Tax and Grover Norquist

"Grover Norquist hails victory after supercommittee deal fails"
article in the guardian : http://gu.com/p/33hha

There really is little hope for US politics if one party remains committed to a decades old pledge not to use one of the fundamental tools of governmental economic policy. While I can appreciate (but not agree with) that some Americans are passionate about smaller government, unless they advocate no government it is lunacy to restrict it in such a way. In changing (and serious) times how can historical existing tax policies be kept in place when might be no longer applicable, and if the only option is to cut them, which would happen in boom times, then how to adapt to bust times?

Of course principle is important in politics, and if republicans favour lower taxes that's their right, but absolutism , literally backed by a "pledge", has no place in a democracy, where  compromise is a necessity.

And of course I personally believe tax is a cornerstone of civil society. If taxes are low, or non-existent, then citizens feel less concerned with government, since impacts them less day to day, and governments then feel less accountable. No taxation without representation, and vice-versa. Taxis what binds a nation together , otherwise it really is as Margret Thatcher said, just a collection of individuals.