That Right Wing Tax Pledge

Without bothering to look up a copy of the actual pledge and only going on what I've heard in the media about it - ie congressmen are asked to publicly sign a pledge to never ever vote for an increase in taxes (rates only?) under any circumstances - I have to ask: As a member of the US legislature, is it wise to make a committment like that?

It seems like keeping your options open, just in case something unforseen comes up, or in case you have to, ugh, compromise in order for important policy needs to be addressed, is just flat out prudent, intelligent, and rational -- or in other words a "no brainer." I've heard this pledge discussed in context with Bush Sr saying "read my lips" and then having to eat his words later on, as though the pledge is a way to prevent a repeat of Bush's mistake. But Bush's mistake was not in compromising and raising taxes, it was in making the "read my lips" statement in the first place. Government doesn't appear to work very well with uncompromising committments hamstringing the wrangling that always needs to go on. But instead of getting the lesson of "never make a categorical statement like that" the Republicans instead doubled down on the mistake.

Anyone think signing that pledge is a good idea? If so, why?

It sends a signal to certain constituents that you can be counted on to pursue their interests. The constituents that don't care about this issue are probably not going to punish you solely on the basis of that issue. The problem is when this pledge precludes you from doing things that are deemed important by those other constituents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

It sends a signal to certain constituents that you can be counted on to pursue their interests. The constituents that don't care about this issue are probably not going to punish you solely on the basis of that issue. The problem is when this pledge precludes you from doing things that are deemed important by those other constituents.

---

Do they sign during the campaign as a sort of litmus test for the Starve the Beast crowd?

Also - generally speaking, do you think it's a good idea to make a committment like that? Would you want any of your representatives to have signed that pledge, or any categorical pledge? I can see on very narrow policy like "I will never vote for/ against abortion/ the right to choose." But on something that can so broadly affect the nation like taxes.... sheesh. Really seems like a bad idea to me.

I think the main constituency is the "I don't want more taxes" one, which is much bigger than the "starve the beast" constituency.

I think it's just rhetoric. It's not like they're legally obligated to follow it. And most elected officials are in bed with at least some unsavory interest groups.

First off - the Norquist pledge specifically opposes both (a) increasing rates and (b) increasing revenue through removing deductions/exemptions without a dollar-for-dollar decrease in rates. If it were just (a) I could see the argument for it and it wouldn't bother me - plenty of room there to make smart policy. It's (b) that is troublesome. That being said, I'd argue it's mostly just politics. Republicans signed it to make a point, but they're hardly beholden to Norquist. Plenty of Republicans are now distancing themselves from the pledge now that they have to make a compromise policy with the White House.

The biggest danger from a strategy perspective is not that they'll be beaten by Democrats railing against their tax-and-spend inconstancy; Democrats have been asking for even higher taxes. The issue is defending their right flank in primaries. I'd prefer a more moderate Republican who has to occasionally break a pledge than a nut who will slavishly follow it.

It should have been only increase in rates or removal of deductions yadda yadda with matching cuts in spending. That wold have given more wriggle room.

igNorquist should be shoved into a closet and the door nailed shut for this crap. All it does is paint moderate R's in a corner and further polarize what should be a mature, rational discussi....HAHAHAHAHAHA...this is DC, what was I thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Without bothering to look up a copy of the actual pledge and only going on what I've heard in the media about it - ie congressmen are asked to publicly sign a pledge to never ever vote for an increase in taxes (rates only?) under any circumstances - I have to ask: As a member of the US legislature, is it wise to make a committment like that?

It seems like keeping your options open, just in case something unforseen comes up, or in case you have to, ugh, compromise in order for important policy needs to be addressed, is just flat out prudent, intelligent, and rational -- or in other words a "no brainer." I've heard this pledge discussed in context with Bush Sr saying "read my lips" and then having to eat his words later on, as though the pledge is a way to prevent a repeat of Bush's mistake. But Bush's mistake was not in compromising and raising taxes, it was in making the "read my lips" statement in the first place. Government doesn't appear to work very well with uncompromising committments hamstringing the wrangling that always needs to go on. But instead of getting the lesson of "never make a categorical statement like that" the Republicans instead doubled down on the mistake.

Anyone think signing that pledge is a good idea? If so, why?

---

You're asking two different questions, is the pledge a good bit of policy and should legislators be engaging in that behavior/does it make sense for them. For the former of course it's stupid. It's a ridiculous bit of zero-tolerance expectations and we all know how I feel about zero-tolerance frameworks. For the latter it depends on whether it is authentic or a "campaign promise." For most legislators it's a campaign promise. They might end up adhering to it but they won't be doing so because they take it seriously, they'll be doing so for unrelated reasons. Freshman legislators will be somewhat more likely to be earnest.

In Holland the pledge would be a violation of the mandate of a representative. The Constitution expressly forbids that kind of commitments. The reason why it was included in the Constitution was that the drafters wanted to reinforce the idea that a member of parliament is a representative of the nation, not of a part of the nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

In Holland the pledge would be a violation of the mandate of a representative. The Constitution expressly forbids that kind of commitments. The reason why it was included in the Constitution was that the drafters wanted to reinforce the idea that a member of parliament is a representative of the nation, not of a part of the nation.

---

Your legislators aren't allowed to make electoral promises???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

In Holland the pledge would be a violation of the mandate of a representative. The Constitution expressly forbids that kind of commitments. The reason why it was included in the Constitution was that the drafters wanted to reinforce the idea that a member of parliament is a representative of the nation, not of a part of the nation.

---

WTF? How can a Constitution ban free speech or manifesto promises?

