No-tax oath begins to chafe in debt discussions

November 15, 2011|By Joelle Farrell, Inquirer Staff Writer
(Page 2 of 2)

"I think they're very, very conscious of the fact that they're going to be up in 2012, and they do not want to be seen as inflexible," said Ross Baker, a Rutgers University political scientist.

As the deadline for deficit-cutting nears, a few signers have done more than wriggle.

"We're 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," U.S. Rep. Steven LaTourette (R., Ohio), who signed in 1994, told the Christian Science Monitor.

Story continues below.

Even LaTourette's ally and fellow Ohioan, House Speaker John A. Boehner, brushed off Norquist as "some random person" when reporters prodded him earlier this month to discuss Norquist's influence.

Andrews, a Camden County Democrat, was at the end of his freshman term in Congress when he signed the pledge in 1992. On Thursday, he said in an interview that he had felt 1991's income-tax increases "were harmful and not going to do us any good at that time."

He also said he believed the pledge committed him for only a single term.

When word of Andrews' latest views got out, Norquist slammed him on Twitter.

"Andrews: The tax pledge is promise to oppose tax hikes as long as one is in congress. Not until you change your mind," Norquist wrote Tuesday. He said that had been spelled out "in Questions and Answers attached to pledge you signed."

Andrews fired back: "@GroverNorquist wants us 2read fine print. I say - read the Constitution! lets uphold the national interest, not his agenda." Asked for Norquist's comments on all this, spokesman John Kartch referred a reporter to Norquist's recent remarks to the Wall Street Journal: that the idea of the pledge lasting only one term was "the silliest argument I've ever heard," and that a candidate "who says, 'I'm not going to raise taxes on you, please vote for me' - and then keeps his word - is a good thing, not a bad thing."

To be sure, Norquist's backing remains "something that a lot of GOP legislators seek," said political scientist Chris Borick of Muhlenberg College. "But they also have to seek middle ground on a number of issues that the public is very much interested in having practical solutions for."

Borick cited voters' rejection of several conservative ballot issues on Tuesday.

"The middle is speaking a little louder" than in 2008 or 2010, he said. "2012 might be a place where the extremes are out of fashion and people are looking for pragmatic, reasonable options - and sometimes that means bending."

 


Contact staff writer Joelle Farrell at 856-779-3237, jfarrell@phillynews.com, or @joellefarrell on Twitter.

« Prev | 1 | 2
|
|
|
|
|