I respectfully disagree with AZ Insider’s post below. While anti-tax organizations like Americans for Tax Reform and Americans for Prosperity have backed off on their criticism of the tax increase referral, because of all the tax cuts, tax credits, etc. that have been added to it lessening the blow, it is still the most principled position to oppose ANY tax increase referral. Years down the road, when people have forgotten this budget bill, all that most of them will hear about is whether a particular representative voted for or against Brewer’s tax increase referral. Legislators like Gould and Gorman represent the conservative, principled base of the party, and perhaps they would like a future in politics. They can run on a record of consistently opposing taxes WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
So while it is understandable why other conservative legislators have finally caved, it is still much more impressive as a principled conservative legislator to hold out against the tax referral. The Goldwater Institute still has not come out and said it’s ok to vote for the tax increase referral. Their last article on the proposed budget deal and tax referral was highly critical of the referral. I doubt legislators who vote for the tax increase referral will be getting as high of scores in the Goldwater Institute’s next legislative rankings compared to the legislators who held out against voting for it. Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Tax Reform finally agreed that the tax increase referral could be neutral, ONLY if every tax cut that has been added to sweeten the deal actually gets added. (see article here and AFP chart here)
Although conservatives are optimistic that a tax referral will be voted down at the ballot, they underestimate the power of special interests. Prop. 400, the Phoenix blight rail initiative, passed easily at the ballot in 2004 because it was masqueraded as a transportation initiative that would improve our roads. Chuck Coughlin’s High Ground is the primary entity pushing Brewer’s tax increase referral, hoping to benefit his construction and infrastructure clients like the Associated General Contractors. The tax referral will be masked as “Vote Yes to Improve Arizona’s Roads” or something similar. Proponents will probably even find some crazy way to claim it won’t actually raise taxes, by claiming whatever infrastructure projects they fund will generate their own revenues or some other hare-brained scheme. With the millions Coughlin’s wealthy clients can throw in to fund glossy flyers touting the initiative, it won’t be too hard to fool the voters. Furthermore, if the tax increase is bundled in an initiative with the tax cuts, there is no way to enact the tax cuts without voting for the tax increase!
While it is understandable why some conservative legislators have caved in on the tax increase referral in hopes that the tax reduction package will be included and the voters will vote against the tax increase (and no doubt due to tremendous pressure by leadership, Brewer, and Coughlin who is reportedly at the Capitol constantly harassing them) ultimately the most principled stance would be to hold out against the tax increase referral.
Actually, the most principled stance a person could take is to never run for office. If your not going to do your job, don’t run.
I have great respect for Senators Gould and Gorman and understand the stand on principles. In normal times I might agree with holding out. These are not normal times. We might never have the opportunity for the cuts in this package again. I do not believe the tax increase will pass, but I understand the risk. The money thrown into this by special interest pushing for passage will be unprecedented. The Dems are right about this hitting the poorest Arizonans hardest. It happens although rarely. That will encourage them to vote no.
Worst case is that it does pass. The cuts are permanent and the tax will go away. There are neither the votes nor the political will to make the increase permanent.
If republicans are forced to cave to the Dems to get the vote, we will lose some of the cuts. If we don’t get the cuts now, we are unlikely to get them at all.
I am a big fan of Chewie’s. The action-figure blonde that runs the Goldwater Institute is my other hero.
Chewie,
CRAZY to talk as if you are a fiscal conservative while you support a vote against a BILLION dollars a year in permanent tax cuts!
These tax cuts are on the most onerous types of taxes – income taxes and property taxes. These cuts could be the difference for many of our seniors who are on a fixed income.
A targeted campaign by an opponent to inform voters of their opposition to the largest tax cut in the history of the state will be effective, and I can guarantee you that it will not be viewed as being a good vote when put in a campaign hit piece.
Conservative legislators did NOT cave on this package, it was their strength over the last six months that resulted in this package being on the table.
Chewie, you have a history of revisionist writing, but this one takes the cake. None of the conservative fiscal organizations EVER opposed what is on the table.
Fact, Americans for Tax Reform, Arizona Tax Research Assn, Americans for Prosperity, Free Enterprise Club support the package after taking a detailed audit of the bill.
It is too bad that Gorman and Gould refuse to support the most conservative Republican House ever, where Republicans passed the package 32-3.
