If a congressperson took a "No New Weapons System" pledge to a third party... would that interfere with their constitutional responsibility to defend the nation? I think we'd all agree it would.
So what if a congressperson took a "No New Taxes AND No
New Borrowing" pledge... Would that not interfere with those
constitutional duties that REQUIRE spending? Obviously. So what about a "No New taxes" Pledge?
Where is the red line where a third party pledge interferes
with a congressperson's oath of office? Here's that that official Oath:
"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."
Even before the Norquist Pledge the GOP was pushing for
irresponsible tax cuts hoping crushing deficits and debt would "starve the
beast": put pressure on New Deal and Great Society programs... maybe even
abolish them. To portray this fiscal irresponsibility as its opposite the GOP
cultivated public support for these policies convincing many that tax cuts
funded with borrowed money benefited us all. Heck, these tax cuts might even pay for
themselves. It was the ultimate Free Lunch! Limbaugh once said if a tax cut...
"...brings in, say, two dollars for every dollar of tax relief, we'll have more money in the treasury – and thus safeguard programs like Social Security! The idea behind tax cuts is to get the economy to grow. The economy is not static. The pie is not one size forever, with no new slices. The object is to grow so we have more people working and paying taxes. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan proved this with their tax cuts. The Democratic Congress spent every new dollar and more that Reagan brought in, but the fact is that the revenue coming into the treasury nearly doubled over his two terms."
Actually Reagan revenues in constant dollars only rose about 13.5% and that includes his tax HIKES. Individual income tax revenues only rose 8%. There simply was NO revenue boom the Democrats spent. No sensible person should expect the truth from Limbaugh.
"...brings in, say, two dollars for every dollar of tax relief, we'll have more money in the treasury – and thus safeguard programs like Social Security! The idea behind tax cuts is to get the economy to grow. The economy is not static. The pie is not one size forever, with no new slices. The object is to grow so we have more people working and paying taxes. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan proved this with their tax cuts. The Democratic Congress spent every new dollar and more that Reagan brought in, but the fact is that the revenue coming into the treasury nearly doubled over his two terms."
Actually Reagan revenues in constant dollars only rose about 13.5% and that includes his tax HIKES. Individual income tax revenues only rose 8%. There simply was NO revenue boom the Democrats spent. No sensible person should expect the truth from Limbaugh.
To add to onslaught of propaganda coming from what I've
dubbed the Orwellian Right, the No New Taxes Pledge added some unintended
consequences. Stuck between the voters and Pledge enforcer Grover Norquist himself, GOP
politicians found ways to provide goodies voters wanted but to do so in a way
that didn't violate Norquist's Pledge. GOPers simply substituted borrowing
for taxation dumping the cost onto future taxpayers. Running up massive
debt seems to be acceptable to Norquist who, after all, had been quite open of
his plan: to "Starve The Beast" until government is back where it was
before the New Deal if not the late 19th Century.
This political dilemma forced the Orwellian Right to become
more extreme in its propaganda. They were forced to take all fiscal common sense off the
table. They convinced many voters in 2000 that even with nearly 6 trillion
in debt, if there was a small budget surplus... it was "their" money and they deserved a refund.
But if there had only been a 90 billion surplus to date, why would the GOP jump to $1.4 trillion tax cut? More recently the Orwellian Right has convinced GOP voters that there's no revenue problem despite the fact that in constant dollars individual income tax revenues have yet to rise even back to Clinton's
2000 levels. They've convinced GOP voters that they're "overtaxed" when
our generation has pissed away some 15 TRILLION on ourselves the past 30 years
and REFUSED to pay for the bill.
The Orwellian Right and Norquist have given birth to what I call the Free
Lunch Right... a generation of spoiled rotten GOPers who bitch and moan about
Democratic social spending while utterly oblivious about THEIR freebies...
including those tax cuts funded with BORROWED money stolen from our kids and grandkids.
If the Free Lunch Right thinks they are overtaxed even after refusing to pay the that 15
Trillion tax bill... imagine
the shock there will be if we try to pay down debt with spending cuts alone!
To get to a surplus is, by definition, paying MORE in taxes than what we
receive in government spending. We were there in 2000 and we know how irresponsibly the GOP dealt with the surplus then. We're to trust them should we ever get to a surplus again?
If we ever get to a surplus how will the GOP then educate the voters they spent 30 years encouraging to be fiscally irresponsible? The debt numbers are staggering. Even if NO interest accruing, it would take 32 years to pay down the debt with a true $500 billion on-budget surplus. Problem is the Clinton on-budget Surplus only totaled about 90 billion over two years before the GOP sabotaged it. The idea that we can ever pay down the debt without huge spending cuts AND a large tax increase… and run that sort of surplus, is laughable.
If we ever get to a surplus how will the GOP then educate the voters they spent 30 years encouraging to be fiscally irresponsible? The debt numbers are staggering. Even if NO interest accruing, it would take 32 years to pay down the debt with a true $500 billion on-budget surplus. Problem is the Clinton on-budget Surplus only totaled about 90 billion over two years before the GOP sabotaged it. The idea that we can ever pay down the debt without huge spending cuts AND a large tax increase… and run that sort of surplus, is laughable.
The Democrats have had thirty years to come up with an
effective political response to Starve The Beast… to the Orwellian Right lies
about how tax cuts create revenue booms but tax hikes only hurt the economy.
The political cowardice of the Democrats has made them complicit in the GOP's war
against fiscal sanity.
It goes after what enables the Right's Starve The Beast strategy.
It goes after the dysfunctional and dangerous ideological cohesion the Norquist Pledge brings to the GOP.
It exposes the grotesque fiscal irrationality the Pledge has brought to the GOP… they refuse to even recognize the simple reality that in constant dollars revenues have plummeted since Clinton's last year... and even with 16 trillion in debt they are proposing more irresponsible tax cuts.
It goes after Norquist, the chief enforcer of the Pledge and someone who's been immune to attack for too long.
It gives GOPers who want out of the pledge a good excuse to finally break ranks with Norquist.
It can be used against any GOPer who was foolish enough to sign the pledge. Let voters decide whether those who took the Pledge are undermining the Constitution itself and the fiscal health of government's ability to deal with emergencies.
ulTRAX
revised: 10-14-12