Heck of a sacrifice, huh? Pledges to do (or not do) what people were already going to do (or not do) anyway aren't a noble principled stand or voluntarily hostage to voters, they're a rallying cry to the base and ultimatum to fling at opponents. When a pro-choice liberal "pledges" to fight abortion restrictions, the whole planet already knew they would; pledging it publicly is just a cheap publicity stunt to tell the base electing anyone else is tantamount to slaughtering women in the streets. Such pledges are an escape clause, so opponents who insist MAKING concessions is contingent on RECEIVING concessions, and that the nations interest requires sacrifices from everyone, politicians can drape stubborn refusal in pretensions to principled commitment. The pledge doesn't change politicians behavior, it just lets them indulge the conceit they're bowing to the peoples will rather than doing what they please.

When I was in HS, a friend of mine and moondogs had a poster of a mule in his stall, with a caption reading, "I'm not stubborn, I'm just true to my convictions." That's all the taxes pledge does: Present obstinance as commitment. Unfortunately, it incidentally makes compromise impossible because it elevates momentary rhetorical absolutism to non-negotiable long term policy. Again, polls shows 3 out 4 voters WANT a millionaire tax hike, and 5 out of 6 want NO Social Security cuts, so all that's missing now is Democrats reverently (and publicly) saying, "I have heard the peoples will: Tax hikes on millionaires and no Social Security cuts!" Then all routes to federal solvency will be eliminated; go, team....