Jesse White – 8/9/11

This page was last updated on August 9, 2011.

Op-Ed: Who Exactly Are They Pledging Allegiance To?; State Rep. Jesse White (D-46); Beaver Countian; August 9, 2011.

A previous White piece I critiqued was “Op-Ed: 10 Reasons Why I Voted NO On The State Budget.” FYI, a link to that critique I posted on the Beaver Countian Facebook page disappeared.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject opinion piece.

“As if it wasn’t already difficult enough to cross party lines and actually work together to accomplish 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.”

[RWC] This is a double-standard alert. You’ll see what I mean toward the end.

“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 DC 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.’”

[RWC] To begin, I’m not a fan of pledge-signing and would prefer politicians ignore them. I give weight to a politician’s actions, not pledges he signs.

You will find there are four pledges that vary depending on whether the signer is a candidate for U.S. representative, U.S. senator, state legislator, or governor. The pledge Mr. White quoted is for state legislator candidates. The pledge for governors reads, “I,______, pledge to the taxpayers of the State of ______ , that I will oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.”

The pledges for U.S. representatives and senators differ from the state pledges in a significant way but I don’t know why. The pledge for U.S. representatives reads, “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.” Other than the district part, the pledge for U.S. senators is the same. I mention the difference between the federal and state pledges because it becomes important below.

“In the 112th federal Congress, 236 House members and 41 Senators have taken the pledge. On the state level, thirteen governors and 1,249 state legislators have taken the pledge, including Governor Tom Corbett, four state senators and thirty 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.”

[RWC] Mr. White asserts he knows he is “opposed to raising taxes” but that did not come through in his opinion piece entitled “Op-Ed: 10 Reasons Why I Voted NO On The State Budget.” Item six in that piece was “Corporate welfare through tax loopholes” while the remaining items mostly told us why Mr. White thought the spending cuts were bad. What Mr. White proposed would raise the effective tax rate on individuals via increasing business tax rates. Would Mr. White support removing the “loopholes” (nonprofit status) that let labor unions escape paying income taxes? Yes, that’s a rhetorical question.

“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 over 70% of Pennsylvanians have indicated they would support such a tax, it will not happen because Grover Norquist says it would violate the pledge. The conversation quickly shifted to an ‘impact fee’, which could possibly pass muster if worded properly.”

[RWC] In the previous paragraph, Mr. White wrote, “I know I am opposed to raising taxes.” Maybe I’m reading too much into this paragraph, but it sounds like Mr. White would support “the proposal to tax natural gas production from the Marcellus Shale.” Mr. White certainly doesn’t say he opposes the tax.

Regarding the “impact fee,” I’m for it as long as it doesn’t turn into a slush fund as the Beaver County Times wants. This is how I’ve always maintained additional costs incurred by a municipality as the result of any business should be addressed.

“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 DC 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.”

[RWC] The premise is Mr. Corbett and the others who signed the pledge would love to increase Pennsylvania tax rates but the pledge is in the way. I don’t know these guys, but I hope Mr. White is wrong.

Below you’ll find Mr. White’s comment about “slip[ping] and slid[ing] to find convenient loopholes in the pledge is almost comical” is a tad overstated.

As for Mr. White finding it “somewhat disturbing that policy in Pennsylvania must be reviewed and blessed by a special interest group,” below you’ll find he appears to have a blind spot in this area.

“The best example is the tax increase on hospitals in the recent state budget. On June 23, Grover 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.’”

[RWC] Mr. White didn’t tell us anything about the “hospital assessment.” The purpose of the tax (Act 49 of 2010) is to pay for changes to its healthcare payment system necessitated by changes made by the feds. Some hospitals are exempt. Even though the tax revenue will be used exclusively for Medicaid/Medicare stuff, only non-Medicaid patients are taxed. The tax was passed last year and is to be effective from July 2010 through June 2013 (I’ll believe that when I see it.). The increase from 2.95% to 3.22% is supposedly to increase matching federal Medicaid funding.

“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 oil companies 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 their agenda under any circumstances?”

[RWC] Here’s where the aforementioned differences in the federal and state pledges is important. The federal pledges make it pretty clear the objective is to oppose effective overall tax rate increases and it’s OK to increase one tax rate as long as it’s offset “dollar for dollar” by decreases in other tax rates. Though I’m pretty sure that’s also the intent of the state pledges, they don’t mention offsets. That opens the door for people to talk about “find[ing] convenient loopholes in the pledge” even when that’s not the case. In any case, inconsequential and idiotic stuff like this consuming valuable time is another reason I don’t like pledges.

When Mr. White wonders “if the same logic would allow for a tax increase on big oil companies that cut taxes on the American middle class,” it’s not a good comparison. In his example, Mr. White is talking about swapping business and individual taxes. Remember, one way or another, business taxes are paid by individuals - customers, employees, and owners - as I covered in the critique of “Op-Ed: 10 Reasons Why I Voted NO On The State Budget.” Therefore, a tax rate increase “on big oil companies” would still be paid by “the American middle class,” and the rich and the poor. Shifting the tax around would simply further hide the effective overall tax rate on individuals. While many politicians like that, I don’t. In the case of the hospital tax, however, we’re talking about one business tax rate increase being partially offset by another business tax rate (Capital Stock & Franchise) decrease. That said, I don’t have a clue how close it is to a dollar-for-dollar offset.

In the “don’t ask a question if you don’t know the answer” category is “Can you imagine the hysteria if a primarily Democratic group, like a labor union …?” That’s because on the United Steelworkers website you’ll find “Congressman Altmire Signs Opposition Pledge to Colombia Free Trade Agreement.” I didn’t find a news story about it, let alone “the hysteria.” Oops. Though I’m not trying to pick on Mr. Altmire (D-PA4), he also “signed onto the ‘Voters First Pledge’ of the Public Campaign Action Fund.” The funding sources of PCAF include the NEA, MoveOn.org, SEIU, Tides Voter Action Fund, Common Cause, Democracy Fund, and Working Assets. These are all leftist groups that contributed over $20,000 each in a calendar year. Again, I missed “the hysteria.” Oops #2. Will Mr. White write an op-ed piece taking Mr. Altmire and other politicians to task for signing these pledges?

“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.”