanced approach of revenue and cuts. This proves that many conservative lawmakers are willing to tank their careers to get their way on taxes, a clear case of the first law overruling the third.
Our representatives in St. Paul and Washington shouldn’t act like robots following strict laws. Instead they should take into account the diverse interests they represent and make well-informed decisions. Asimov, in his later writings, added a zeroth law that took precedence over the original three: A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. That, perhaps, is the only law our representatives should strictly adhere to.
Posted in Fiscal Policy | Related Topics: Government Policy Conservative Policy "No New Taxes" Income Tax
18 Comments
July 31, 2011 at 2:10 am
Cindy O - I think you are deluding yourself with all your jargon and what ifs. To you and everyone like you, we say “talk to the hand.” Pay your taxes. You may work hard, but so do millions of other people who work just as hard or harder. You should pay your fair tax - just like everyone else.
July 30, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Deb—OUCH! I never said I resent paying taxes, and I actually think the Bush tax cuts were a big mistake and we’d all be better off (lower deficit and debt, more help for people who need it, fewer jobs dependent on government contracts gone) at the old, higher rates. Bernice, thank you—what you said was pretty much what I meant. I would very happily have agreed to a small state income tax hike on my income group, as well, to keep the current state “solution” from occurring. It’s just that the Democratic party seems to have blinders on when it comes to how to raise revenue. It would be a lot more palatable to close loopholes and eliminate tax breaks first, then increase income tax rates a bit on most people—more on the top tier, OK, to try to even it out, but putting Minnesota’s top earners in the very highest echelon of income tax rates could indeed have a chilling effect on whether talent can be recruited to live here and whether companies locate or expand here. I voted for Tom Horner because I really liked his expansion of the sales tax idea, as well. I would point out that the US federal income tax is the very definition of progressive, so I am certainly paying my share there! I think the Tea Party is a threat to our way of life, but not everything Republicans say is totally wrong, and not all of us in the top 2% are appalling.
July 29, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Bernie:
It is true that the wealthiest pay the largest share of overall taxes—but that’s primarily because, obviously, they make more than everybody else. Even under flat or regressive tax systems the wealthiest can expect to pay more in nominal terms. The effective tax rate, the percentage of total income paid in taxes, offers a much better comparison between income groups. In Minnesota, the effective tax rate actually declines as income rises, primarily due to our reliance on regressive sales and property taxes.
By contrast, under a progressive tax system the effective tax rate would increase with income. This would, as you note, impose higher taxes on higher earners, and not just in nominal terms. What must be considered, though, is the relationship between overall wealth and savings rates. As income increases, the proportion of that income that is spent decreases and in turn the proportion of income saved increases. Placing a higher tax burden on wealthier individuals, who save more, would induce a smaller change in spending than placing a higher tax burden on poorer individuals, who consume more, because the loss in after-tax income would be absorbed through a decrease in savings. This makes a progressive tax system less detrimental to quality of life and the aggregate economy.
July 29, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Hi Deb. I don’t think that’s what Cindy meant to imply or that she resents paying taxes.
What bothers her is that people blame her and others at her income level instead of blaming politicians like Pawlenty and the other anti-tax zealots for writing laws to suit their corporate buddies. She has no more control over her tax rate than do the rest of us.
July 29, 2011 at 1:53 pm
The top 50% pay 90% of the taxes in this country. The top 10% pay 75% of that 90%. Now, That’s appalling. The government will just squander the tax money. There are really only two choices: Tax the rich some more and become even more dependent on their good fortune, or tax everybody else. We could have a flat tax, but then everyone would pay the same percentage, can’t have that now can we? It’s okay to raise taxes, just so long as you don’t raise mine. What is truly annoying is the notion that just because an individual is successful and makes more money than average, somehow the government has the right to take more from that individual.
July 29, 2011 at 11:08 am
Cindy, I applaud your hard work. Why do you feel you shouldn’t pay your fair share (like everyone else) in taxes? Do you seriously think the more you make the less you should be taxed? So other people that are also working hard (but get less $) should pay MORE than you? I find this self-righteousness appalling.
