Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


GOPer Bills Would Engage Grover Norquist in "Verbal or Physical Confrontation" Over Taxes

Bookmark and Share

A champion of the 'great compromise,' Minnesota's Republican U.S. Senate nominee is open to tax increases and vows, "I don't care if I have to have a verbal or physical confrontation with Grover Norquist"

kurtbills10.jpgAs the standard-bearer for his party in Minnesota this November, Republican U.S. Senate nominee Kurt Bills laid some fascinating cards on the table at a forum Monday afternoon at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs.

While Bills - from House District 37B (Rosemount) - stated that he was a "very, very conservative individual," the Gopher State representative sounded much more beholden to the students he teaches every day in his economic and government high school courses than to his own party.

When asked by moderator Larry Jacobs as to whether he might back Simpson-Bowles and include both spending cuts and tax revenue measures to fix the nation's federal budget deficit, Bills responded:

"I will vote for the compromise. No matter what it is. I don't care if I have to have a verbal or physical confrontation with Grover Norquist. I'm going to vote for the compromise because that's what the students in my high school classes - and the reason why I'm running - would want me to do."

Norquist, of course, is the founder of Americans for Tax Reform - an organization known for getting candidates to sign an anti-tax pledge before running for (re)election - and is considered by some to be one of the most powerful Republicans in the country.

The Norquist jab was not the only one offered up by Bills who candidly admitted to breaking Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment as he criticized George W. Bush for pushing through a temporary tax cut and not paying for his two wars ("Why would you ever do this?").

But while many from Bills' party in Congress have been criticized over the past few years for their purported unwillingness to compromise on core issues and principles like taxes, the Gopher State GOP U.S. Senate nominee did not shy away from the 'C' word during Mondays' event:

"I have served in the State House for the last two years - saw some great things, saw some great compromises."

"When the Grand Compromise comes - which it hasn't, which is what I'm so frustrated about...we need to have this compromise come forward."

"I have seen what good compromise can look like."

"And something like Simpson-Bowles or the Great Compromise - whatever it is, whatever it's going to be named - will be brought to the floors of the Senate and the House and be voted upon. That would be my goal - is to be, as much as I can, to be part of that solution."

"I'm going to support the compromise when it comes forward."

"When the time comes, I'm going to do everything I can to bring that compromise forward to the floor."

And how does Bills reconcile the "R" next to his name with his willingness to look at increasing tax revenues as part of a solution to solving the nation's budget woes?

"My heart is with those kids that I taught."

In addressing the federal budget crisis on his campaign website, Bills does not address the revenue side, only the spending side:

"If we want our children and our grandchildren to live with the same liberty and prosperity that we have, we must reverse this trend. Federal spending per household has grown more than 150% since 1965. The answers are straightforward. As your next U.S. Senator, I will work with fellow members to pass a budget, along with focusing on lowering spending. Unsustainable spending can be curbed by the federal government focusing on what it was designed to do as defined by the Constitution."

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Withdrawn Anti-Obama Kansas Ballot Challenge Continues Major Party Ballot Access Streak
Next post: David Brooks' About-Face on Mitt Romney

Leave a comment


Remains of the Data

Slam Dunk: Will 36 Record Presidential Winning Streaks Continue in 2016?

Three-dozen states are currently in the midst of their longest Democratic or Republican presidential winning streaks.

Political Crumbs

73 Months and Counting

January's preliminary Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers show Minnesota's unemployment rate of 3.7 percent was once again lower than Wisconsin's 5.0 percent. That marks the 73rd consecutive month in which Minnesota has boasted a lower jobless rate than its neighbor to the east dating back to January 2009 including each of the last 67 months by at least one point. The Gopher State has now edged Wisconsin in the employment border battle for 204 of the last 216 months dating back to February 1997. Wisconsin only managed a lower unemployment rate than Minnesota for the 12 months of 2008 during this 18-year span.


Two Dakotas, One Voice?

For each of the last 24 presidential elections since 1920, North and South Dakota have voted in unison - casting their ballots for the same nominee. For 21 of these cycles (including each of the last 12 since 1968) Republicans carried the Dakotas with just three cycles going to the Democrats (1932, 1936, and 1964). This streak stands in contrast to the first few decades after statehood when North and South Dakota supported different nominees in four of the first seven cycles. North Dakota narrowly backed Populist James Weaver in 1892 while South Dakota voted for incumbent Republican Benjamin Harrison. In 1896, it was North Dakota backing GOPer William McKinley while South Dakota supported Democrat William Jennings Bryan by less than 200 votes. North Dakota voted Democratic in 1912 and 1916 supporting Woodrow Wilson while South Dakota cast its Electoral College votes for Progressive Teddy Roosevelt and Republican Charles Hughes respectively.


more POLITICAL CRUMBS

Humphrey School Sites
CSPG
Humphrey New Media Hub

Issues />

<div id=
Abortion
Afghanistan
Budget and taxes
Campaign finances
Crime and punishment
Economy and jobs
Education
Energy
Environment
Foreign affairs
Gender
Health
Housing
Ideology
Immigration
Iraq
Media
Military
Partisanship
Race and ethnicity
Reapportionment
Redistricting
Religion
Sexuality
Sports
Terrorism
Third parties
Transportation
Voting