No-Tax Pledge Puts Lawmakers in Untenable Position
- Print print this page
- Discuss 8 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
Currently in the U.S. Congress, almost 95 percent of all Republicans - and a handful of Democrats - have taken a pledge, some even before being sworn into office.
What distinguishes this pledge is the fact that it is to a lobbying organization known as Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), an organization presided over by Grover Norquist, author of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge (TPPP).
It's no surprise that there is stiff and ongoing resistance to raising revenues. In our own state, Congressman Howard Coble and Sen. Richard Burr have both signed this pledge, which says they will "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business" and "oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."
Inherent in the TPPP is the tacit assumption that there is no such thing as a beneficial piece of fiscal legislation if it involves raising taxes directly or indirectly; and that all such actions are categorically harmful to the public interest.
Granted few people or businesses wish to pay more taxes, but those put in place by the George H.W. Bush and W.J. Clinton administrations may well have contributed to the balanced budget we enjoyed soon thereafter.
The situation today is, of course, much more problematic and acute because of: (1) the size of the national debt; (2) the looming Aug. 2 deadline for extension of the federal debt ceiling; and (3) the House and Senate whips [who whip up party votes], Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), having "walked out" of negotiations.
Nevertheless, Sen. Thomas "Tom" Coburn (R-Okla.) - himself a signer of the TPPP - has taken the lead in renouncing his TPPP that calls for him NOT to eliminate a subsidy of 45 cents per gallon paid to ethanol blenders, who are further protected by a tariff upon ethanol imports. Net cost to the taxpayer: $5 billion annually.
Ordinarily, Republicans would oppose fettering of free markets by price supports, but not now, with the intense opposition to raising revenue. Though the measure did not pass, Coburn and colleagues truly defied GOP leadership, and he especially should be commended for the courage and leadership it took to do so.
Meanwhile, as Coburn was defecting, other TPPP-signers appear to be marching in lockstep formation to the cadence of Norquist, whose most famous quote is, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
Coburn may not be alone in his dilemma as a TPPP-signer; others may feel the same conflict between their TPPP and part of their oaths of office, "I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office." How the debt-ceiling votes shape up - or not - will be some indication of who is beholden to Norquist's ATR and who may be more beholden to their oath of office.
Democrats have certainly made their share of errors - e.g., only five voted with Coburn to end the ethanol subsidy. However, I am simply unaware of any comparable pledge made by most Democrats to any lobbying organization. Indeed, what the ATR and the TPPP may actually represent is a form of political patronage disguised as taxpayer protection, with Norquist's ATR being the benefactor-patron and the signers of the TPPP being the commissioned beneficiaries.
The ATR's immediate goal appears to be a de facto effort to restrict Congress' constitutional taxing authority. However, that may merely be a means to the end of wiping out several Cabinet-level departments, rending the social safety net and /or eviscerating entitlement programs.
The TPPP seems extreme - without provisions for any exceptions or an escape clause. In any event, if pledge-signers continue their lockstep march toward blocking any revenue increases, existing tensions may rise as each side attempts to hold the other accountable for the impasse.
Is there a solution to this recurring debacle of "raw politics"? It's going to take courage and negotiations in good faith, a process that the TPPP seems to be complicating. Coburn and his colleagues should be respected for the example they have set, and the humility it may have taken to acknowledge a mistake in signing the TPPP. Others should do likewise.
Edward N. Squire Jr. lives in Seven Lakes.
More like this story
Advertisement














Comments
ProudYankee 1 year, 10 months ago
A well thought out and written piece, Mr.Squire. It it sure to whip the TeaPot groupies into a high state of indignation.
Squire11 1 year, 10 months ago
Hello Proud Yankee,
Thank you so much for your comment! I truly appreciate your encouragement. I must have been through more than 20 revisions of this piece, including help from my wife and neighbor, a grammarian (sp) and when I could not get it to down to 750 words, the Editor, Steve Bouser helped bring it into conformity with this word limit.
TreadLightly 1 year, 10 months ago
There are a TON of organizations and individuals in favor of Tax Reform, even some CONGRESSMEN!
You recognize the problem that the debt is too high. So we need to raise it some MORE? When are we going to quit RAISING the debt, if not now?
Since the EPA budget more than doubled since Obama, it might be a useful illustration of MANY places where the budget needs to be cut. EVERY department could be cut a percentage, if push came to shove.
I would feel terribly conflicted, possible fighting cogintive dissonance if I was certain that the debt was too large, AND AT THE SAME TIME, nothing can be cut. If you had this problem with your home budget, some very hard choices would be made almost automatically.
Squire11 1 year, 10 months ago
Dear TreadLightly,
Thank you for spending the time to write as much as you did related to this opinon.
In listening to the news, I understand that the compromise being offered by the administration was that 15 per cent of the proposed budget would be derived from tax cuts; whereas 85% was to be derived from spending cuts. That sounded more than reasonable to me; and yet the two whips were not satisfied and left the negotiations.
I am sorry that this budgetary process is as difficult as it is. At its core, I am sure that--as you pointed out in your comment--many are in favor of tax reform but are conflicted in this situation. Adeqate reform may require another bill once these negotiations are over.
Appreciatively,
Ed Squire
BigE 1 year, 10 months ago
The U.S. is basically an insurance company with a military. Arguing about all the other little stuff is a waste of energy and an excercise in futility. On a similar note, it contues to amaze me how many people blindly believe tax cuts are revenue neutral (or revenue generating). Get used to it my fellow Americans, partisan politics will prevent our elected officials (of all stripes, including the Tea Party zealots) from doing the right things. You can take it to the bank, the future will get worse before it gets better.
Squire11 1 year, 10 months ago
Hello BigE,
Thank you for your incisive comment. When I first wrote this column, it had a conlusion much like yours above. It predicted economic woes of unknown proportions if the debt ceiling was not rause in time to avoid a default.
Squire11 1 year, 10 months ago
Hello again BigE,
I had not finished the response above when I inadvertently posted it prematurely. What I was going to say is that I concluded I could do better than express pessimism at the outcome of these negotiations. Many people must be asking themselves and others just whatt's going to happen here. They're worried; Congress has the ability to diminish that worry by working to reach an agreement before the last minute. I'ts like the President said; his own daughters do not wait to the last minute to do their homework. Congress should do the same.
Sincerely,
Ed Squire
AmericanModerator 1 year, 10 months ago
A great piece by Mr Squire. The far right's obsession with not raising taxes sounds okay in a time when many want to blame govt for our own excesses and refusals to make tough decisons. On top of that we vote in members of Congress that are against most things and for little. Angry reaction will solve nothing. We have to pay our way. In these times greater investments in education, infrastructure, and new technologies will pay off in the long run. We benefited for 50 years from depression-era programs that were largely derided then and since. We need to get away from electing angry men who want to tear down, dismiss, and disenfranchise.America has been great when we've reached far, invested heavily, and elected younger men and women who are not afraid of new things.