■ 04 February 2012 | 5:00 AM
Dealer shows his colors
Re 'Varied views greet Rigell after switch on tax pledge,' front page, Jan. 31: Why am I not surprised that Rep. Scott Rigell has reneged on his pledge not to vote for tax increases without matching spending cuts?Rigell owns an auto dealership. The nature of the business is to negotiate and make deals. Now we need legislators who are steadfast in reducing federal spending rather than asking for more money from already stressed taxpayers.
Rigell says that by abandoning his promise, he can support eliminating tax subsidies for oil companies and agricultural interests. Is he saying he cannot do that without reneging on the pledge that most likely got him elected? I will no more forget this than I have forgotten how Sen. Mark Warner voted for every big spending bill like health care, cap and trade and no action on controlling the cost of illegal immigrants but now says we must do something about the dire economic situation of the country.
Ruth Wilson
Virginia Beach
Commenting on this article is open to verified users only | Learn how to become verified here
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
He has guts
To stand up against Norquist and his lobby takes guts. Rigell knows that cuts alone won't work, that added revenue has to be generated. Norquist would rather see our government and thus our country paralyzed before facing this fact. If there ever was a one man curse upon this nation, it's Grover Norquist.
I didn't vote for Rigell before, but he's got my vote now.
Consistancy, truth, and honor.
The important aspect of this editorial is whether or not a candidate/politician is genuine in their rhetoric for prevailing in an election. Succumbing to populist "finger in the air" views, whether or not they adhere to their communicated tenets for electoral support is the issue. Such is the case with Rep. Rigell.
No matter how a constituent personally feels on the matter of subsidies or not, the underlying issue is the truthfulness under which the Congressman sought the office. By turning a 180 on a campaign issue, whatever the subject, he has betrayed the conviction under which he was entrusted. Hence, he deserves an F in Trust on his report card.
2 things proven
By changing his mind, Congressman Rigell may have proved he is not a partisan.
By criticizing Congressman Rigell's actions, you may have proved that you are.
Partisan (political):
In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is widely understood to carry a negative connotation - referring to those who wholly support their party's policies and are perhaps even reluctant to acknowledge correctness on the part of their political opponents in almost any situation. Partisanship can be affected by many factors including current events, figureheads (presidents), decisions, and even location.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_%28political%29
It is a small glimmer of
It is a small glimmer of reason to see Mr. Rigell step away from the Norquist's suicide pact. Just where do people think the money for fixing our collapsing infrastructure is going to come from? If we can't raise revenue through any kind of tax, then it must come from money currently spent on other things. Let's see, education, welfare for the poor, unemployment benefits for the jobless. Oh we've already stripped those programs to the bone. How about we pay a ridiculous price to private companies, and continue to pay them for years to come, that's something to warm the cockles of a laissez fair capitalist's heart. Or we could just let the roads breakup into more and more potholes and let the bridges collapse, or we could ask everyone to pay their fair share of maintaining the roads, bridges and tunnels we all depend on with, oh I don't know, a gas tax.
I didn't vote for Rigell
But I do appreciate that he has shifted his loyalty from a Massachusetts ideologue to his constituency here in Virginia.
I'm not getting it
How does enacting new and higher taxes enable the elimination of tax subsidies? I would think that eliminating tax subsidies would alleviate the need for new and higher taxes. You know, the old two + two thing.
eliminating a tax subsidy is
eliminating a tax subsidy is equivalent to a tax increase.
it's similar a politician putting tolls on bridges and tunnels and claiming that he didn't raise your taxes.
it's also theory straight out of the right wing playbook.
did you miss that page?
What did I say?
I asked how eliminating tax subsidies would require or enable new and higher taxes. Eliminating subsidies would be tantamount to getting or keeping more revenue.
I just told you
Eliminating tax subsidies is equivalent to raising taxes.
Raising taxes is against Norquist's pledge.
Rigell is for eliminating tax subsidies.
Rigell is not honoring the pledge anymore.
got it now?????
tax subsidies....
These tax subsidies that become part of the bottom line because they generate a billion dollar tax refund to oil companies are ridiculous. Its one thing to be able to wipe away a profit till you have no tax liability is different but for it to generate an additional refund on top of that is stupid.