Interesting that you of course only refer to the Right Wing pledge and not Left Wing pledges.

The Democrats and the fiscal cliff: Not much on the table

Quote:

---

This time around, pressure groups have mounted a ferocious campaign against any reductions in benefits. Before last month’s election the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, another pressure group, persuaded some 200,000 people to sign a pledge stating, “President Obama: If you cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits for me, my family, or families like mine, don’t ask for a penny of my money or an hour of my time in 2012.” Both it and Move On have promised to support primary challenges to Democrats who betray the cause. The AFL-CIO recently released a fact-sheet arguing that changing indexation for Social Security would cost the average retiree $850 a year.

It seems to be working. Some 29 Democratic senators have signed a letter rejecting any changes to Social Security. Fourteen have also ruled out changes to benefits under Medicare and Medicaid. Both Harry Reid, the leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democratic minority in the House of Representatives, have spoken against cuts in benefits.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Interesting that you of course only refer to the Right Wing pledge and not Left Wing pledges.

---

we've covered before about how what is considered the Left in the US lacks the cohesiveness to make their pledges or promises a threat.

Politicians make non-binding promises? Well I never...

Spending is what needs to be cut. Stay strong Republicans, Obama is weak he will cave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Your legislators aren't allowed to make electoral promises???

---

Technically, no. I am not going to say they don't make them, but a formalized promise in the form of a pledge drawn up and monitored by a third party would be beyond the pale.

It's a holdover from times when our legislative would be on hold for months because delegates would have to confer back home about proposals. Thus rendering it incapable of coming to any decisions at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

WTF? How can a Constitution ban free speech or manifesto promises?

---

You can not make binding promises and because it is expressly forbidden you can also not make promises that look like them. You can of course express you ideas, but the deal is that once you are elected no special interest is allowed to hold any sway over you. Not even the party that helped you to get elected has any authority to give you instructions.

We have had coalitions where members of parliamentary parties, while remaining part of the grouping made explicit they did not support specific elements of a coalition deal while not rejecting the coalition as such. We even have a term for them; loyalists.

Isn't every election pledge monitored by a third party? As in, the media, various think tanks, lobbying groups, etc.? And how is the Norquist pledge binding? I really don't get this, Hazir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

And how is the Norquist pledge binding?

---

In the Before Days, back in the Long Gone, the Rover had many people with a whole many Whoom-dozzle Bucks, and these people said they would use their Whoom-dozzle to launch a Ferocious Thirty Seconds of Hate against any who dared go against the Rover. But that was the Long-Gone, before the United Citizen and the devourment of Ham Rove, and today we have so many Thirty Seconds of Hate that no one remembers how to hate anymore :(

No manifesto in any nation is binding that I know of.

The UK law is quite clear on this. The last Labour government was taken to court over its refusal to hold a referendum over the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty - despite the manifesto commitment to hold one on the Constitution. The court threw the case out (as expected) on the grounds that manifesto promises are never binding and have no legal standing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Isn't every election pledge monitored by a third party? As in, the media, various think tanks, lobbying groups, etc.? And how is the Norquist pledge binding? I really don't get this, Hazir.

---

Informally of course, but to understand the prohibition against pledges you have to take into account that it was inserted in the Constitution to eliminate federalist tendencies in the country. Nowadays it's all not that relevant any longer, since the risk of The Netherlands returning to a federation is close to nil, but the prohibition still exists and that means that any agreement (a promise made in the form of a pledge) is explicitly voided by the Constitution.

Basically what the stipulation does is saying; we don't care what promises you made to whomever, those promises nil and void when you take your oath of office. It makes signing a pledge an empty gesture de jure. Where in other countries that typically is just a defacto situation.

The effect of 'broken promises' is deferred to the next ballot, just as in any other country.

Oh, that's very different from what I thought you meant Hazir. I thought you meant politicians weren't allowed to make pledges. Rather, it's that said pledges aren't worth the paper they're written on. We know that; this is true of all election pledges the world over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Oh, that's very different from what I thought you meant Hazir. I thought you meant politicians weren't allowed to make pledges. Rather, it's that said pledges aren't worth the paper they're written on. We know that; this is true of all election pledges the world over.

---

Yes, the only difference is that our Constitution makes it explicit, which makes it less appealing to engage in make-believe pledging.

Which makes the Republicans who follow Grover Norquist--and his "pledge"--even more disturbing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Which makes the Republicans who follow Grover Norquist--and his "pledge"--even more disturbing.

---

You're a crazy person! These legislators are Very Serious People; now watch them drive you over the Fiscal Escalator just to show how Serious they are. Dissent is insanity, and Sean is on the phone with the Almighty himself every freaking day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

You're a crazy person! These legislators are Very Serious People; now watch them drive you over the Fiscal Escalator just to show how Serious they are. Dissent is insanity, and Sean is on the phone with the Almighty himself every freaking day.

---

Yes, I'm crazy. ;) But not nearly as nuts as some of our legislators who won election by promising to uphold the US Constitution, under sworn oath....while operating under a non-binding pledge to Grover and his tax PAC to never raise taxes, or tax revenue.

Quote:

---

Oh, that's very different from what I thought you meant Hazir. I thought you meant politicians weren't allowed to make pledges. Rather, it's that said pledges aren't worth the paper they're written on. We know that; this is true of all election pledges the world over.

---

From what I understand this Norquist did hold, and perhaps still does hold some real power in being able to tarnish your reputation if you go back on your pledge. I know he's raised big bucks for himself with his little scheme

Has anyone mentioned the news of Demint leaving senate....to become president of The Heritage Foundation?