July 29, 2011 at 9:25 am
Grover Norquist has no right to be controlling any elected officials. Those elected officials have sworn to support the people who voted for them and should be impeached if they swear to follow laws made up by non-elected third parties.
I agree he’s been behind the scenes for years, and is too influential. I hope he implodes soon (Murdoch FINALLY seems to be doing so), and he will, once 1929 repeats itself, which has precendence - when Hoover was elected we had just as many republicans in Congress or more than now.
Balancing budgets does not mean no loans.
How would any person who’s not a millionaire purchase a home, or even a car, without the ability to have some debt? This whole business of balanced budget is being used as an excuse to deprive people of very much needed safety nets and has gone all too far already through elimination of pensions, forcing people to rely on SS more than ever.
July 29, 2011 at 9:03 am
Grover Norquist is hardly an “obscure nobody.” He’s been famous and extremely influential among ultra-right conservatives for decades. Many are now actually AFRAID to defy his Pledge and his wishes, I suppose because he could then somehow punish them.
As the six brave Republicans who voted for the transportation tax were punished by Pawlenty and the Republican Party by being stripped of their committee assignments and party support for re-election. In fact, the party ran other candidates against them and got them elected with advertising and big money.
I think we can be sure Grover tried hard to influence that local decision as he wrote a letter to every member of the legislature urging them to vote No. He also wrote and phoned and sometimes visited Pawlenty when our Tim seemed to be weakening in his devotion to the Pledge.
July 28, 2011 at 9:51 pm
I agree that “the pledge” has been incredibly destructive, and has effectively tied the hands of many members of the Republican party who might otherwise have moderate (i.e. reasonable) leanings. I also agree that the current tax and budget policies are skewed to the advantage of elite special interests such as Wall Street financiers and oil companies, and that this must change. However, the rhetoric on the left that demonizes everyone in the “top 2%” (I presume this means the top 2% of income) is not entirely fair, and I think it can actually be counterproductive. I am speaking as one who earned my way into the top 2% as a highly educated and hard-working professional. The answer to everything always seems to be “tax the rich”—this will fall on the backs of people like me, but the truly super rich will still have their deductions and tax shelters. We would be much better off by first cleaning up many of these loopholes, both personal and corporate. I would then have no problem going back to the tax rates that existed before the Bush tax cuts. Even better, I feel, would be a flat tax. I never see any of these ideas discussed by Democrats, and it frustrates me.
July 28, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Sadly, Tylers article doesn’t even qualify as rhetoric. It is fin fictional propaganda, the same kind of useless garbage that made Sarah Palin what she is today. It wasn’t the GOP who made Sarah the woman she is today, it was the incesent lies of Democrats like you. Had you not insisted on making her public enemey number one she would have fizzled out and went away as her GOP following was too shallow to keep her afloat. Now here you are attacking anouther obscure nobody who has had little real influence until your kind started attacking him and making him credible to all those who hate you as much as you hate him. The bigger deal you make out of Grover the more power he gains, so to the ignorant I say keep up the attacks and you will see that they are going to do you no more good than your attacks on Sarah Palin did and you made her and at least one of her children millionairs. While you have no hope of forcing any change on the other party, it is a way to avoid facing the problems within our own party, the ones we can at least have a chance of fixing. People in glass house should not throw stones, yet here you simple minded fools are.
July 28, 2011 at 3:14 pm
There are always extremists, on the right and on the left. I think that the Republican party has lost its way, and someone like Grover Norquist is able to exploit that by giving some hook on which the GOP can hang their hats, even if it is a destructive hook that may do damage in the long run. The real problem is that as our populace becomes less educated, more people fall for fanatical ideas. One only has to read the rise of Nazism in Germany to see that hard times and economic downturns leads people to grasp at any straw that promises a better tomorrow. That is my real fear: that extremism has a root and is planted out of desparation and fading hope. The Republican members of Congress, especially senior leadership must know what a dangerous game of chicken they are playing, but anything is worth it, it seems to them, if they can embarrass a Democratic President. Winning the presidency at all costs is their goal.
July 28, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Excellent article.
