Kevin's Comments - The Pledge, to sign or not to sign

That is the question… whether it is nobler in the mind to blindly follow the PAC or castoff the shackles of tyranny and ideology and think for oneself. “The insolence of officious authority; and the advantage that the worst people take of the best” bound into Pledges that neither improve the heart nor tame the implacable souls of the ‘evil doers’.

To what end does the officious and more often seditious Pledge embark… and why do Republicans and their Evangelical Christian supporters love Pledges? The answers come from understanding what the Pledges reveal about the authors and the pledgers. Looking briefly at the “Pledge to America” and in more depth the subsequent “The Family Leader’s Marriage Vow Pledge”, the “National Organization for Marriage Pledge”, and the Norquist "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" we can make certain assertions about the need for control and contempt for personal freedoms.

In the “Pledge for America”, the House Republicans felt a need to pledge themselves to “reconnecting” and “keeping faith” with the “priorities of our people” and the need for “urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people.” The 21 page document calls for deregulation, repealing and replacing the Affordable HC Act, stopping ‘job-killing’ tax cuts, and social program deconstruction.

"The document speaks constantly and eloquently of the dangers of debt -- but offers a raft of proposals that would sharply increase it," Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein writes. "It says, in one paragraph, that the Republican Party will commit itself to 'greater liberty' and then, in the next, that it will protect 'traditional marriage'... It is a document with a clear theory of what has gone wrong -- debt, policy uncertainty, and too much government -- and a solid promise to make most of it worse."

“The Family Leader’s Marriage Vow Pledge” fell flat fairly quickly, but not before Michele Bachmann became the first to unwittingly sign the pledge without reading the preamble (later removed) suggesting “African-American children born into slavery had a better family life than kids born today.”

Candidates were asked to pledge to “personal fidelity” to their spouse, removing female soldiers from combat roles, recognizing “robust childbearing and reproduction’s” contribution to America’s health and security (a pre-cursor to defunding Planned Parenthood nationwide). It promoted the protection of traditional marriage by falsely stating “children raised by a mother and a father experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble and less extramarital pregnancy.”

"National Organization for Marriage Pledge” requires that candidates "support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification," nominate judges and Supreme Court justices who oppose marriage equality, defend DOMA "vigorously in court," and force new legislation on the District of Columbia residents hoping the city's own marriage equality laws get overturned.

A new exploitation of the rights of American citizens is the demand to create a special commission on "religious liberty" to investigate claims of anti-gay marriage supporters who have been "harassed or threatened," especially those supporters who donate to anti-gay marriage organizations. The legislative intent is to allow “secretive donations” giving special protections to certain people based on their political beliefs without fear of recrimination.

In 1986, Grover Norquist and his organization, Americans for Tax Reform, created the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," which he describes as "a simple, written commitment by a candidate or elected official that he or she will oppose, and vote against, tax increases."

Responding to his critics, Norquist has taken to the op-ed page of the New York Times to defend his legacy:

Contrary to the hopes of some that I am somehow softening the pledge, it is stronger and more important than ever: it has made it easier for members of Congress to credibly commit to voters that they will refuse to increase taxes and instead focus on reducing the cost of government.

Raising taxes is what politicians do instead of reforming and reducing the cost of government. Advocates of larger government prefer to talk about deficits rather than spending. Why? Because there are two solutions to a deficit problem: spend less or raise taxes. The issue, in other words, isn’t the pledge; it’s Washington’s inability to deal with its own overspending. There is only one fix for a spending problem: spend less.

According to Grover... who by the way is not an elected official and has somehow wheedle his way into the political discourse and hostage-taking of the Republican party as a carnival barker might slip into your pocket unnoticed at the fair... the confusion over what constitutes a tax increase and what doesn't is as clear as sludge.

Finally, there has been much confusion — some of it my fault — over whether the ending of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts or the A.M.T. “patches,” scheduled for Dec. 31, 2012, should count as a tax hike. If they are ended, the government will take in nearly $4 trillion more over the next decade than if they remain.

My position, and the implications of the pledge regarding such “temporary” tax cuts, is clear. If there were no vote in Congress and taxes rose automatically, then no politicians would have voted for higher taxes and no elected official would have broken his or her pledge.

Taxes can rise as long as republicans don't have to vote for the rise it just happens "automatically"... "magically"!

Someone should have told President Obama this when he negotiated a two year extension on the Bush tax cuts and republicans held hostage negotiations until they got this extension in December. If he had just left taxes off the table they would have sort of "unicornishly" disappeared causing the appearance of $4 trillion into the coffers over the next decade.

There really ought to be a consumer clause spelling out these kinds of fine-print "Terms and Conditions"... where's Elizabeth Warren when you need her?

While it may be true that all six Republicans on the 12-member deficit-reduction panel signed the Americans for Tax Reform "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" opposing increased income tax rates... Dems don't need GOP votes for new taxes and Republicans don't need to lose their "Little Orphan Annie Secret Circle" membership or turn in their decoder rings.

They just need to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire as planned December 2013... and agree to a Tax Code Reform Committee assignment with an August 2012 deadline to present a Tax Reform bill.

So while we negotiate reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs to make them more effective in pharmaceutical and doctor price negotiating making Medicare as effective in securing the same lower prices that Medicaid has secured... and the age for enrolling in Medicare is lowered to 55 along with the addition of 'means testing' for both programs ensuring the wealthy are not draining the resources of these programs... and the retirement age is lowered for Social Security benefits to 60 years along with 'means testing' (or 55+ after 18 months of unemployment) encouraging employment opportunities for a new generation... and the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts is restated in the Super Committee deficit reductions will be gained through reformation cuts in spending and old revenues renewed.

The "unicorn" in the room can magically vanish along with the embittered battle over "No New Taxes" because they won't be new taxes... they will be old taxes 'renewed'.

And for goodness sake, stop with the Pledges already!