When a US Senator or Congressional Representative signs a no tax pledge, is this in conflict with the Oath of Office each of them took when elected?

Their actions often conflict with supporting/defending the Constitution. As the Oath of Office is already broken, any potential conflict with the tax pledge is moot.

They are not mutually exclusive.

But I would never support a candidate who signed such a pledge. Doing so is an indication that the signer is incapable of making his own decisions, or changing his or her mind as circumstances may require.

The conflict comes with the phrase ”...without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion…” The tax pledge creates a mental reservation about many of the appropriations bills.
As @jerv says, they’ve already broken their oath. As a candidate seeking election they sell their potential powers and thereby are not undertaking the obligation freely.

In my opinion, he or she does.

Yes. The need may arise to very dramatically increase government spending, as happened when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor beginning the US involvement in WWI, putting us instantly at war tieh Japan, Germany and Italy, and destroying most of the US Pacific Fleet. The Oath is to defend America and it’s Constitution, not some anti-tax crusader that want’s someone else to pay for all the costs associated with providing freedom and safety for his miserly butt.

There is no conflict. Between the narrow mindedness they brought in taking their oaths and their silly political pledges done in the service of a political whore, um, I mean troll.

Oops. Meant WWII and not WWI above. Too late to correct the typo.

Not at all, they are not mutually exclusive. The tax pledge does not create a mental reservation. That not what the phrase “mental reservation” means.

That’s a pretty ridiculous point. The tax pledge is what they believe the country needs. No New Taxes. Just because you disagree, doesn’t mean it is against thier oath of office. Another flaw in liberal thinking is that disagreement means some sort of evil intent. If you want higher taxes, just vote for the guy in office, he’ll do that if he can. Just because some don’t think higher taxes are a good idea, doesn’t mean they are unpatriotic or a saboteur.

@Jaxk If we could agree where to cut spending, you would have a point. However, I know many Conservatives that feel that disagreement means evil intent as well. For instance, taxing the rich is an attempt to turn us into a Socialist nation.

You also forget to mention those that feel that higher taxes are a bad idea, but better than the alternative. Nobody wants higher taxes, but those calling for higher taxes want all the bills to be paid whereas those that oppose them often want everything other than their pet projects to be defunded to oblivion regardless of the consequences, notably a blatant disregard for the long-term costs (financial or otherwise).

I agree that Hanlon’s Razor applies here, which is why I generally regard hardcore Conservatives as ignorant and out-of-touch rather than actually malevolent. Just because someone else thinks higher taxes might be the solution (we did well when we had them, which we did for most of our nation’s history) doesn’t make them unpatriotic or Socialist either, despite claims to the contrary from your side of the fence.

Like SOPA, they may honestly believe that the tax pledge is what this country needs, but many small children believe that putting popcorn into pancake batter will make pancakes flip themselves while cooking too. Belief does not equal fact.

@Jaxk & @rts486 If we end up in an all out ground war in, say, the Middle East, requiring that we reinstitute the draft, deploy 3 or 4 million men, arm and supply them—would you just put it all on the credit card? If Russia and China opposed us in that effort, who do you propose we borrow all that money from?

@ETpro I will guess that they would do what Reagan did; bill the grandkids. I mean, tax hikes (or, according to some, taxes in general) are bad. The reason our economy is so much stronger today than it was back when we had budget surpluses is because we kept dropping tax rates.

Besides, any Keynesian knows that deficit spending ends recessions, so lets whip this economy back into shape by racking up some major deficits!

@jerv

Your scenario loses credibility when you look at what is actually proposed. Every Time Obama tries to push through a rate hike, he also ties it to more spending. That won’t pay the bills. If you don’t believe the debt and deficit are a problem then you can muddle along with the current policies. Hell, why raise taxes since neither the debt or deficit are a problem? If however, you think they are a problem, your tax hikes won’t cover them. Some reduction in spending would be required. I haven’t seen anything from the Democrats that would tackle that problem. Just some vague idea that if the rich made less money, somehow you would make more. Nonsense.

