I’m not sure why it has become my job to defend Grover Norquist from attacks, but I’ve done it before and now it’s time to do it again.
But I’m not really defending Grover. Instead, I’m defending the wisdom and value of Grover’s no-tax-hike pledge.
Especially when it is being attacked by a columnist who worked for the failed Bush White House and was closely associated with the oxymoronic notion of “compassionate conservatism” or “big-government conservatism.”
I also can’t resist criticizing people who are so sloppy (or disingenuous) that they can’t even get their facts straight.
Let’s look, for example, at what Michael Gerson writes in today’s Washington Post. To attack Grover’s no-tax pledge, he cites the speech of a long-serving GOP Congressman.
Wolf’s economic case that merits more attention. He is one of the House’s old Republican bulls, having taken office the same year that Ronald Reagan became president.
In other words, Gerson think a professional politician who has been in office for more than three decades is automatically worthy of respect, while a taxpayer activist is wrong.
Gerson also conveniently forgets to mention that Rep. Wolf is a member of the Appropriations Committee. That’s a rather important piece of information to omit, since it is the “old bull” appropriators that are the biggest proponents of the corrupt system of earmarks and big government.
Anyhow, here’s more of Gerson’s column.
In Wolf’s view, one of the main obstacles to fiscal seriousness is Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, signed by nearly all Republican members of the House (though not by Wolf himself). The document forbids support not only for tax increases but also for the closing of tax loopholes that aren’t offset by spending cuts. …“According to Mr. Norquist’s pledge, anyone who opposes the myriad of tax subsidies that allowed General Electric to avoid . . . taxes last year would violate ‘the pledge.’ ”
This is a remarkable passage. It includes a glaring factual error by Gerson and it quotes Rep. Wolf uttering a blatant falsehood.
Contrary to what Gerson wrote, the anti-tax pledge does not prohibit the closing of loopholes. It prohibits the closing of loopholes if the money isn’t used to lower tax rates. In other words, the pledge reflects the spirit of the 1986 Tax Reform Act – fewer loopholes and lower tax rates.
Congressman Wolf also demonstrates his lack of accuracy (we’ll set aside the issue of whether his falsehood is deliberate) by saying that the pledge forbids going after loopholes for politically connected companies such as General Electric.
Once again, this is wrong. It is perfectly okay to get rid of GE’s loopholes so long as the money is used to lower tax rates and not to give more money to the big spenders on the Appropriations Committee.
Gerson then goes on to make other silly statements.
Republicans — despite taking the risk of voting for the budget put forth by Rep. Paul Ryan — don’t seem capable of making a coherent case for structural changes in Medicare that would stabilize the program and reduce future risks to seniors.
This is a noteworthy passage because GOPers (for the first time in a long time) actually did try to do something meaningful. The Ryan budget contained sweeping structural reforms to both Medicare and Medicaid.
One wonders whether Gerson has any idea of what’s actually happening in Washington.
But let’s close by acknowledging that Gerson wrote something that is 100 percent accurate. He points out that the no-tax pledge is designed to tie the hands of entrenched incumbent big spenders.
Wolf’s frustrated attack on Norquist’s pledge is really a defense of the political profession. Pledges are designed to constrain politicians, who are viewed by activists as eager for corrupt compromise.
I couldn’t have put it any better. But unlike Gerson, I recognize that the political elite is the cause of America’s problems, not the solution.
[…] the pledge does not guarantee that a candidate is good (they can vote for debt-financed spending without violating the […]
[…] the pledge does not guarantee that a candidate is good (they can vote for debt-financed spending without violating the […]
[…] The above-cited research should be a reminder of why a no-tax-hike pledge is important. Voters seem to be on the right side on the big-picture question of “Should taxes be […]
[…] above-cited research should be a reminder of why a no-tax-hike pledge is important. Voters seem to be on the right side on the big-picture question of “Should […]
[…] The above-cited research should be a reminder of why a no-tax-hike pledge is important. Voters seem to be on the right side on the big-picture question of “Should taxes be […]
[…] The above-cited research should be a reminder of why a no-tax-hike pledge is important. Voters seem to be on the right side on the big-picture question of “Should […]
[…] Back in 2015, when Trump was a long-shot candidate for the Republican nomination, I criticized him for not signing the no-tax-hike pledge. […]
[…] stated, if they are open to tax hikes, then I can state – with 99 percent confidence – that they have no desire to control the size, cost, and power of the federal […]
[…] is why I’m a big fan of the no-tax-hike pledge. The folks in Washington salivate at the prospect of getting more of our money, but they are less […]
[…] is why I’m a big fan of the no-tax-hike pledge. The folks in Washington salivate at the prospect of getting more of our money, but they are less […]
[…] if they are open to tax hikes, then I can state – with 99 percent confidence – that they have no desire to control the size, cost, and power of the federal […]
[…] stated, it underscores a point I’ve been making for a long time about why opposing all tax hikes – particularly levies on the middle class – is critical if we want to have any chance […]
[…] Honoring the no-tax-hike pledge isn’t a sufficient condition to rein in big government, but it sure is a necessary condition. […]
[…] not a single-issue voter, though, since politicians have to pass a number of tests (unwavering opposition to tax hikes, support for entitlement reform, etc) before receiving the Dan Mitchell Seal of Approval. I guess […]
[…] GOPers see the budget from the same perspective, but fortunately they are constrained by their no-tax-hike pledges, so they Republicans at least are pretending to be on the right side of this […]
[…] GOPers see the budget from the same perspective, but fortunately they are constrained by their no-tax-hike pledges, so they Republicans at least are pretending to be on the right side of this […]
[…] not a single-issue voter, though, since politicians have to pass a number of tests (unwavering opposition to tax hikes, support for entitlement reform, etc) before receiving the Dan Mitchell Seal of Approval. I guess […]
[…] reforms. He also went after Grover Norquist because of the no-tax pledge, which I think is a valuable tool to keep Republicans from selling out for bigger government. All that being said, Senator Simpson is a promoter of smaller government and he wants lower tax […]
[…] not a single-issue voter, though, since politicians have to pass a number of tests (unwavering opposition to tax hikes, support for entitlement reform, etc) before receiving the Dan Mitchell Seal of Approval. I guess […]
[…] not a single-issue voter, though, since politicians have to pass a number of tests (unwavering opposition to tax hikes, support for entitlement reform, etc) before receiving the Dan Mitchell Seal of Approval. I guess […]
[…] reforms. He also went after Grover Norquist because of the no-tax pledge, which I think is a valuable tool to keep Republicans from selling out for bigger government. All that being said, Senator Simpson is a promoter of smaller government and he wants lower tax […]
[…] reforms. He also went after Grover Norquist because of the no-tax pledge, which I think is a valuable tool to keep Republicans from selling out for bigger government. All that being said, Senator Simpson is a promoter of smaller government and he wants lower tax […]
[…] think this is nonsense. Politicians are motivated by a desire to finance bigger government. And that’s what’s happening in Japan. Later in the article, we see that the real […]
[…] I’ve previously explained, that pledge is a necessary tool in our battle to restrain the burden of government […]
[…] are the stories that I keep in mind every time I hear some politician whining that “spending has been cut to the bone” and higher taxes are […]
[…] are the stories that I keep in mind every time I hear some politician whining that “spending has been cut to the bone” and higher taxes are […]
[…] They can capitulate on taxes, causing themselves political damage, undermining the economy, and enabling bigger government. […]
[…] They can capitulate on taxes, causing themselves political damage, undermining the economy, and enabling bigger government. […]