« There Is Life After The Presidency, Mahmoud | Main | A Fitting End . . . »

June 17, 2009

Comments

GOPHokie

Chris, while I tend to agree that no tax pledges are a joke; the problem with not signing them is you tick off a certain subset of our base. Kilgore had that problem as he was bashed by the club for growth during the campaign; even though we all knew Kaine would be much more pro-tax than Jerry would have.
And also, the Washington Times isn't exactly a liberal rag. A GOPer should truly take notice when that paper if nagging them on something.

NoVA Scout

Never vote for anyone who would sign such a pledge. They're either dishonest or incompetent. No one wants either near the levers of power, even on a state level.

Isophorone

No tax pledge? How about a tax CUT pledge! OK, a cynical person would note that Mark Warner made a pledge not to raise taxes, also. You were referring to Warner of course, weren't you, NoVA Scout? ;)

I don't necessarily view a no tax pledge as dishonest or incompetent. It's just that the candidate should have a very good plan for carrying it out and think that it is realistically possible. The problem is that with the State Senate being in Dem hands and the HOD having a narrow GOP majority, anything can happen. Well, anything except a tax cut. Not enough left-wing causes can be de-funded, either.

Given how many times Creigh Deeds has voted for tax hikes, though, he should state realistically what taxes he wants to raise and why.

NoVA Scout

we're saying the same thing, Isophorone. The problem is that none of these yahoos who sign that pledge had a "very good plan for carrying it out" or believed (unless they were addled) that the plan was "realistically possible." Candidates sign those things to get votes from a certain demographic and hope that no one really inquires how much they know about public finance generally, or Virginia's finances in particular.

Yes I include Warner (M) in those who have spoken with a forked tongue on this topic, but I save most of my ire for my own party, which is chock full of people who have cynically put their names to this silly pledge. Until we get rid of those types, it will be very hard to present credible public servants to the electorate.

Whine, Whine, Whine

Screw the class references. Esp. to the middle class. Which is the whiniest class of all. Who is going to raise taxes, directly or indirectly, period? And for what purpose?

GOPHokie

NOVA Scout, I think you are onto a bigger issue that I wish had more discussion.
The biggest problem with alot of GOPers is that they are "anti-tax" but not anti-spending. That creates quite a conundrum, especially in times like this.
Another problem is the definition of a "tax increase". For example when a locality sees a 100% jump in assessments and then only cuts the rate 40%, thats an increase (even though your house increased in value). However, if my income goes up 100% and my federal/state income tax rate is the same I pay more in taxes. Thats an interesting take as well from some of our folks.

The comments to this entry are closed.