海角大神

Does signing Grover Norquist鈥檚 antitax pledge mean a lawmaker is committed for life?

That would be a surprise to Rep. Steve LaTourette (R) of Ohio, who signed the pledge on May 5, 1994, when the national debt was nearing $4.7 trillion. Now, it鈥檚 closing in on $15 trillion.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think I ever contemplated in 1994 that I was then bound to indentured servitude for the rest of my career,鈥� says the nine-term lawmaker, a longtime ally of Speaker John Boehner of Ohio.

鈥淚 thought we could balance the budget in the 1990s, and we did it. But times have changed. We鈥檙e on track to owe $20 trillion, and to be beholden to some pledge when the future of the country is at stake is kind of silly,鈥� he adds.

The antitax pledge has been considered virtually inviolate by Republicans on Capitol Hill for more than two decades, but Representative LaTourette is not alone among Republicans in signaling a changed attitude toward the pledge鈥檚 strictures at a time of fiscal crisis.

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), which started soliciting commitments to the pledge in 1986, lists 236 House Republicans and 40 Republican Senators in the 112th Congress as committed to the pledge. That鈥檚 all but six Republican House members and all but seven GOP senators.

But the ATR website doesn鈥檛 note when the members signed on or whether they renewed their pledge in the 112th Congress.

鈥淢y driver鈥檚 license expires, the milk in my refrigerator expires, the only thing that doesn鈥檛 expire is Grover Norquist鈥檚 pledge 鈥� and that鈥檚 nuts,鈥� says Representative LaTourette.

The pledge is on the minds of many GOP lawmakers these days 鈥� and a Democrat or two 鈥� as Congress鈥檚 鈥渟uper committee鈥� struggles to find a plan to cut at least $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit over the next 10 years by a Nov. 23 deadline.

The GOP ban on tax hikes is a key sticking point in the deficit reduction panel鈥檚 deliberations. The pledge commits signers (1) to oppose any increase in tax rates as well as (2) any cuts to tax breaks, unless 鈥渕atched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.鈥�

According to ATR president Grover Norquist, that means that even cutting a controversial $6 billion tax break for ethanol, as the Senate attempted and failed to achieve last summer, can鈥檛 be used for deficit reduction, unless Congress zeroes out the savings by cutting 聽$6 billion in taxes elsewhere.

Freshman Rep. Reid Ribble (R) of Wisconsin says that he thought you could revisit the pledge every year 鈥渂ecause they鈥檒l be going around asking people where they鈥檙e at.鈥� He was surprised that that is not the case.

Still, 鈥測ou get out of something based on how you vote,鈥� he says. 鈥淕oing forward, I鈥檓 not going to sign anyone鈥檚 pledges at all.鈥� He says he鈥檚 hearing from other GOP colleagues who no longer consider themselves bound by all aspects of the ATR pledge. 鈥淚f they get beat up by Grover Norquist, that鈥檚 OK,鈥� he says.

鈥淚鈥檓 not an ethanol subsidies guy,鈥� he adds. 鈥淪ome may view that as a violation of the pledge. I don鈥檛. I want to get to a place where government is not choosing winners or losers based on tax rates or tax breaks.鈥�

Representative Ribble鈥檚 reference to 鈥渨inners and losers鈥� is emerging as an important theme in the GOP response to the strictures of a pledge that most have signed. Asked whether he could vote to end tax breaks without offsets, Rep. Trent Franks (R) of Arizona said: 鈥淚鈥檓 one that believes in the free market with government鈥檚 role essentially as umpire, not as choosing winners and losers.鈥�

鈥淲e need to do everything we can as Republicans to follow our own clarion call not to pick winners or losers either in the tax code or in government expenditures,鈥� he added.

Speaker Boehner fields questions about the Norquist pledge at nearly every public appearance. At a press briefing on Nov. 3, he said, to laughter: 鈥淚t鈥檚 not often I鈥檓 asked about some random person and what I think.鈥�

鈥淥ur focus is on creating jobs, not talking about somebody鈥檚 personality,鈥� he added. 鈥淥ur conference is opposed to tax hikes because we believe that tax hikes will hurt our economy and put Americans out of work.鈥�

But what is a tax hike? Is it raising rates on the wealthiest Americans? Apparently, yes. Is it also a tax hike to end a tax break without at the same time passing new tax cuts, as mandated by the pledge? Right now, that鈥檚 not so clear.

鈥淩epublicans, including Speaker Boehner, have been clear that they are not opposed to increased revenue as a result of tax reforms that lead to economic growth,鈥� said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel, in an email on Nov. 7.

In that view, it could be possible to use reforms in the tax code, such as ending tax breaks, to in part lower tax rates and also increase net government revenue 鈥� a technical violation of the pledge, but possible bipartisan breakthrough on a path to cutting the deficit.

Republicans aren鈥檛 the only ones grappling with the strictures of the pledge. Rep. Rob Andrews of New Jersey, one of only two Democrats to have signed the taxpayer protection pledge, says he has asked ATR to remove his name from the list of supporters.

鈥淚 signed the pledge in 1992, and I understood it to mean that for the next term, if I were reelected, I would not vote to raise taxes,鈥� he says. 鈥淚 honored that pledge.鈥�

鈥淏ut I never renewed it,鈥� he adds. 鈥淚 never considered it to be like my marriage vows, I鈥檓 married to Camille Andrews not Grover Norquist. I聽 promised her to be faithful until death do us part, and I mean it. I did not promise him to oppose tax increases until death do us part.鈥�

Meanwhile, Norquist's position has not changed. The pledge, he says, is not to ATR or to him, personally. It鈥檚 from lawmakers to their constituents. Responding to sharp criticism from Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Norquist tweeted on Nov. 1. 鈥淗ey Harry Reid: if I became a Buddhist monk and moved to Himalayas no pledge taker would help you raise taxes. They promised their voters.鈥�

Norquist dismisses the notion that the antitax pledge is temporary.

鈥淭he pledge is as good as long as you are in the same office,鈥� says Norquist. 鈥淭here鈥檚 no time limit on that.聽 Imagine saying you are pro-life or pro-gun for the next two years. That doesn鈥檛 pass the laugh test.鈥