Today, the Atlanta Journal Constitution (Atlanta GA) ran an Op-Ed piece that was the typical pure drivel about Republicans having to obey the Norquist Pledge, and how Boner was sticking to his guns because of it.
I'm submitting the following Op-Ed as a rebuttal.
I appreciate any edits, suggestions, constructive criticism...whatever you've got to make this a tighter, more readable, and overall better essay. FYI, the word limit is 450 to 600.
Thanks, y'all.
sboucher
To the Editors:
Regarding “Balanced Views” of December 20:
At the start of each new U.S. Congress, newly elected or re-elected Members of Congress – the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate – must recite an oath, as they have since 1884:
“I do solemnly swear 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.”
That's a very strong oath, and clear in its intent that Congress' job is to serve and protect the citizens of the U.S.
Along comes Grover Norquist, who is a conservative libertarian and a member of the Republican Party, and that's about it. He is not a member of our government, nor is he associated with it in any way.
The only reason Norquist is famous is because he's the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, a taxpayer union, which is a “formal, nonprofit, informal advocacy group” calling itself a “research and educational organization.”
An informal advocacy group that spent $15,794,581 (untaxed) in the last election cycle alone, and whose mission “opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle:”
"The government's power to control one's life derives from its power to tax. We believe that power should be minimized." Control our lives? Really?
To further their paranoid statement of principle, in 1986 Norquist's ATR created the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," which was signed by 95% of all Republican Members of Congress and all but one of the candidates running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination before the November 2012 elections.
The "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" is a written promise by legislators and candidates that commits them to oppose tax increases. There are separate versions at the national and state level.
In the version for the U.S. House of Representatives, the signer pledges to:
“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.”
In the version for state legislators, the signer pledges that:
“I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.”
Is there a difference between an oath of office to the citizens of the U.S. and a written promise to an “advocacy group?” It's clear to me, and probably to you, but not, apparently, to 95 percent of the Republican Party, who are holding this signed promise above their duty to their constituents. In accordance with their promise to the ATR, Republicans are refusing to raise any taxes, an intransigent stance for current budgetary negotiations.
Remind your representatives that they were elected by and took an oath to their country and citizens, an oath which overrides any promises to advocacy groups.