Who Exactly Are They Pledging Allegiance To?

As if it wasn’t already difficult enough to cross party lines and actually work together toaccomplish anything, lawmakers at both the state and federal level now have to deal with a new variable which can bring the gears of government to a grinding halt.

I am referring to pledge mania, the phenomenon of requiring candidates to sign pledges written by powerful special interest groups. The most infamous pledge is the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” put out by Americans for Tax Reform.

Based in Washington, D.C., and led by conservative activist Grover Norquist, the pledge states, “I pledge to the taxpayers of my District of the state of Pennsylvania and all the people of this state that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.”

In the 112th federal Congress, 236 House members and 41 Senators have taken the pledge. On the state level, 13 governors and 1,249 state legislators have taken the pledge, including Gov. Tom Corbett, four state senators and 30 state representatives here in Pennsylvania.

I know I am opposed to raising taxes, and I don’t need anyone’s permission or blessing for holding that belief. While the idea of signing a pledge may sound harmless on the surface, two fundamental problems have presented themselves as a result of these pledges.

First, elected officials now have to get permission to see if something violates the pledge. The best example in Pennsylvania is the proposal to tax natural gas production from the Marcellus Shale. Although more than 70 percent of Pennsylvanians have indicated they would support such a tax, it will not happen because Norquist says it would violate the pledge. The conversation quickly shifted to an impact fee, which could possibly pass muster if worded properly.

Does it strike anyone else as not only odd but also somewhat disturbing that policy in Pennsylvania must be reviewed and blessed by a special interest group in Washington, D.C., that no one in Pennsylvania elected? The worst part is that the ability to slip and slide to find convenient loopholes in the pledge is almost comical.

The best example is the tax increase on hospitals in the recent state budget. On June 23, Norquist sent a letter to members of the Legislature stating, “I write in strong opposition to the hospital tax increase currently being considered in budget negotiations. What is being called a ‘hospital assessment’ is actually a new tax on medical care in Pennsylvania.”

Seems pretty straightforward, right? I thought so too, until the next day, when a “clarification” was sent out from Mr. Norquist stating that as long as the budget lowered other taxes, the increase in the hospital tax was acceptable. I can’t help but wonder if the same logic would allow for a tax increase on big oilcompanies that cut taxes on the American middle class?

These examples underscore the second fundamental problem with written pledges by candidates. Instead of making decisions you can justify to your constituents, you end up making decisions you can justify to the special interest group whose pledge you signed. Can you imagine the hysteria if a primarily Democratic group, like a labor union, had candidates sign a pledge to blindly support its agenda under any circumstances?

To be an effective lawmaker, you need to be capable of independent thought and free to act on behalf of the people who elected you. A written pledge, no matter how noble in theory, runs contrary to the basic principles of a representative republic.

When I was sworn in, I placed my hand on a Bible and agreed to uphold and defend the Constitutions of Pennsylvania and the United States.

That action was symbolic of the sacred bond between an elected official and the people they represent, which is the only pledge any lawmaker should ever have to make.