As a fiscal conservative I am disappointed by your editorial defending Grover Norquist's tax pledge ("Republicans and the Tax Pledge," Nov. 27). The tax pledge was based on the assumption that "starving the beast" of revenue will restrain the growth of government. Unfortunately for us and future generations of citizens, the same people who signed the pledge just borrowed more money to fuel the growth of government. With the federal debt at $16 trillion and rising, I find it hard to believe there is anyone who doesn't recognize that the tax pledge has been a disastrous failure.
It is spending that determines the size of government and the constant arguments about what does or doesn't constitute a tax increase have diverted the debate away from the larger issues of the size and role of government in this country. Signing the tax pledge has allowed Republican politicians to avoid tackling the more difficult issues of government spending and health-care costs. I don't see how we can avoid the coming fiscal crisis until they abandon this failed idea and start directly addressing the problem, which is the size and cost of government.
Elections are supposed to have consequences. If the Democrats and the president are too foolish to do the pro-growth things our economy desperately needs, why is it vital (in your opinion) for Republicans to save the Democrats from themselves? They own the economy. The sooner it falters more, the sooner voters will realize their recent error, and the sooner the Republicans will come back into power. Think Hillary 2016. Saving the economy is the last thing Republicans need to do. It isn't theirs. If there is one thing the voters said, it was that they want the Democrats to have their way. Let them. Only then will we all see that Keynesianism doesn't work.
Stan D. Donnelly