I have been following the antics of Grover Norquist for a number of years n0ow. He is a buddy of Karl Rove, Ralph Reed, and convicted felon Jack Abramoff.
He is a “true believer” and is likely a certifiable sociopath as an earlier comment indicate.
These people have no empathy, compassion, or sense of the Commons, as John Dean wrote in his book “Conservatives Without Conscious”.
Keep smoking Grover out as his actions don’t look good in the light of day.
July 28, 2011 at 11:22 am
I like Thomas Friedman’s article in the St. Paul Pioneer press yesterday stating that he he has signed a pledge “I will not vote for any candidate that has signed a pledge”. Taking that one step further, I am going to ask every candidate in the next election if they would publicly state (hopefully in writing) that they have not signed any pledges. Some politicians might not understand grammar - no pledges means a political advantage during the campaign.
July 28, 2011 at 11:19 am
Nice article…. well written. However, Grover Norquist is just the symptom of our schlerotic economic system. The real villains are the rich…. the 2%ers and the vicious, crony capitalist system that creates and sustains them.
That system needs to be destroyed——root, trunk, and branches before it destroys the few remnants of our so-called democracy (ha!) and, more importantly, the survival of humans and other species on earth.
July 28, 2011 at 10:41 am
I think the promise that Grover Nordquist has candidates sign is a big problem for governance after the election. There are lots of reasons, but there is a penultimate one, and that would be? If you get elected (and you signed his pledge to try to get their support to make that happen, remember) now you have to take an Oath of Office. Which includes a promise to uphold the Constitution. And there is the 14th Amendment, which effectively states that there can be no impediment to US debt. So now you have to ask: which comes first? Their pledge to Grover Nordquist or their Oath of Office? Isn’t the essential intention of the Nordquist pledge to directly interfere and influence government finances through the control of individual Legislatures? In re-reading the pledge, I didn’t see where he made exceptions in his language for US debt obligations, did you?
This makes it a major integrity issue for any candidate (who signed his pledge) and then subsequently gets elected. How could you have integrity with your Oath of Office if you don’t repudiate a previous conflicting promise? It is exactly this kind of special interest group pressure that has caused gridlock in our Capitol. Please take a stand for government integrity! You would need to ask your own legislators some questions:
- Have you signed a pledge to Grover Nordquist, or other outside group?
- If yes, then which comes first, your Oath of Office or promises to those other people like Grover Nordquist?
And if their immediate answer and public actions (votes) don’t make their allegiance to their Oath of Office clear as the primary #1 principle…then? Hopefully you know what to do.
How I feel about my Congressman, and his attempt at a side-step evasive (staff) answer on this? Please don’t let the door hit you on the way out after our next election…
We The People.
July 28, 2011 at 9:45 am
Sadly, the zeroth law lies completely outside the perspective of our current crop of “conservatives.”
That shared dysfonic perspective precludes them allowing to enter their awareness the existence of an entity that most people feel themselves to be a part of: “humanity.”
They have no concept of humanity. They only identify with “I, me, mine” and the other people whom they would identify as part of a collective “us,” people who share their same psychological dysfunctions based on their inability to experience or express empathy, compassion, or to trust anyone who does not agree with them totally on an extensive laundry list of key issues.
Anyone whom they have previously identified as one of their “us” who then demonstrates empathy and compassion, especially toward those who are less fortunate in some way, or who expresses disagreement with anything on the “conservative” laundry list, immediately moves from becoming on of “us” to one of “them.”
Indeed, perhaps our robotic dysfonic “conservative” friends really are the early-20th Century equivalent of NS5’s with Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, et al, playing the functional roll of V.I.K.I..
July 28, 2011 at 9:14 am
Very well written. Hopefully we are at a tipping point. As far as little Grover - have you heard that his dad would get him an ice cream cone, and then take bites out of it, labelling each bite after some kind of tax: “income tax”, “sales tax”.
DENNIS says:
August 2, 2011 at 2:40 pm
I believe the Tea Party is cult setup by Koch Bros. backed by Fox, Norquist and Murdock to destroy are life as we have known it. They would like everyone except the rich to work for minimum wage and be unable to benefit us or our families, this is what they are working on in Wisconsin.