McCain, Thompson, all Dems Fail to Make No-Tax PledgeOne interesting note, however, is that Rudy has not signed their pledge, but they give him a pass. Why?
Giuliani did not sign the Pledge per se, but has put in writing his commitment to oppose and veto all tax increases (as did George W. Bush) and ATR considers this to achieve the spirit and letter of the Pledge.So, obviously Fred (I will ignore McCain here) will raise your taxes, right? I have dealt with this before but I will point out a couple of things again.
First, I do not believe that Fred has engaged in ANY pledge signing.
Second, I do not believe that signing a pledge means anything. Even Reagan, who signed the pledge, at one point passed income tax increases as part of a restructuring plan. We don't hold it against him because as a whole he lowered taxes across the board. That is what we need--not someone who signs a pledge.
Third, Fred is probably the most outspoken on tax policy in the race for the Presidency. He has written a complete white paper on Tax Relief and Economic Growth. This is far more comprehensive than just not raising income taxes or getting rid of deductions (which is all that the Americans for Tax Reform pledge calls for). This includes making the Bush tax cuts permanent; ending the death tax; lowering corporate tax rates; and making depreciation schedules faster and easier for small businesses.
Fourth, true tax reform would require breaking the pledge!!!! For instance, if you want to create a flat tax, which Fred does, that would include getting rid of many deductions in the tax system. This is against the Americans for Tax Reform pledge. So their pledge is at odds with the name of the organization!
Give us a break. Fred is probably the strongest anti-tax candidate in the race. Whether or not he signs a stupid "pledge" is irrelevant.
5 comments:
Sir, I do believe you are a bit mistaken in your claims.
First, as regards Fred Thompson, in the YouTube debate he explicitly pledged to veto a bill on amnesty - a mere 15 minutes before refusing to pledge to the American people that he would oppose any and all tax increases. So it’s simply not true to say that he doesn’t make pledges.
And if he’ll make pledges on some things, then why won’t he make one on taxes?
Second, signing the Pledge means everything. It's a promise, in writing, to the American people that they will not raise taxes. Politicians are notoriously slippery and will evade spoken promises. The Pledge is a written one that cannot be denied and its requirements are simple and evidence of breaking it incontrovertible.
Furthermore, your example is flawed. I'm not an expert on Reagan's tax increase, but I know that he regretted it immensely and considered it the greatest mistake of his presidency. And for a better example of why the Pledge matters consider the fact that George H.W. Bush lost his re-election precisely because he broke the Pledge.
Third, that's fantastic that Thompson has a good tax policy. But that doesn't explain why he refuses to promise not to raise taxes.
Fourth, you are grossly mistaken about the nature of the Pledge. There is nothing about the Pledge that prohibits tax reforms such as a flat tax. The line referring to deductions actually states:
“Oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”
This doesn’t prohibit a flat tax, it just means it has to be done in such a way as to be neutral, not increasing net costs to the taxpayer.
I can respect Fred Thompson's stance on taxes, but it really troubles me that he won't make the simple promise to not raise taxes. He can propose a lot of good ideas, but taxes are like medicine: first do no harm.
To begin with, I believe that you are actually an employee of The Americans for Tax Reform.
What I primarily have issue with is your line: "Second, signing the Pledge means everything." What gives the Americans for Tax Reform the RIGHT to say that their "pledge" is EVERYTHING. It is not.
You fail to look at the records of the candidates. You give Rudy a pass, even though his history includes a lot of tax increases. You give Huckabee and Romney a pass because they signed a piece of paper, yet have a history of raising taxes or fees. You even give McCain a bit of a pass, even though he opposed tax cuts.
So signing a piece of paper matters, but what the candidates actually DID does not? That is lunacy!
Also, your pledge is misdirected. It only discusses income tax rates and deductions. It doesn't deal with corporate taxes. It doesn't deal with "fees". It doesn't deal with payroll taxes.
Let's agree that the tax system is more complex to deal with than a two line piece of paper--okay?
My point regarding Reagan is that 1) he signed the pledge but he 2) didn't live up to it. His regretting it is meaningless. Bush 41 signed it and didn't live up to it. I am sure that he later regretted it. SIGNING THE PLEDGE IS NO PROMISE OF FUTURE BEHAVIOR--A CANDIDATE'S HISTORY IS THE BEST INDICATOR OF THEIR FUTURE BEHAVIOR.
Sir,
I am not an employee of Americans for Tax Reform, nor have I ever claimed to be.
However I do follow what their work and what they say about the candidates. They do not ignore a candidates record. They have made examinations of the historical actions of a candidate's record on taxes and make comment. For example they have pointed out that Huckabee's record on taxes is not the stellar one he claims it is.
The fact that they have signed the Pledge doesn't mean it is assumed that they have completely changed. But it is a sign of progress as it means the candidate is willing to put it in writing that they will oppose tax increases. It is the job of the voter to balance what a candidate has promised and what they have done.
Further, as far as I know, ATR does not ignore other taxes. Their Cost of Government Day studies factor in all of these as well as the costs of government regulations and they routinely comment on all federal taxes.
I agree with you, it is immensely more complex than income tax. But the simplicity is what makes the Pledge effective. The more complex the Pledge is, the easier it is to wriggle out of as it becomes harder to follow. As it currently stands it is simple and easy for any voter to understand.
And once again, your misunderstanding the nature of the Pledge. Of course it isn't a guarantee of future behaviour. But it is a strong weapon that can be held against an elected official. ATR has been ruthless in attacking officials for breaking the Pledge and the threat of that has often been enough to dissuade officials from breaking the promise.
That's why it was huge that Bush '41 broke it, he lost the election because of it, and that showed almost all the signers that the Pledge is a serious matter. That's why I think that the Pledge is everything.
Bush 41 was not beat because he broke the AFTR pledge. He was beat (among other reasons) that he said very publicly "Read my lips. No - New - Taxes."
Same thing? Yes. But they didn't show his signed pledge all over the place. They showed the video of him making that statement.
Post a Comment