https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Tax_Reform
Doesn't sound like you are describing Norquist's organization they way they do in their mission statement. Do you have any references?
I for one find the grandparent's explanation of the organization to be quite accurate. My guess is that you aren't getting the subtext: His main goal is, in practice, to lower taxes for those with high incomes, and the rest of that group's stated goal is just mandatory steps to make it possible to pass that.
The visibility factor is huge, just because without it, his movement would not have legs: The more visible, the more likely it is for people to dislike taxes, whether they are getting a lot out of them or not. Making all taxes lower is also key to sell that goal too, as flattening the system while maintaining revenue would mean a tax increase for a large majority of Americans, which is also a non-starter.
Once you get those real, non-stated goals, then the stated goals make perfect sense, as they align 100% with what one would need to do to get the real goals achieved in practice.
> In 2005, Norquist testified before the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform arguing against return-free filing. The next year, Norquist and others wrote in a letter to President Bush that getting an official-looking "bill" from the IRS could be "extremely intimidating, particularly for seniors, low-income and non-English speaking citizens."
so, the argument would be to first make taxes more painful. the best would be to remove auto withholding. if the average $50k a year family had to write a check for $3k to the government every 3 mouths they'd likely push much harder for lower taxes. less taxes means less money for government which would seem to mean smaller government. once the taxes are low and government is small you can simplify the tax code.
I'm not saying I agree with that or that I could ever actually happen but I don't see a flaw in the logic and why their own description of their mission can both say they are for simpler taxes and also be against the kind of simpler the linked article is about
Next you'll be telling me that Google does evil.
Nothing stated in the article supports the claim made above. I believe that's just someone's interpretation in an effort to make certain people they disagree with look bad.