“Signed Americans for Tax Reform's Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a written commitment to oppose any and all efforts to increase individual and business income tax rates and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits unless matched by lower tax rates.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Independently re-verified. (a) The cited primary source is real and live: Americans for Tax Reform's own pledge database explicitly lists 'Mike Rogers — Alabama — AL-03 — Incumbent: Yes' as a Taxpayer Protection Pledge signer, correctly identifying the Alabama Rogers (not the Michigan one). Wikipedia independently confirms he is a signatory to the pledge. So the promised act — signing the written commitment — is confirmed done. (b) On the substantive commitment (oppose income-tax-rate increases and unmatched deduction/credit reductions), his record is consistent with the pledge: he voted for the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (a large tax cut), and there is no documented instance of him voting for an income-tax-rate increase or an unmatched reduction of deductions/credits. ATR publicly flags pledge-breakers and Rogers is not among them. With an affirmative pro-taxpayer vote and no recorded breach, the commitment is kept — FULL. Applied nonpartisanly: a member of either party who signed a comparable pledge and adhered without breach would earn the same FULL. Note: the prior rating's ATR quote ('Opposes All Tax Increases As a Matter of Principle') was a general database description, not the per-signer entry; corrected below to the verified signer entry. FULL and ~0.8 confidence stand (signing is definitive; the only uncertainty is the negative claim of zero breaches, which is well-supported but inherently not exhaustively provable).
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.