The Farm Bill passed the House of Representatives last week by a vote of 231-191. Contained in the bill, writes National Review Online’s David Freddoso, was “a tax increase of somewhere between $6 billion and $7.8 billion on the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations.
“This could possibly threaten the jobs of tens of thousands of Americans and discourage multinationals from establishing a presence in the United States,” Freddosso adds. “It’s also a corporate income tax hike, which will ultimately be paid for by higher consumer prices.”
As such, a vote for the Farm Bill was a clear violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) - a fact conveyed to every member of Congress before they cast their vote. Nevertheless, all four Democratic pledge signers broke their promise, as well as 18 Republicans.
One of those Republican pledge breakers was Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska.
Now get a load of how “the honorable gentleman” from the Cornhusker State tried to weasel his way out of his promise to his voters. In response to Freddosso naming Fortenberry a pledge breaker, Fortenberry’s spin doctor…er, communications director…sent this email to Freddosso:
“Your assertion that Congressman Fortenberry is a ‘pledge breaker’ is incorrect. Congressman Fortenberry has not taken the Americans for Tax Reform pledge for the 110th Congress. . . . What ATR is referring to is that Congressman Fortenberry did sign the pledge before the 109th (Congress). He chose not to sign it before the 110th Congress. ATR appears to believe that their pledges exist in perpetuity. Congressman Fortenberry does not share this view.”
What a load of crap.
“All candidates and incumbents who sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge understand it is a commitment to their constituents for the duration of their service in that particular job,” Grover Norquist, ATR president, said in response to Fortenberry’s spin doctor’s spin. “This is made clear in writing to every signer.”
Indeed, it is.
What’s particularly galling about Fortenberry’s indefensible defense is the fact that, according to him, he took the pledge for the 109th Congress when Republicans were in the majority and he knew damned well no tax hike was ever going to come up for a vote. But once the GOP lost its majority last year and a tax hike was possible under the Pelosi regime this year, NOW he wants to weasel out of his promise.
Real profile in courage there, huh?
And we can’t help but wonder if Rep. Fortenberry considers all of his promises in the same manner as his broken tax pledge. For example, does he consider his marriage vows something which only apply year-to-year rather than “exist in perpetuity”? And I wonder just how Mrs. Fortenberry feels about this loose interpretation of a promise made? Perhaps now would be a good time for her to start sharpening that Bowie knife and cleaning the shotgun.
Posted on August 2nd, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
Very apt analogy to the wedding vows. One could apply it to the difference between the dem and gop congresses…we’re married unless I’m in vegas…
Gotta love their principles!!!
Little Lord Fortenberry sounds to me like a RINO if I ever saw one (and I definitely have.)
[…] Remember when a man’s word was his bond? When you could take it to the bank or the polls? Evidently, for some, it’s only good for taking taxpayers to the cleaners! […]
The question now is will his constituents remember during Primary Election season? Nothing like strong opposition during a Primary to drive the point home.
Another issue of fiscal responsibility right now is earmarks. Everyone expresses concern about them, everyone wants to monitor them, shame their sponsors, etc., but no one seems to want to eliminate them.
Today’s Wall Street Journal reported that Congressman Ron Paul has attached 65 earmarks to legislation so far this year, for a total of $400 million. When Congressman Paul’s office was asked about this, his spokesman responded, “Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it’s not by accident.”
The Wall Street Journal described Congressman Paul as “one of Congress’s better fiscal conservatives,” so it was sad to read that he’s been caught up in the earmark mess too, albeit on a much smaller scale than his colleagues.