Who are Norquist pledge-signers loyal to - the American People or someone else?

haymarket said:

Exactly. These people who pledge their ass to Grover should be run out of Congress.

Click to expand...

Disagreed. If you even hesitate to promise to the taxpayers of this country that you won't be a good steward of the already excessive amount of capital they give Washington every year to squander, your ass needs to be run out on a rail.

If you don't support a balanced budget amendment, your ass needs to be run out on a rail.

jamesrage said:

How would those asking republicans to sign a no tax-increase pledge be able to fire those that don't? Firing a politcian is something that can only be done by the voters.

Click to expand...

It's not about firing anyone. It's about funding candidates who will agree to sign the pledge.

pbrauer said:

I disagree, some of those who sign the pledge are coerced into signing. I think there is an implied "sign it if you want to keep your job."

Click to expand...

welcome to the big leagues kid. That is always the case with politicians. you piss off your constituents you lose.

The biggest problem with politicians is they think they are entitled to their offices

pbrauer said:

It's not about firing anyone. It's about funding candidates who will agree to sign the pledge.

Click to expand...

Remember what they say

MONEY TALKS-BS walks.

JayDubya said:

Disagreed. If you even hesitate to promise to the taxpayers of this country that you won't be a good steward of the already excessive amount of capital they give Washington every year to squander, your ass needs to be run out on a rail.

If you don't support a balanced budget amendment, your ass needs to be run out on a rail.

Click to expand...

some people can only get or hold power by squandering the wealth of some to buy the votes of others

jamesrage said:

They were elected to represent the interest of their voters.No tax-increases or lower taxes is generally one of those things republicans run on. So how can signing a document that reinforces that idea of no tax-increase or lower taxes be selling out their constituents? It would be no different than Nanci Pelosi, or some other liberal democrat signing a pro-abortion pledge or a pro-gay marriage pledge when liberal democrats generally run on those issues.

Click to expand...

these reps work, or are supposed to, for their constituents, not grover norquist...they were not voted into office to represent grover norquist, when their constituents elected them, nowhere on the ballot did it state that if they were elected, they would serve the will of grover norquist...frankly, if i was one of these reps, and norquist approached me with this 'pledge', i would tell him to kiss my ass, i don't work for him.

randel said:

these reps work, or are supposed to, for their constituents, not grover norquist...they were not voted into office to represent grover norquist, when their constituents elected them, nowhere on the ballot did it state that if they were elected, they would serve the will of grover norquist...frankly, if i was one of these reps, and norquist approached me with this 'pledge', i would tell him to kiss my ass, i don't work for him.

Click to expand...

AGAIN... The pledge is TO the constituents. Only to be held accountable by the voting OF the constituents. Constituents that WANT their elected representatives to promise not to raise taxes, when taxes are already more than high enough to cover all necessary functions of government.

The only pledge a politician should make is to fulfill the wishes of their constituents.

JayDubya said:

AGAIN... The pledge is TO the constituents. Only to be held accountable by the voting OF the constituents. Constituents that WANT their elected representatives to promise not to raise taxes, when taxes are already more than high enough to cover all necessary functions of government.

Click to expand...

no, that pledge was to grover norquist and grover norquist only...as for taxes being high enough already to cover all necessary functions, i suppose that depends on what your definition of 'necessary' is.....

randel said:

no, that pledge was to grover norquist and grover norquist only...as for taxes being high enough already to cover all necessary functions, i suppose that depends on what your definition of 'necessary' is.....

Click to expand...

Not that I really want to entangle myself in this debate, but the pledge is not to Norquist. If you actually read the pledge, it says (for example, the Senate Pledge):

I _______, pledge to the taxpayers of the state of _______, and to the American people that I will...

Click to expand...

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Senate Pledge(2).pdf

Nick2253 said:

Not that I really want to entangle myself in this debate, but the pledge is not to Norquist. If you actually read the pledge, it says (for example, the Senate Pledge):



http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Senate Pledge(2).pdf

Click to expand...

disagree...it is to norquist, and to the group he leads...the only pledge i care about is




Oath of Office

"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."

randel said:

disagree...it is to norquist, and to the group he leads...the only pledge i care about is

Oath of Office

"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."

