Getty Images
For quite a while now, Republican candidates, especially those running for Congress, have been expected to sign "the pledge" -- a promise to Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform that they will not support raising any tax on anyone by any amount for any reason. If tax credits or deductions are to be eliminated, those who sign the pledge are expected to match them with tax cuts of equal value.
It's been remarkably successful, with 236 of 242 House Republicans having signed the pledge. But in 2012, Norquist's influence appears to be waning.
Of the 25 candidates this year promoted by the National Republican Congressional Committee as "Young Guns" and "Contenders" -- the top rungs of a program that highlights promising candidates who are challenging Democrats or running in open seats -- at least a third have indicated they do not plan to sign the pledge authored by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist.
Two of the seven candidates promoted by the NRCC as the "Young Gun Vanguard" -- candidates competing in open seats that are considered Republican-leaning -- also have declined to sign.
It'd be an overstatement to characterize the pledge as a project that's failing. After all, Mitt Romney has already signed his name to Norquist's pledge. What's more, some of the candidates who've refused thus far may yet be pressured into giving Norquist what he wants.
But at least for now, GOP candidates are balking at the pledge in numbers unseen in a long while.
For what it's worth, I don't necessarily see this as evidence of moderation. On the contrary, many, if not all, of those who are rejecting Norquist's project appear to be very much in line with his party's anti-tax orthodoxy. They're balking, not because they intend to support tax increases, but because some are open to trading away tax credits, some don't like taking orders from D.C. lobbying groups, and some are just anti-pledge in general.
Whatever the motivation, policymaking means having to consider competing solutions -- and ruling out ideas before even taking office, as nearly every Republican on Capitol Hill has already done, can't and won't work.
Leave a Comment:
Don't forget that Lee Atwater, architect of the 'no new taxes' mantra, confessed on his deathbed that it was purely code for "No more tax money for Negroes."
Just do me a favor... don't tell people raising taxes can eliminate the deficit.
Just do us a favor, Shooter - don't tell people that simply lowering spending will eliminate the deficit and all of our debt.
remember 2001, 500 billion budget surplus, three trillion debt, prior to Bush tax cuts which are due to end this year. Simpson-Boles, you have to address taxes, medicare, social security and the military, to bring the deficeit down. The tax cuts have cost us 10 trillion dollars. You just can't get around it.
Sheesh -- one more time: Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. It's still running a surplus, as it has for the last 30 years. It's paying (in part) for all of those income tax cuts.
The talk about cutting Social Security is in part a concession to the Right, who want to do away with it altogether, and partly an attempt to preserve those surpluses so that the money comes primarily from the poorest of us.
Or maybe those candidates are in districts where reflexive no-tax-increase-ever orthodoxy could hurt them.
The last time I checked, there was ONE pledge Americans are supposed to take. And it isn't to Grover Norquist or any other lobbyist. Signing his pledge should be considered treason.
Apparently you didn't go to the same law school as Sara Taylor.
They're waiting till after the election to sign. This way, they can claim to be independent and avoid looking as extreme as they are. And Democratic charges of their obeisance to the traitorous Norquist will look shallower. And after the election, they'll behave as they have for the last several years: refuse to consider taxes in even the most extreme cases.
people signed it because the whole thing snowballed into him being in charge of a powerful lobby that the GOP needed to win. Just like they need the NRA and they need the religious base.
But the bases are shifting. The tea party is now the powerful group you have to please, and they're fine with taxing poor people, you can't sign a no new taxes pledge and then raise taxes on the poorest brackets... so you can ignore this guy. Your new bases will be fine with a "some new tax" pledge you make. as long as you show how anti-choice, anti-immigrant, anti-gumment... and if you have a little birther and anti-science in there too, bravo to you! You then can ignore the group Norquist can influence, they're a dying breed in the GOP.
