Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Why You Should Always Read the Fine Print

The Republican members of Congress frantically struggling to get released from Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge should save themselves the effort. Not only is it a fruitless battle, it only plays into the narrative that Norquist is some kind of puppet-master orchestrating the supercommittee gridlock:

The sheet of paper they signed years ago, the lawmakers say, is no longer valid.

“My driver’s license expires. The milk in my refrigerator expires. My gym membership expires, and I find the website to be a little deceptive,” LaTourette said.

Norquist immediately dismissed the claim, which was echoed by several other House Republicans.

“Does that even pass the laugh test?” Norquist told The Hill. “A promise not to do something doesn’t have a time limit.”

It’s hard to feel sorry for these lawmakers. As far back as 1997, Americans for Tax Reform made it clear that the anti-tax pledge doesn’t expire:

Do I have to take the pledge every time I run for office?

No. A candidate only needs to take the pledge once. Candidates are always welcome to take the pledge each election cycle and show their continued support of taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the pledge hasn’t had the best track record over the years, at least in terms of deficit spending. There’s an argument to be made that the hard line on taxes has shielded Americans from feeling the strain of the out-of-control federal spending, giving them less personal incentive to oppose new programs. Conor Friedersdorf made this point well in a takedown of the pledge at The Atlantic over the summer:

What Norquist doesn’t understand or won’t admit is that deficit spending is worse than a tax increase, because you’ve got to pay for it eventually anyway, with interest. Meanwhile, you’ve created in the public mind the illusion that the level of government services they’re consuming is cheaper and less burdensome than is in fact the case. If you hold the line on taxes but not the deficit, you’re making big government more palatable.

So lawmakers may be stuck, but that doesn’t mean they have to honor the agreement. They can always break it and risk the consequences. And even if those who do object to tax increases have plenty of reasons to do so beyond Norquist’s pledge. But simply complaining after the fact that they didn’t know it was permanent is useless.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.