Click to expand...

But Norquist's pledge and the Constitutional Oath of Office are not contradictory. I'm not sure how "I pledge to the taxpayers..." can be construed as a pledge solely to Norquist.

Nick2253 said:

But Norquist's pledge and the Constitutional Oath of Office are not contradictory. I'm not sure how "I pledge to the taxpayers..." can be construed as a pledge solely to Norquist.

Click to expand...

it is a pledge to an ideology, you can't serve two masters....they pledged an oath to the constitution, and then pledged an oath to grover norquist, in the guise of the 'taxpayer'...when i vote to elect a rep or senator, i vote hoping that regardless of who wins, that that person will have the interests of all his constituents at heart, not just swear blind allegiance to a party, an ideology, or in this case, a special interest group. so yes, in my view, norquist's pledge and the constitution are at odds.

randel said:

it is a pledge to an ideology, you can't serve two masters....they pledged an oath to the constitution, and then pledged an oath to grover norquist, in the guise of the 'taxpayer'...when i vote to elect a rep or senator, i vote hoping that regardless of who wins, that that person will have the interests of all his constituents at heart, not just swear blind allegiance to a party, an ideology, or in this case, a special interest group. so yes, in my view, norquist's pledge and the constitution are at odds.

Click to expand...

But the Constitution does not ask elected officials to serve their constituents. That is simply the "market forces" of electoral politics. The only obligation the Constitution presses on its officers with regard to the actual work is vague: "I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." For an anti-tax increase pledge to conflict with that, you're contending that signing that pledge somehow undermines the "well and faithfully discharge" clause. Again, I don't see how there is a conflict.

Furthermore, you are assuming a lot when you assert that signers of the pledge are "blind[ly]" swearing allegiance. I've analyzed available data, and thoughtfully come to the conclusion that tax increases are bad, and that we shouldn't increase taxes. If I signed Norquist's pledge, I wouldn't be doing it blindly. And just because Norquist wrote it, does not mean it is a pledge to him. If I wrote an identical pledge, and got representatives and senators to sign it, would that become a pledge to me?

Nick2253 said:

But the Constitution does not ask elected officials to serve their constituents. That is simply the "market forces" of electoral politics. The only obligation the Constitution presses on its officers with regard to the actual work is vague: "I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter." For an anti-tax increase pledge to conflict with that, you're contending that signing that pledge somehow undermines the "well and faithfully discharge" clause. Again, I don't see how there is a conflict.

Furthermore, you are assuming a lot when you assert that signers of the pledge are "blind[ly]" swearing allegiance. I've analyzed available data, and thoughtfully come to the conclusion that tax increases are bad, and that we shouldn't increase taxes. If I signed Norquist's pledge, I wouldn't be doing it blindly. And just because Norquist wrote it, does not mean it is a pledge to him. If I wrote an identical pledge, and got representatives and senators to sign it, would that become a pledge to me?

Click to expand...

these reps/senators draw their power from the 'people', these 'people' being their constituents , and their first loyalty should be to those constituents, not to some right wing special interest group...they are elected to represent 'all', not some, not a few, ALL of their constituents, it makes no sense to handicap yourself by signing pledges to special interest groups, when it can hinder your ability to do the job that your constituents elected you to. back in the day, both sides were able to work together to some degree, and (wait for it, here it comes, a nasty word to republicans/conservatives/tea partiers) Compromise on issues important to the country...by signing this 'pledge', these reps are effectively saying they will do no such thing, and that they will continue to watch as the country continues to go into the toilet fiscally....if we are to ever get our financial house in order , there will have to be spending cuts, and revenue increases(yes, tax increases) and signing this 'pledge' to norquist and his group puts these reps in a bind of having to explain themselves if the light clicks on for them and they realize that they will have to compromise and give on some tax increases to balance the budget...