Reminds me of what happened decades ago when Pro-Life legislators voted against a VERY strong anti-abortion bill because it did not outlaw all abortions. It took us two generations to pass the provisions in that bill and protect the unborn.
I hope the taxpayers of Arizona do not have to wait that long to enjoy the tax cuts in this bill due to two people who want a bill that cannot gain passage in the legislature or get the governor’s signature. If that happens, we will have collectively lost tens of BILLIONS of dollars to a bigger government bureaucracy.
Why not just pass the tax cuts and fugeddabout the “temporary” tax increase?
By the way, the last “temporary” one cent addition to the sales tax is now past its 20th year.
James that was before the current laws. This referendum will state that the tax ends at a date certain and, with Prop 105 now the law, could not be extended as it would not support the will of the voters. Therefore, any new tax referral after that would invoke Prop 108 and require a two thirds vote of the legislature to pass the tax increase.
Please do not confuse the situation by comparing things that are not even similar, let alone the sam.
You’re missing the point. Once the public is used to the tax, it will be much easier to extend it by simply putting a new referendum to the public. What’s more, you are in lawsuit territory over whether a legislative extension furthers the intent or is contrary to it. It’s an invitation to the Arizona Supreme Court to weigh in. Wanna trust’em?
Back to my point, why not just pass the tax cuts if they’re so good from a policy perspective and fugeddabout the tax increase?
No, you are missing the law and the prededents that have already been ruled on by the Supreme Court.
Your point is fine except you cannot get 16-31-1 to do what you propose. I know that is a minor inconvenience to you and, seemingly others, but it still is the law of the state.
C’mon, I’m not missing anything. The controlling factor is what is the intent of the referendum? The argument will be that the overriding intent was to solve the budget crisis. As long as the crisis continues, the tax can continue. Wanna trust’em?
No majorities to support tax cuts that are so good for us that we should increase taxes to get them? Something doesn’t add up there.
The referendum ends the tax after three years. The legislature cannot do anything to extend it or decrease it without a super majority vote. 16 and 31 will not work. Since they will be hard pressed to get the 16 on this vote, the super majority is out.
Voting to put this on the ballot is not voting for the increase. They are voting FOR the tax cuts and to get them past the Governor they agree only to allow the voters to decide on the increase. I would expect conservative legislators to work to kill the referendum. No, that is not being hypocritical. They only voted to put this on the ballot, not to support it.
James your are also incorrect about the intent. This is now about who gets their way. There is not enough space to explain the reasons the tax WILL NOT increase revenue or even contribute to solving the budget crisis. The cuts, however are likely to help. I hear from people almost everyday that worry about losing their homes is property taxes go up. It might be hard for a lot of people to understand how someone can own a home and live that close to being out on the street, but it is true.
MaricopaGOP – please talk to Gorman and Gould before you condemn them. They believe their pledge was not to support ANY tax increase OR anything that might lead to a tax increase. We should not attack them for standing on principles. Instead, point to the conservative tax groups now reluctantly ending their opposition. Not approving, just ending their opposition to allowing this to a vote of the people.
If we do not get these cuts, imagine how next years budget talks will go.
It constantly amazes me the things that these brave souls say as they hide behind their pen names. The founding Fathers wrote under pen names because they feared the Crown. What do you fear? Afraid I won’t vote for your bills? Every bill stands on its own merit with me. Afraid I will take it out on your clients? I don’t make it personal, its politics! You are entitled to your opinion but, at least have the courage and conviction to use the name your parents gave you.
What amazes me is that anyone with a real understanding of the state’s budget problems really believes that if a referred tax increase fails at the ballot that the associated tax increases will really survive.
I would hope they do, but come on now. Do you really think that the billions in cuts the legislature will likely make in response will not come with a repeal of these tax cuts? It may not be the best policy but policy wont dictate – politics will.
Is there anything you have seen from Governor Brewer in the last 7 months that makes you think she will hold the line on the tax cuts in face of billions in spending cuts? Anything?
Senator Linda Gray has already had the courage to state the obvious – those tax cuts will be DOA if the tax increase fails. Sure conservatives will hold out, but wait until the budget comes up – say in the Senate – and watch the D’s along with Carolyn Allen, Linda Gray, Tibshraeny, and pick one more moderate State Senator like perhaps Barbara Leff offer an amendment to strip those tax cuts out. They will have the votes and they will likely have a Governor playing to a general election scenario who will come right along with it.
