Wednesday, September 28, 2011

WHEN IS SOMEONE IN AUTHORITY GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE NORQUIST PLEDGE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES?

It has been written that 95% of the House of Representatives have signed the Norquist pledge to never raise taxes.  Alex Leary writes in the Miami Herald: "For more than 20 years, Grover Norquist has wielded a mystical power over Republicans, cultivating and enforcing a rigid anti-tax platform.".

Read more:, click here.

Isn't it time that all Representatives, under oath, let the public know that they have or have not signed the oath which prevents them from following the original oath when they were sworn into office
 
Leary further writes:  "He sits on the advisory board of GOProud, a gay group, and has courted Muslims, drawing whispers about his sexual orientation and open charges that he cozies up to extremists. “Bigots,” replies Norquist, whose wife is Muslim."

It is beyond my understanding how such a 'conflict of interest' has been allowed to continue in Congress. Who oversees ethics and doing the job of the House for which people were elected, how can this be tolerated?

2 comments:

Frank J. Lhota said...

Two points about this post

- There is no house or senate ethics rule that prohibits members from making pledges, and in fact, congressmen make pledges all the time. Many Democrats have pledged to prevent any changes in entitlement programs. Another popular pledge is to reject any supreme court nominee who does not support Roe vs. Wade. Should those who have taken these pledges be charged with ethics violations?

- The Republican party should reach out to gays and non-Christians. One does not have to be gay in order to support a gay organization. The majority of Muslims are not extremists. Norquist is definitely right to label those who oppose such efforts as bigots. Even those who oppose his tax policy should support Grover Norquist's fight against discrimination.

Yiayia said...

Frank, I find that Norquist, not being a bigot is good. My issue around ethics is 'conflict of interest'. Voting only against Roe vs Wade does not come in the same category at all for me. It still allows people a choice, though it might be to go back to illegal abortions, Not raising taxes effects the whole country in a critical way when money is needed to fund safety, education, safe infrastructure, etc. I repeat, it is not a one-size- fits-all world.