This week, VA gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli - considered a
conservative Republican by almost everyone - is taking a stand against Grover Norquist and ATR.
As Politico reports, Cuccinelli wants to tackle tax reform as governor, and ATR's "pledge" may block any such efforts. Cuccinelli, therefore, is refusing to sign it. (Side note: for evidence of Cuccinelli's fiscal conservatism, see his writing in the
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy).
For years, ATR has taken a hard line on its "no new taxes" pledge. The most recent examples have been its repeated claims that it considers closing a tax loophole to constitute a tax hike. As many GOPers have come to realize, this interpretation of the ATR pledge blocks any meaningful tax reform. In any
tax reform effort - as opposed to a straight
tax cut - there's going to be a reallocation of taxes. Many people believe that rates should decrease but deductions should be cut so more money would be subject to those lower rates. Others may think that particular segments of society are not paying their share or that certain activities (like driving, drilling, or living near the ocean) are not bearing their full societal costs.
Any way you slice it, meaningful reform means someone might pay more taxes. This makes sense: the current tax code was largely written for the 1986 economy. We had just suffered the oil embargo and an era of "malaise." No one anticipated the "peace dividend," multiple rounds of free trade talks, the internet, and the rise of mobile computing. Today's economy is significantly different from that of 1986, and it would make sense that good tax policy might demand a different formula than thirty years ago.
For Cuccinelli, assuming he wins in 2013, he's going to be term-limited. Could this be the first shot-across-the-bow of a future Senate run? I can see the messaging now: "I'm a conservative, and I have commonsense conservative principles - not silly pledges - to back it up."
