A pledge to those making no-tax-increase pledges [More taxes 'good'

Here's a thought: The next time you hear a political candidate promise, "I will never raise your taxes. No way. Not in a million years," make a pledge of your own: I will never vote for this boob, no way, not in a million years.

Are you as sick of this anti-tax pandering as I am? What has become of political discourse when it has sunk to such a point where candidates who have voted to raise taxes in the past -- or, God forbid, suggest they might have to raise taxes in the future -- have become public enemies? Why can't a candidate actually come out and say that increasing a tax might be the best way to pay for something that everybody wants?

Yet, if you watch campaign commercials (never a good idea, of course), you get the sense that anyone running for office who utters the "t" word is child molester-evil, serial killer-evil, Osama bin Laden-evil.

You've seen the ads: The "pro-tax" guy is the smarmy-looking character in the grainy, black-and-white clip. The anti-tax guy is the handsome, wholesome smiling one in living color.

These 30-second spots are coming from people who want us to make them our leaders.

The two major candidates for Pennsylvania governor, with the Nov. 5 election approaching, have now begun to deploy this disingenuous "dirt." Ed Rendell and Mike Fisher, both smart men, both decent guys, both experienced public officials, have begun distorting each other's record on taxes with complete intellectual dishonesty, parsing "facts," overlooking explanations and generally trying to pull one over on those among us who don't know better.

Take Fisher, the Republican. He's blaming Rendell for Philadelphia's much-despised wage tax. A couple of problems with that: The Sterling Act, which established Philadelphia's wage tax, was approved by the state Legislature in 1932, a dozen years before Rendell was born. And, the other thing: Sure, the tax is a burden (nearly 5 percent of your income if you live or work in the city), but Rendell, as Philadelphia mayor, actually lowered the tax during his years in City Hall. I didn't see that mentioned in Fisher's ad.

Fisher also takes Rendell to task for, among other things, pushing a 10 percent "beverage tax" in 1994. Yes, Philadelphia does have a liquor-by-the-drink tax, but it pumps about $25 million a year into Philadelphia's schools -- money, incidentally, state taxpayers didn't have to fork over. Besides, what's worse -- a few cents extra for a tumbler of bourbon, or a kid who can't study his English, because it's not his night to take home the textbook?

For his part, Democrat Rendell, in retaliating, doesn't treat Fisher all too kindly either, suggesting -- "respectfully," as Rendell says in the ad -- that Fisher is the one who "repeatedly voted to raise taxes."

It's true, for starters, that Fisher did vote in favor of the $2.8 billion state tax increase in 1991, the largest tax increase in state history. But, for those who don't remember, the state budget was already 35 days late, and the impasse meant employees weren't getting paid and the state couldn't pay its bills.

That's a state, by the way, in which the Democrats controlled both the governor's mansion and the state House of Representatives.

Fisher, as a Republican, could have withheld his support, letting the Democrats squirm a bit longer. But, as a legislative leader, he decided to take one for the team to get Pennsylvania government up-and-running again. Rendell managed to miss that little factoid in his commercial.

All of this is not to suggest that tax votes are always altruistic. Rest assured neither Rendell nor Fisher ever agreed to a tax hike without first wetting his index finger and sticking it into the air.

Then, too, Rendell and Fisher aren't the only ones perpetrating this anti-tax foolishness.

I read not so long ago where a state House incumbent, Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, R-Bellefonte, bragged about never having voted for a tax increase. And I heard an ad recently in which incumbent U.S. Rep George Gekas, who's going head-to-head with U.S. Rep. Tim Holden for a newly carved congressional district in central Pennsylvania, vowed that he would never raise taxes.

Tax increases don't necessarily equal bad public policy, and not everyone opposes raising taxes when it's necessary.

Pennsylvanians want schoolchildren to understand the difference between the Mayflower and the Mona Lisa.

Pennsylvanians want roads to be smooth, not bumpy. Pennsylvanians want picnic tables in state parks to be sturdy, walls around prisons to be impenetrable, and chicken legs on their gas grills to be tasty and salmonella-free.

And, truth be told, they're a heck of a lot better use for money -- even when it comes by way of taxes -- than those offensive anti-tax ads inundating our airwaves.

Russell E. Eshleman Jr. teaches journalism at Penn State and writes a weekly column on Pennsylvania politics for
capitolwire.com. His e-mail address is reshleman@capitolwire.com. </ed tagline>

This is the type of brainwashing students at Penn State and most other American colleges are being subjected. In a recent study funded by the American Enterprise Institute and frontpagemagazine.com, Penn State was ranked with the highest percentage of conservative faculty members in the East: 17%. The majority of the PSU faculty was registered to vote as Democrat, Green, or Socialist party.

For references, followup to this thread.

If total government expenditures were somewhere below the maximum level I consider acceptable (10% of GDP, for local, state, and federal combined), I'd be willing to consider a proposal for a tax increase on its merits or lack thereof.

But we're spending 4-5 times more than we should, on a horde of pointless programs that do nothing except create constituencies for more pointless programs, and in this environment, the question should be how much should we cut, and how fast.

I'll listen to a debate between candidates who propose shrinking the budget by 2% a year or by 5% a year, and consider their arguments.

But a candidate who proposes growing the budget?

Who intends to see government "sector" be a larger segment of the economy in the next budget cycle than in the last, no matter how small that increase is?

He'll not get my support.

Are you as sick of this anti-tax pandering as I am?

Nope. But I am sick of tenured Ivory Tower Marxists who never met a tax they didn't like.

What has become of political discourse when it has sunk to such a point where candidates who have voted to raise taxes in the past -- or, God forbid, suggest they might have to raise taxes in the future -- have become public enemies? Why can't a candidate actually come out and say that increasing a tax might be the best way to pay for something that everybody wants?

Political Correctness is a bitch, ain't it, perfesser?

Then again, as a PSU grad, perhaps I'll just withold those alum checks so I can pay for all these nifty new taxes this nattering nitwit is getting his nipples all tingly over.

Well, I only have so much money to give. When taxes go up, perhaps it'll be donations to Penn State that go down...

I sure didn't see this kind of spew in the business department. Those 17% of conservatives must all work out of Smeal.

Well, I only have so much money to give. When taxes go up, perhaps it'll be donations to Penn State that go down...

I sure didn't see this kind of spew in the business department. Those 17% of conservatives must all work out of Smeal.

Thank goodness for the Smeal College of Business, and the College of Engineering. The administration and faculty in Business and Engineering are throwbacks to the old fashioned way that universities used to be, --teaching, without preaching. And they do it well.

I agree with you. Of the 17% conservative faculty at PSU, almost all are from Smeal, plus a good number from engineering, and a few from the Eberly College of Science, led by the famous professor of mathematics, George Andrews.

Thanks for the information on Eshleman. While it is encouraging that he his not tenure track, he is still capabable of significant damage, because he probably teaches all his classes himself.

A large percentage of full professors and associate professors at PSU these days delegate their teaching responsibilities to their graduate student TA's, which diminishes their influence on students who tend not to accept the opinions of a TA to the extent they do for a real professor.

Then again, as a PSU grad, perhaps I'll just withold those alum checks so I can pay for all these nifty new taxes this nattering nitwit is getting his nipples all tingly over.

I hope you tell this to the Penn State administration. $$$ is the only message they understand. You can reach PSU president Graham Spanier via e-mail at president@psu.edu.

True, although rarely in the College of Communications, where this guy is. So, if he doesn't keep his politics out of the classroom, he's trouble.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.