Senator Gould you are a public official. Naturally you will use your own name. To expect others to do so in a free form exchange of ideas such as this blog is unrealistic and frankly somewhat suspect in terms of your intention. What you do need to know is what your constituents think, not who they are in real life.
If principle trumps pragmatism, fine. Understand that your decision to sit out does have consequences for millions of people of this great state. It isn’t about you, it is about them.
It is my understanding that the tax decreases are mostly scheduled for future years. Would these need a 2/3 vote to cancel at a future time if they have not gone into effect yet?
Let’s all keep some perspective. The Legislature and the Governor are trying to clean up the mess that Big Sis and the Democrats made with the budget they passed at the end of June 2008. I am not questioning anyone’s motives. I presume all Republicans are trying to make the best of a bad situation. I think the leadership has done a great job in very trying circumstances. I believe the Governor is doing what she thinks is best for Arizona. I happen to have a difference of opinion with her. So it goes.
If I were in the Legislature, which thankfuly I am not, I actually would vote to put the sales tax on the ballot — but alone for a straight up and down vote. It will lose if it’s straight up and down, and then we’ll be done with it.
If the proposed tax cuts go on the ballot as separate items, to be voted on their own merits, I would be in favor of that as well.
If the tax cuts go into the same measure as the 18% sales tax increase, I cannot support that. It’s a con, a soporific, a draught from the Lethe, intended to fool people into voting for a bad measure. If it picks off enough conservatives or moderate Republicans, that might put the 18% sales tax increase over the top. The 18% sales tax increase likely will not pass on its own.
The posts here have already hinted at the campaign strategy — it cuts property taxes for old folks (but only by a smidgeon), it reduces personal income taxes (by an eyelash), it reduces the corporate income tax dramatically (which one suspects is the second most important reason for adding the cuts to the 18%sales tax increase.)
It is basic that you do not increase taxes when the economy is in the tank. Rob Robb is just wrong when he says the proposed tax cuts would be worth even a permanent sales tax increase. If that were so, there would have been a groundswell supporting the cuts on their own merits.
It is an open question whether a later Legislature could extend the tax. As I wrote before, the analysis is whether an extension furthers the intent of the original measure. If it is characterized as budget relief, the Supreme Court could rule that a tax extension is consistent with that intent.
What is certain is that a later Legislature could refer the tax increase to a new ballot as a new measure. It becomes far easier to pass it once it’s already been in place for three years. Recall the county-wide sales tax extended for another 20 years. It coasted to victory.
Ron certainly doesn’t need anyone to defend him, but nightcrawler need to understand Senator Gould wins his elections by the widest margin of any contested legislator. He is doing exactly what his constituents elected him to do.
I would like him to vote to get this on the ballot, but I don’t vote for him and his constituents might not approve. I would NOT consider his stance as sitting out. Just the opposite. He is in the middle of this and likely doing exactly what the voters in his district want. As you said it is about them.
and yes, that is my name.
Senator – please look at this again to see if there is any way you can vote yes. The cuts are good and we might not get another chance. That is assuming to constituents will support that. We don’t want to lose you. Your frank and clear approach is refreshing.
James – the cuts are in the budget bills and will not go to the ballot. The Governor will sign the cuts, only if the tax goes to the ballot. The bills are tied together only to the extent the tax goes to the ballot. There is no tie to passage of the referendum as I understand it.
Royce is right. Brewer is blackmailing the legislature into this. The referendum is not tied to the tax cuts, just to the bill putting it on the ballot. She is betting her political future on the tax passing. They will dump tons of cash and the sheeple might get sucked in. It wouldn’t be the first time. Remember Barry Soetoro and “change?”
Royce and Bilbo,
Thanks for the clarification. In that case I would support putting the measure on the ballot for a straight up or down vote.
Todd,
You are wrong. 16 and 31 will kill the future promiced tax cuts. When we are still in the slump, the Legislature will postpone the tax cuts with 16 and 31. No prop. 108 issue here that would require a 2/3 vote, sorry .
In this case, I am thinking a bit more globally than the 3rd District. His constituents (at this moment in the process) are all the residents of Arizona. The tail should not wag the dog. I don’t have an issue with Senator Gould or his voting record, the issue now is what is good for the entire state. Most of us are on the same page here. It is time to be a team player.
I’ve been on this planet 65+ yrs. and have never seen a “temporary” tax increase.