The Republicans have painted themselves into a corner with the Norquist pledge. The Bush tax cuts are going to expire and unless there is an agreement that will necessarily include tax increases, taxes will go up without Dems doing anything. That means if Republicans say no agreement, taxes go up and if they do an agreement, taxes go up. If Norquist and the Republicans stand on their pledge and refuse to agree, then Dems get to blame the Republicans for the tax increase. And that is exactly what Republicans have been trying to do to the Dems. Unless the Republicans control Congress after the elections, the Republicans will be unable to renew the Bush tax cuts. Any agreement would include deficit reduction so Republicans would lose that issue for the elections. Do not expect anything to happen until the lame duck session. But the risk for both parties is waiting for the lame duck make make it difficult to negotiate once the election results are known.
elected officials signing any kind of pledge other than to up hold the Constitution/ which has them beholding to groups and not the American people as a whole is treason.
Can we please ditch this nonsense about "treason?" It was old ten years ago when Republicans were accusing anyone who didn't agree with Dick Cheney of treason, and it's just gotten (if anything) worse.
The Constitution defines "treason" and it has bupkis to do with taxes.
I wouldn't say it's treasonous, but it sure looks like they serve two masters. There should be a long pondering by those that sign such pledges. This is not serving the people. The people are all the people, not those that would be taxed the same rate for all earnings.
I am not sure we can call not raising taxes is giving aid to the enemy, though. That's a stretch. They might be derelict of duty if they just refuse to do anything to serve constituents.
Most Congress people have other people than their own party in their districts. I know they were elected (hopefully) by a majority, but cutting down unions is going to hurt people in your own district to help someone in some other district far, far away from your district or state. I am speaking of Scott Walker and Citizens United, of course.
We have to vote these people out. It cannot be only about who pays the most money for favors and the least taxes.
I saw a movie about 50 years ago, I believe it was titled, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". In the final scene you saw the leader of the Praetorian Guard auctioning off the office of Emperor to the highest bidder*.
Is that scene going to be in a movie about the United States of America 500 years from now?
* The payment to be made to each soldier in the Guard. BYW this is true, it did happen.
Since taxes are required to maintain the Country and since by forcing the government into bankruptcy is in fact a deliberate attempt to overthrow that government it is treason. It could also be deemed treason for any elected official who has taken an oath of office to sign a pledge that puts him in the pocket of one man or faction. They are elected to serve us all.
WHEN YOU SIDE WITH SOMEBODY WHO STATES HE WANTS TO DROWN THE GOVERNMENT WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU CALL IT?
the only pledge they should make is to protect the constitution from all enemies... and norquist is one
This election is about the economy. Grover Norquist is about more than taxes. Don't be lulled into Republican sleight of hand. This pledge is more about free trade vs. regulation of Wall Street than my insignificant personal payroll taxes. Taxes (tarriffs) are just a subset of this particular facet of our economy.
I am reminded by this article, that Rachael mentioned Henry Clay on one of her shows last week and I realized the parallel to recent politics. Henry Clay, the Whig, Lincoln's mentor, Speaker of the House for 12 years, wanted to raise tarriffs to protect America's new industries thereby making an investment in manufacturing and building the nation's infrastructure. Clay campaigned for President in 1832 when South Carolina refused to accept the new federal tarriff laws caused a political crisis. He lost again. Southern plantation owners controlled Congress and were desperately trying to hold on to their agrarian slave based economy.
This election is about the economy and slave wages.
F#ck you Grover..
Americans deserve full scale tax reform that follows the principles of the Bowles-Simpson plan, not a patchwork quilt of special-interest tax breaks. http://bit.ly/noTDPF
Strange. Obama wants to 'cut taxes' for 98% of Americans and 'raise taxes' a whole 4% on those making over $250,000, the other 2%! Hmmm, what's disappointing to me is that Obama is only asking for a 4% increase! I think we should go back to when those same 2% paid 91%!!! Switching the tax burden to the wealthy and not the poor! However, I'm a bit radical!
Let's rename the "fiscal cliff" to "The War Invoice." Time to pay the piper.
To the one percent, don't threaten us with that "fiscal cliff will cost jobs" baloney. Profit is what's left *after* the payroll and bills and infrastructure improvements have been paid. Profit gets spent mostly on slot machines in Vegas. Tax it.
A pledge to end grover norquist reign in d.c. needs to be signed by anyone with "5 working digits", no thought(s) required, just sign the damn thing & rid us all of this smuck!