Renounce the Norquist Pledge

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

By Edward N. Squire Jr.

Special to The Pilot

To House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

You've taken the oath to "support and defend the Constitution ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

My questions pertain to how you reconcile conflicts between your oath of office and another pledge that you have made to lobbyist Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. By signing his pledge, you oppose any "increases in marginal income tax rate for individuals and businesses, as well as net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate."

I would ask: Shouldn't an initial promise affect future promises related to it? May one alter a promissory note without the permission of the note's holder? Absent any such permission from Mr. Norquist, wouldn't prior allegiance to his pledge take precedence over subsequent allegiance to your oath?

You may contend that such conflicts don't exist, but the Constitution suggests otherwise. Article I, Section 8, says, "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect taxes." In pledging never to raise taxes, haven't you and other pledge-signers ceded power to Mr. Norquist?

How would the signers of our Constitution feel about this? I understand that about 257 Republican members of Congress have taken this pledge, many before being elected. Why bind oneself to the pledge first and to the oath second?

Now, Mr. Norquist says his pledge is "self-enforcing." But how does he spend his organization's money, a significant portion of which appears to come "from wealthy individuals, foundations and corporate interests," according to CBS News?

While he hasn't said that he uses donations to unseat pledge-violators, he certainly calls attention to them as he monitors their electoral fates. I am thus left with this question: Do Republicans fear his power, or do they simply, in their heart of hearts, believe in this man and his mission?

Americans for Tax Reform believes that "All consumers should be taxed one time at one low and flat rate tax," and that all taxes on capital gains and dividends should be eliminated.

But aren't the current income tax rates flat now? According to The Economist, the bottom 20 percent of earners make 3 percent of the income and pay 2 percent of the taxes, the middle 20 percent make 11 percent and pay 10 percent, and the top 1 percent make 21 percent and pay 22 percent. If dividends and capital gains were to be exempted, would that not in effect turn a flat tax into a regressive tax?

I've heard Mr. Norquist assert that the pledge is not to him but to the "American people." What does he mean? Shouldn't "American people" include all of one's constituents, wealthy or not? What would the average taxpayer say about having to pay disproportionately more in taxes than do the wealthy? I know what I would say. Are the Norquist goals really fair to the majority?

I appeal to both of you to therefore organize your colleagues and renounce your pledges. Americans are watching your fiscal cliff negotiations. They have been seeing the all-too-predictable Republican intransigence over raising taxes for the wealthy. But of course, isn't this exactly what your pledge calls for?

As he continues to draw more critical attention, Mr. Norquist's views may increasingly be seen as unfair and counterproductive for a balanced approach to deficit reduction. Republican former Sen. Alan Simpson, co-chair of the Simpson-Bowles Commission on the Debt and Deficit, put it this way: "No taxes under any situation, even if your country goes to hell."

I think it's time for you to put a stop to Mr. Norquist's riding herd on the political lives of Republicans. I think his injurious influence has gone on long enough. I think it's time for you to distance yourself from his pledge, as have at least six congressional Republicans. Please exert your leadership in setting the example for the rest of your party members.

Why do so? First, it will enhance trust in you as serious negotiators who are acting in good faith. Second, it will serve the best interests of your constituents. And third, you won't be letting your country down.

For the sake of our entire nation, please act now!

Edward N. Squire Jr., of Seven Lakes, is a precinct chair in the Moore County Democratic Party.

More like this story

Courseaire 4 months, 4 weeks ago

Mr. Squire - Thank you for your very unbiased opinion. Now what should the Democrats do to enhance trust as serious negotiators who are acting in good faith. to serve the best interests of their constituents. and not letting their country down?

Middleman522 4 months, 4 weeks ago

What we must avoid is having too many people voting to raise taxes on others. Politicians have used this muscle for far too long and we have reached a point where 20% of this country pay much too large a portion of the taxes. Those in this country that pay NO taxes, use more government services than those paying the most taxes, and this will continue until a flat or sales tax is agreed upon. Chuck Shumer said the other day that the president ran on raising taxes on people making $250,000 and up, and he won. So a lot of not so rich Americans and others vote to raise taxes on those not so poor and it's a mandate. Really Chuckie?? Occupy Wall Street was no accident folks! Progressive game plan from the start to Hate the Rich!! It went from the gutters of NY right to the White House! Fair Share???

richardsloat 4 months, 4 weeks ago

The Norquist pledge is called fiscally conservative but it is fiscally irresponsible. Once again it has been used to stop negotiated legislation to address our fiscal crisis. Again it has hurt our Nation. It has done absolutely nothing to reduce our deficit, either under Bush or Obama. Our legislators, as the article says, owe their vote to the good of the Nation not to a mindless pledge.

My "Taking the Tea Party Republican Tax Pledge" is on YouTube link;

Taking The Tea Party Republican Tax Pledge by Richard Sloat

Yukonjohn 4 months, 4 weeks ago

I have absolutely no use for Grover Norquist. In my opinion, he is no good for our country. That said, I believe that national defense, and securing our personal rights given to us by our creator is the two main uses for our federal govt. Anything else is suspect and should be looked at very closely against the Constitution. If it is not given to the federal govt. by the states or the people, it does not belong.

DannySteen 4 months, 4 weeks ago

Article I, Section 8, says, "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect taxes."

You have mistaken the phrase "shall have the power to" for the word "must". "With great power comes great responsibility." The Congress has abused its power and refuse to take responsibility for its actions by cleaning up its mess and dismantling some of the vote buying programs it has created. More taxation will not help especially when it will be used for more and new spending. If all those who call for taxes fell so deeply about it would simply cut a check it would set a fine example for others to follow. Maybe some of those deep feeling hollywood types and folks such as Gates, Buffet, and Mikey Moore.

fugitiveguy 4 months, 4 weeks ago

Obama's Capital Gains Tax "Fairness" by DT258366

Just watch the first 60 seconds of this clip. Increasing taxes decreases revenue which will increase the debt. Obama knows that. Its all about fairness, has nothing to do with reducing the debt. How did this clown get re-elected. Did all you Obama drones know this?