Capitol View®

No new taxes returns

I've been waiting a couple of days to see which key moments in the GOP presidential debate the other day would attract the most attention:

  1. Mike Huckabee invoking Goober, Gomer, The Jetsons, and Fred Flintstone or

  1. Mitt Romney invoking the largely disgraced "no new taxes" pledge (disgraced because it's a con job unless "fees" are included). It looks like the no-new-taxes pledge has won. For example, in the Boston Globe (which knows a little something about Romney's term in office), Scott Helman notes that Romney didn't think much of the pledge back when he was governor, which is a bit odd considering that he now points to his term in office to support the pledge he took on Tuesday. The Americans for Tax Reform pledge states I ,____________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _____ district of the State of _________ and to the American People that I will: 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. Nothing there, of course, about fees. On the evening Mitt Romney was elected governor, though, another compelling story was how close to a majority -- 5 points -- the Small Government Act question (no income tax) came. No new taxes? The voters had a different idea: no old taxes either That prompted Michael New of the Cato Institute to call for a new tax reforming strategy, because these sorts of "no tax" initiatives (and pledges) inevitably lead to... more fees.. The no-new-taxes strategy, of course, comes because there's no no-new-spending strategy. The theory is if you choke off the food, the beast will die. Only it doesn't. Bonding, borrowing, and fees create plenty of sustenance. For a candidate, however, it's difficult to talk about cutting spending in specific terms, because specifics is where you lose votes.