@ETpro

Hell, that’s what we’re doing now. Frankly, I think the tax pledge is garbage. Most that sign up are getting cornered by thier constituency to do so. Nonetheless, it is only a reaction to the situation today. It doesn’t mean ‘never’. It is no different than any campaign pledge made by politicians. When Obama pledged to close Gitmo, it was based on what he thought the situation was at that time. Turns out he was wrong (nothing new there). Bush Sr. thought he would not raise taxes as well. Remember the ‘No New Taxes’. That likely cost him the election (or at least a lot of votes). The whole idea of a Republic, is that we elect representatives to make these decisions. They make the best decision possible for events at the time (at least that’s the theory). Any campaign pledge whether verbal or written is only good at the time of the pledge. Making up some scenario that might cause them to change (What if Martians Landed!!!!!!) isn’t credible nor does it add anything to the point.

@Jaxk I agree that out-of-control spending has been an issue, just as it has been for (at least) most of my life. But it sure beats increased spending without increased revenue, budget cuts that cost us more money in the long run, or just letting everything go to Hell in order to save a few bucks.

As for Obama… lets just say that just because I don’t hate him doesn’t mean I like him. I merely see him as the lesser of many evils.

Also, it strikes me that companies have no issue increasing payroll; they just increase it more at the top. Look at the income increases amongst various brackets over the last few decades.

@Jaxk I certainly have sympathy for the call to end out-of-control spending. Unfortunately, the Republican don’t tax, just spend campaign put $9.,2 trillion on the US credit card and lthe previous occupant ot the White House drove the economy into a verry deep ditch, leaving Obama $10.6 trillion in debt, a FY 2009 budget that added a$1.6 trilling to the deficit, and the costs of towing the economy out of the ditch and making very expensive repairs.

These are the realities the new president inherited. Some spending is vital now to get the economy back in gear. A severe austerity program would eventually work as well, but it would take a decade or more, and our debt would be difficult to bring down while the economy remained in recession or even depression.

Just as in a family, spending is part of financial health, but so is revenue. If an ordinary family hits a financial crisis, they can save by eliminating discretionary spending. But they can’t reach financial security by not paying for housing, food, vital medical care, etc. There comes a point where the solution is more revenue. As a family, you take a second job or both parents work. As a nation, we also need to raise revenue.

@ETpro

I’m starting the new year with a new goal to be reasonable. In that vein, I understand that tax revenues declined by about $400 billion in 2009. That unavoidably increased the deficit. But you need to be reasonable as well. Bush did not leave Obama a 2009 budget that increased the deficit by $1.6 Trillion. Obama did that himself. $900 billion Stimulus, Cash for clunkers, housing bailouts, Etc. All that was new spending. New spending pushed through by Obama and the super majority he had in congress.

Obama has already said that he expects the changes he wants will take a decade. I find it interesting that you would try to paint this a repairs, while Obama is trying to build a whole new economy based on his personal view of ‘Fairness’. He’s trying to elevate federal spending to 25% (or higher) of GDP. To do that he has to raise taxes but taxing the rich won’t get him there. He has got to tax everyone and everything. That’s why we keep hearing about $200K as being rich. That’s why we keep hearing about a transaction tax.

The truth is every president inherits an economy. I don’t hear a lot about Clinton inheriting a booming economy. At some point you have to take responsibility for what you’ve done. Obama has unfortunately done little more than spend us to death.

@Jaxk Points taken, but carrying on the spirit of reasonableness, let’s be frak. You don’t hear about Clinton inheriting a booming economy because that never happened. Remember the campaign slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid”? We were in recession, unemployment was up, and the deficit was mushrooming. Clinton actually did address all those issues in his presidency.

@Jaxk If presidents inherit an economy, doesn’t that mean that W screwed up royally too? I ask because the last few people I know that made a similar argument credit Bush-41 for the Clinton years, blame Clinton for everything bad during Bush-43, yet also blame Obama for things that happened before he was even inaugurated while W was still in office.

You are correct about taking responsibility for what you have done. The catch is that that goes for all sides.

@jerv

I don’t credit Bush1 for the economy of the 90s. Every president inherits an economy. It’s not what they inherit that counts, it’s what they do with it.

@Jaxk True. It’s just that you are making many of the arguments that I have heard from crackpots, so it’s sometimes hard to remember that you are more reasonable than most people I hear from on your side of the aisle. For instance, you have basic math skills XD

As above, they are not mutually exclusive.

The Constitution does not require them to support tax policy. It only gives them the power to pass laws establishing tax policy.