JayDubya said:

AGAIN... The pledge is TO the constituents.

Click to expand...

Nope. Grover Norquist doesn't live in my State and my Republican Senator sure didn't pledge it TO me, he pledged it against me.

Sounds like those who signed have pledged to only a fraction of our citizens.

Excuse me friends, but it seems you're in dire need of reorientation to reality.

This pledge pledges nothing to Grover Norquist. It only pledges to the taxpayer. Here is an example of the pledge, for the U.S. Senate

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Senate Pledge(2).pdf

"I, ______________ , pledge to the taxpayers of the state
of ______________ , and to the American people that I will:
ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax
rates for individuals and/or businesses; and
TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

If you repeat otherwise again, then I can only conclude that you cannot read or that you are posting in bad faith.



And you know what? Politicians are perfectly capable of making this sort of pledge verbally to their constituents. This is no more or less binding than those pledges - the only consequences are the possible ramification of being caught lying to your constituents. Recall George Bush's pledge for no new taxes and the support it garnered him; recall the outcry when he violated that pledge.


Now, if you happen to be some fool that wants to pay higher taxes, well first of all, psychiatry works, give it a shot. Second of all, here's a link to where you can just donate directly to the treasury, go nuts: Gifts to the United States Government: Questions and Answers: Financial Management Service ...

... and oh yeah, third of all, a politician can still make pledges to his constituents to assure them and gain their vote. If this pledge is counter to your wishes, well, your option is to not vote for them. If they win anyway, they're still obliged to hold to their pledge because that's why others chose to vote for them. They choose to represent your interests by not coercing more money from you (the bastards!).


Are we done with the nonsense, now?

JayDubya said:

Excuse me friends, but it seems you're in dire need of reorientation to reality.

This pledge pledges nothing to Grover Norquist. It only pledges to the taxpayer.

Click to expand...

So you're OK with a pledge that says, for example....

"I pledge to the taxpayers of the US that I will never vote for increased military funding."

or maybe...

"I pledge to the taxpayers of the US that I will never vote for increased funding to protect our Nation."

leftofabbie said:

The Pledge: Grover Norquist's hold on the GOP - CBS News

Pledging ourselves out of democracy | The Great Debate

If anyone were to suggest that members of the House and Senate should abandon their own judgment and instead follow a strict dogma laid down by an outside body, we would be appalled. And if it were proposed that the president should be little more than a rubber stamp to sign any and all legislation presented to him by Congress, we would throw up our hands in horror.​

So, is signing Norquist's "no tax" pledge disloyal to Americans?

Click to expand...

No, and the fact it's even being asked says a ton about the people asking.

1) The "tax pledge" is entirely non-binding with no congressional or legal reprucussions for voilating it. If a congressman changes his mind and feels like raising taxes would be better for America and is actually doing what his consistutents want by raising taxes then he'll suffer essentially no harm in violating the pledge

2) The "tax pledge" is in line with what the majority of those who have joined it were saying as they were campaigning. What that means is it is in line with their view points that helped get them elected and thus is the type of thing they were elected to do

3) Elected officials are put in place with the understanding that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, they will use their best judgement in terms of what will be helpful to America in terms of the law. If they feel this pledge does that, even if you do not, then they are doing what is expected of them.

4) The idiotic partisan source you posted makes giant assumptions (making an ass out of themselves and well, just themselves this time) by assuming that those taking the pledge are "abandoning" their judgement which in and of itself ignores that individuals are using their judgement to judge that such a pledge is a smart thing to do.

No, there's nothing unamerican about it. It's just the cries and bitches of some hyper partisan liberals, many of whom are the same ones who likely whined and cried that people on the right stupidly declared things their side did was "unamerican" a few years back.

leftofabbie said:

"I pledge to the taxpayers of the US that I will never vote for increased military funding."

or maybe...

"I pledge to the taxpayers of the US that I will never vote for increased funding to protect our Nation."

Click to expand...

Entirely okay with that from a "should it be allowable" stand point.

