[From USA Today "Pledges can be taxing for GOP" 9/8/2011]
Former US Senator Alan Simpson never signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. He had no interest in hamstringing his ability to trade for votes and make decisions for the best interests of his state and country (at least that's the gist of what he told Time magazine!)
Today's Congressmen are also stepping away from the pledge, either citing its vagueness in defining a tax increase, and whom they affect.
Ending income income tax loopholes is a necessity of the United States is going to take any measured steps to simplify the tax code. The limitless itemized deductions do nothing but shore up small constituencies to buy votes for another election.
Ending ethanol subsidies and home-owners insurance for East Coast communities ravaged by seasonal hurricanes may count as a tax increase to some, but in essence its a needed step in returning individual and state responsibility back to the states and its residence, as opposed to handing the bill for building and restoration to the federal government, which in turn hammers the individual taxpayer.
Cutting income taxes is a welcome move for a session of Congress; ending parceled handouts to well-endowed corporations is also acceptable; expecting law-makers to march in lock-step with one activist's no-tax pledge merely frustrates negotiations within the beltway. Congressional candidates finding themselves having to shoulder another burden when campaigning in the next election. This liability is especially pronounced in California, where compromise is all but impossible because of the ill-defined no-tax hysteria tying up Republican lawmakers.