COLUMN: Tax pledge makes a liar out of right-wingers

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

That is the oath that members of the United States Congress, both houses, take as they begin their duties. Sounds good, but a majority in this Congress put an asterisk on it. Maybe they had their fingers crossed as they recited the oath.

The asterisk concerns a pledge, developed in the ‘80s by a 20-something fellow named Grover Norquist, who grew up rich and privileged, received two degrees from the dreaded Harvard, and then went directly into partisan, highly ideological company in the Reagan White House where he got the “inspiration” for the oath. An Internet search indicates he has never worked in the “real America” that right-wingers so revere, only in strong ideological company.

Under the pledge, known as the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” signers promise not only to oppose income tax increases regardless of circumstances, but to oppose any elimination of deductions or tax loopholes unless they are accompanied by reduced tax rates. They sign an official-looking document topped with “Americans for Tax Reform,” and dramatically enhanced by a drawing of an eagle. It is generally intended to be signed by members of Congress. Underneath the pledger’s signature, two witnesses sign.

(It reads: “I, [name], pledge to the taxpayers of the [district or state] and to the American people that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or business; and TWO, oppose any reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

(In addition some politicians in the South Carolina legislature signed a similar Grover Norquist pledge which reads, “I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.”)

When they sign this pledge, politicians promise that under no circumstance, not war, not danger of the government defaulting on legally and properly owed debt, not danger that the infrastructure will crumble us into Third World status, will they tolerate an increase in government revenue. This means not only that they will not tolerate a tax increase, even for the wealthy, but that tax loopholes or undeserved business subsidies must remain unless a tax cut of similar size accompanies it.

In other words, when these politicians swore before God and their country that they take their obligations “freely” and “without any mental reservation,” they were not truthful. How can they claim to face their obligations in Congress freely when they have made a prior pledge they consider unbreakable not to do certain things? They can’t.

I know. Candidates across the political spectrum promise to take certain positions. However, adult candidates know circumstances might make it wise, even their duty, while approaching problems “without any mental reservation,” to modify their positions and often they do. Adult voters understand this.

All but six of about 240 U.S. House Republicans and most Republican senators made the pledge that nullifies part of their oaths of office. Their first allegiance is to somebody most voters don’t even realize exists. An overwhelming number of S.C. legislators consider themselves so bound by the pledge to “vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes” that it over-rides their oaths of office.

This pledge of which most voters are unaware has been taken by some Congressmen since the 1980s. It was a major reason that a “conservative” president and Congress not only failed to pay for a war that has gone sour but cut taxes as they entered it, turning an inherited surplus into a huge deficit.

They also added an expensive Medicare drug benefit without funding, further increasing the deficit. This higher cost they created, they now use as an excuse to scrap Medicare.

Also, you wouldn’t pick a music-hater to conduct an orchestra. Why pick a government-hater to run your country? When electing people who are against government, think of Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen. They don’t have real governments.

Thom Anderson is the former editor of the Morning News. Contact him THIDBIT@aol.com.