I wouldn't agree with it politically, and wouldn't vote for the person, but wouldn't say it's "unamerican" for them to take such a pledge. Especially if the person got elected into the congress in part because of a platform that stated they were against increasing military funding.

Taking a symbollic pledge that does nothing but basically reiterates what your princpiles and messages were from your campaign that got you elected is hardly some great evil that we must physically stop. While you may politically disagree with the pledge's content, that doesn't mean the notion of a pledge itself is bad.

leftofabbie said:

Sounds like those who signed have pledged to only a fraction of our citizens.

Click to expand...

Yeah, welcome to a representitive republic where we have a winner take all election system. Those who get elected are going to represent the ideals of those who elected them because those are the ideals that they ran on to GET elected. While they technically represent everyone in their district/state, the reasonable expectation and what is typically done by Democrats and Republicans alike is that the winner is going to govern and choose what law to support or oppose based on their view points which tend to be the view points that got htem elected. And if that individual is of a different party then you, it's likely view points that differ fro yours.

The fact they expressed their views in a written pledge is superficial to the reality that's played out in over 100 times now in this countries history.

Zyphlin said:

No, and the fact it's even being asked says a ton about the people asking.

1) The "tax pledge" is entirely non-binding with no congressional or legal reprucussions for voilating it. If a congressman changes his mind and feels like raising taxes would be better for America and is actually doing what his consistutents want by raising taxes then he'll suffer essentially no harm in violating the pledge

2) The "tax pledge" is in line with what the majority of those who have joined it were saying as they were campaigning. What that means is it is in line with their view points that helped get them elected and thus is the type of thing they were elected to do

3) Elected officials are put in place with the understanding that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, they will use their best judgement in terms of what will be helpful to America in terms of the law. If they feel this pledge does that, even if you do not, then they are doing what is expected of them.

4) The idiotic partisan source you posted makes giant assumptions (making an ass out of themselves and well, just themselves this time) by assuming that those taking the pledge are "abandoning" their judgement which in and of itself ignores that individuals are using their judgement to judge that such a pledge is a smart thing to do.

No, there's nothing unamerican about it. It's just the cries and bitches of some hyper partisan liberals, many of whom are the same ones who likely whined and cried that people on the right stupidly declared things their side did was "unamerican" a few years back.

Click to expand...

This is not the case all the time...and proof of that is OBamacare where Pelosi and reid bruatalized everyone to vote for it.
The same happens in the GOP...they are coerced...threatened and bought to get in line. If you want pork for your district to make you look good...you have to play ball.

Zyphlin said:

Entirely okay with that from a "should it be allowable" stand point.

I wouldn't agree with it politically, and wouldn't vote for the person, but wouldn't say it's "unamerican" for them to take such a pledge. Especially if the person got elected into the congress in part because of a platform that stated they were against increasing military funding.

Taking a symbollic pledge that does nothing but basically reiterates what your princpiles and messages were from your campaign that got you elected is hardly some great evil that we must physically stop. While you may politically disagree with the pledge's content, that doesn't mean the notion of a pledge itself is bad.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I appreciate your taking time to write a thoughtful response.

leftofabbie said:

So you're OK with a pledge that says, for example....

"I pledge to the taxpayers of the US that I will never vote for increased military funding."

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Given how high military funding is right now, that sounds wonderful. Sounds entirely consistent with the other pledge - fiscally conservative.

Zyphlin said:

Yeah, welcome to a representitive republic where we have a winner take all election system. Those who get elected are going to represent the ideals of those who elected them because those are the ideals that they ran on to GET elected. While they technically represent everyone in their district/state, the reasonable expectation and what is typically done by Democrats and Republicans alike is that the winner is going to govern and choose what law to support or oppose based on their view points which tend to be the view points that got htem elected. And if that individual is of a different party then you, it's likely view points that differ fro yours.

The fact they expressed their views in a written pledge is superficial to the reality that's played out in over 100 times now in this countries history.

Click to expand...

The problem today is that this pledge is making it impossible to get anything done in the congress....they are so afraid of breaking the pledge that nothing is getting done...