Mr Davidson is “dead on” when he avers that our “leaders” will discover a way (probably throgh) a compliant judiciary to maintain, and probably add to it in the next few years!
What this list desperately needs is a good dose of old fashioned cynicism!
Prior message correction:
Corrected text in second to last paragraph should read: ” ….(probably through a compliant judiciary)”
Mea Culpa!
Carlist,
I agree with both you and Davidson. Cynicism is a very underrated quality.
Senator – I did not claim they required a 2/3 vote, I was asking. My assumption was that it would not, which would explain reluctance to vote for this deal.
I think many of you are missing the big story here. Except for (apparently ) a handful of GOP politicians – Gould, Allen, Gorman – who are likely going to vote for what they think is right, the rest of the bunch has to get the ok from Grover Norquist or the Koch brothers on what is right or wrong. Are these the people you want representing you?
It also appears many of you are also focusing on the wrong end of this deal. It is not whether the tax increase will be temporary, but whether the tax decreases will even happen.
Sen. Gould: You are correct as to one of the reasons US Founders uses pen names, but I’d like to offer that after the successful revolution in 1776, James Madison published in 1787 as Publius to disguise his identity from…Thomas Jefferson.
My hat is off for Sen. Gould and Gorman. Pamela, I can vote for and will and influence my friends to do likewise, Ron Gould isn’t in my district, but he has my support and admiration.
Arizona has to learn that as far as spending is concerned we will have to stretch ourselves according to the size of our blanket. Our Government is bloated and there is still room for spending cuts. We all know that, who’s got the guts to do it?
The permanent elimination of the Equalization Tax will happen with the signature as will the reduction of the QTR rates.
To reinstate either of these tax cuts amounting to a third of a billion a year would invoke a Prop 108 requiring a two-thirds vote in each house.
So to go blustering off on your erroneous position saying that the tax cuts will be eliminated if the sales tax does not pass is hockey puck.
There is no way that there are fifteen Republican senators that would vote to eliminate the income and property rate tax cuts they have already authorized, and I assure you that there are not 31 Republican votes in the House to take that course.
Somehow, to call only two people who will not go along with fourteen Republican Senators and thirty two Republican Representatives strong while stating all of the others are weak and accuse them of voting the will of others is irresponsible and downright demeaning.
I am sure that Senator Gould does not think that Jack Harper or Judy Burges or Steve Montenegro or …. or …. are weak and without core values to vote their own conscience without the approval of others.
I believe that we should take the $330 million in GUARANTEED tax cuts and the guranteed reductions in state spending that include the mandate of a 5% reduction in state FTEs, the elimination of tenure in our schools, the tools to reduce fraud and abuse throughout the agencies, then work to defeat the sales tax and dare the moderates to repeal the income and property tax cuts in an election year. Any other course is bound to hurt all Arizonans with increased taxes and bigger government.
The death knell for the position of Gould and Gorman being conservative. When the biggest supporter of Campaign Finance Reformer and Comprehensive Immigration Reform sponsor is endorsing their position, it proves that their position is on the wrong side of the issue.
Of course, the fact that Jack Brown, the conscience of the Democrats, call this package the worst deal he has ever seen, that also is a strong indicator of how good this package is.
Un Named Campaign Consultant DBA, MaricopaGOP,
Postponing the tax cuts will not fall under Prop. 108 if the suspension takes place before the tax cuts take effect.
Since the tax cut will not go to the ballot to be approved by the voters, the cuts will not be voter protected, a suspension of the cuts would NOT require a 2/3 vote of the Legislature as per the Senate attorney
The RIGHT Honorable Senator Ron Gould
I believe that you are right in regards to the Income tax cuts, however, according to the summary listed on AZLEG, as I stated above, the permanent repeal of the Equalization Tax and the reduction of the QTR are immediate and WOULD require a Prop 108 two thirds to re-institute them.
The problem with this debate is that too much is being said that unintentionally or intentionally misleads the public. I suggest that everyone read the bill summary sheets printed on AZLEG.gov for themselves instead of just accepting the biased opinion of anyone, including me.
Sen.
I thought right was supposed to reflect a position on the political spectrum, not a statement that one person is right and everyone else is wrong.
Just a thought, getting 80% of what one would truly desire is better than getting 100% of what one is opposed to. That appears to be the options here.
First, I’m still wondering when we handed our party over to Washington lobbyists like Grover Norquist? Why should legislators ever need to get “permission” to vote on a measure? They don’t answer to out of state lobbyists, they answer to us,their Arizona constituents. Gould a d Gorman are doing this all for themselves. Gorman likes to be the center of attention and Gould wants all the power he can get (who was the first to lobby for the Whip position when it opened).
The tax cuts are the best trade off. Read my posts from months ago, it’s something I’ve been saying they should ask for. The temporary tax must be written correctly to give a date of expiration. If it’s three years, it will be in an off year so it won’t be an extend this tax or else situation. On top of that, the cuts are assured, the tax is sure to fail as most people claim.
And what’s a Chewie post without some crazy claims agai st her arch enemy Coughlin. I still have never heard an explantion of how a temporary tax increase is going to fund new infrastructure or where that money would even come from. I’ve asked 10 or so times and never received a response so I’m sure #11 won’t be any different.
Roger,
They don’t have to get permission, however, when they sign a paper voluntarily giving their oath, they really should keep it, don’t you think?
Grover Norquist did not write the legislation and did not lobby anyone to support it, as far as I have heard, he merely stated that it would not violate their oath as he scores it. Simple enough.
MaricopaGOP,
Norquist has been writing letters and emails to all sorts of party leaders telling them whether to support the legislation or not throughout the process. Interestingly, it seems that actual support seems to track with Norquist’s missives.
If this isn’t lobbying, I don’t know what is.
Actually, Patrick Gleason, who works for ATR, is the person that responded to requests from many legislators and other interested Party and grass roots leaders as to whether a vote for the package would violate the Pledge to not raise taxes. They were not looking for permission, but they felt like they had the responsibility to do due diligence. I expect no less.
As to legislators following ATR, ATR has not been in the legislature on a daily basis sending hundreds of raucous, taxpayer supported employees to harass the legislators, unlike the AEA or the constant presence of ASBA, AGC, CofC, CAHB, CAP, AFP, ATRA, CAA, health care providers and all of the other law firms, union, city, county, state agency lobbyists.
I can guarantee that ATR has had less impact on this legislative session than those who have holed up in office after office all session. Heaven forbid that a group looking out for the taxpayers should give any input to the process.
“I can guarantee that ATR has had less impact on this legislative session than those who have holed up in office after office all session….”
ATR has single handedly prevented scores of legislators from voting yes after they came out strongly with their interpretation that a referral to te ballot would be a violation.
What they do is fine for those that want to be told what to do, but don’t think for a second they are any different than a few if not all of the organizations mentioned above. They absolutely have encouraged hundreds of emails, phone calls and other calls to action. They also won’t reject your noble contribution to help out with the cause. Just because they are on the R side of the spectrum doesn’t hide what they really are.
What is it about signing a document that no one forced you to sign that you don’t understand. Many legislators who are conservative chose not to sign the Pledge.
ATR lobbies but does not tell anyone how to vote and they do not make the kinds of threats that some of the above organizations do. ATR will report whether you do not have the integrity to keep your word. Do you want legislators who give their word only to break it? If they break this pledge, what would be different if they broke their oath to protect the Constitution. A liar is a liar.
Maybe you should spend some time down on the mall and observe the March for Schools crowd with large signs using the “f” word and threatening the legislators, disrupting the process to the point that security is concerned for the safety of the elected officials and staff before you say that there is no difference.
Signing a lobbyists “pledge” is making you beholden to that group. My legislator committed to me his stance on taxes, I don’t need him to sign a paper that he has to get permission to break when thy particular group is satisfied.
Am I wrong or was it ATR that has a YouTube video of their enormous ATM on this very site filmed right from the mall. Don’t they threaten to take that ATM to every legislative district in the state? They are much more civil than the education unions but don’t pretend they aren’t cast from a similar die.
It’s not ATR that I specifically have an issue with. It’s any and all groups that seek to gain control over my elected leadership.
You are wrong. It was AFP. So you are wrong on many counts, including blaming ATR for the actions of another group. By the way, I have yet to hear you complain about teachers who have taxpayers pay for a substitute teacher so they can lobby the legislature while on the payroll (not on annual leave). Watch the video tapes of the beginning of each session of the House and Senate and take note of how many teachers are there every day to pressure and take control of your elected officials.
You seem almost hypnotized in criticism of a conservative organization that asks elected officials to pledge to not raise taxes, but no problem with your tax dollars paying for others to spend the day lobbying on your dime.
A little bias here?
I gave the disclaimer I may be wrong so thanks for the clarification.
I don’t complain about it because it should be a given that it is wrong. I know it happens though, especially this year. It should be stopped.
Not biased one bit. I am against ALL organizations who have the ability to gain control over our elected leaders.
I had a legislator tell me straight up the signing the form was the biggest mistake because he felt trapped with no options whatsoever (even with the massive tax cuts).
That’s fine, just don’t blame the organization for asking for a principled stand. It is the responsibility of the legislator to recognize what he is signing and how it may affect his freedom.
Of course, so does every piece of campaign literature that makes solid claims as to the legislator’s position on various issues.
I also would be willing to bet that the legislator loves to take advantage of the support/endorsement of all of the conservative organizations when campaigning.
I would bet that if you looked at the particular person’s campaign literature it will say that he/she is for smaller government and lower taxes – very similar to the now maligned Pledge.
Would it make it easier to fail to keep a campaign promise as long as no one is keeping score as to whether you keep what you stated in a campaign piece? Would it make it any less misleading to the voters, or any less of a violation of your stated position? I think not, which is why the Pledge was initiated. It was done to reduce the practice of, I believe the socially acceptable word was waffling.
PS: You state that you oppose ALL organizations that try to influence legislators, but you do not rail at the more liberal ones.
One Glaring Difference- campaign literature is put out by the candidate- it’s their words and they are the ones to answer for it. They don’t have to ask anyone or get permission to change it from their printer or campaign consultant.
I never said don’t keep score. That’s why you have Pachyderms and RTL organizations. What they do is WAY different than the Norquist Pledge.
I shouldn’t have to rail on the liberal ones- we expect it from them. It’s when a Republican organization works to weaken or handcuff Republican candidates.
Roger,
I have gone back and researched this whole thing with Americans for Tax Reform. The Pledge does not require a vote for any bill or pledge the signer to pass a tax cut. In fact, I will print the pledge so you can see what it requires:
Taxpayer Protection Pledge
I, ________________________, pledge to the
taxpayers of the _______ District of the
state of ____________________ and all
the people of this state that
I will oppose and vote against
any and all efforts to increase taxes.
Nowhere do it say that anyone has to vote to decrease taxes. Their position is as follows:
Americans for Tax Reform and the affiliated Arizona Free Enterprise Club told pledge signers they COULD safely vote for the budget without being accused of breaking their promise. It does NOT say they MUST vote for the budget in order to maintain their pledge.
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/304076
Thats all. Maybe your legislator was looking for cover so they could oppose the largest tax relief package in the history of the state – after five years, even if the sales tax is passed, it amounts to billions in permanent tax relief annually.
If so, this is not it and they should be held accountable for failing to vote for it. ATR is not going to give them an out for voting against such a taxpayer friendly bill, so tell your legislator to grow some calcium between the neck and backside and make the decision because it is the right thing to do.
Sorry, the amount will be in the neighborhood of 900 million annually after five years, not billions. However, it also gets rid of teacher tenure, reduces 2,000 FTEs in state government, implements a real program to cut waste fraud and abuse, eliminates KidsCare parents, and much more. Whats not to like about all that?
A VERY strong collection of items that go to our Party Platform of reducing the size and scope of government while expanding individual freedom.
My legislator doesn’t have an issue with the tax cuts. His issue is that a “pledge” he has signed may actually be used as a weapon against him in a reelection campaign. Mind you, this was a “pledge” concocted by a special interest group. Just because they are a Republican special interest group doesn’t make them whole.
I’ve been saying this is what they should do for months by the way.
Paul, we will still kill the tax increase at the ballot box. The Gov will not get away with the blackmail
Roger,
His issue is that a “pledge” he has signed may actually be used as a weapon against him in a reelection campaign.
So you are saying that he might be held accountable if he passes a net tax increase, and the pledge would be used by an opponent to demonstrate that? Sounds like a load of ….
All ATR said is IF he decided to vote for this package, it would not violate his pledge to not raise taxes. No more, no less. It doesn’t require him to vote for the package OR against the package.
Of course, the unstated part of the pledge is that most conservative Republicans want to lower taxes, which this package does. If your legislator does not subscribe to that premise, he is no conservative.