Now this might give some conservatives quite a headache…
The Bush administration has sent signals since last month’s elections that the president is prepared to accept some tax increases on upper-income families, worrying congressional Republicans and fiscal conservative watchdogs who say he will compromise with Democrats to win a legacy accomplishment.
These moves come even as Democrats have pledged to rein in earmarks, winning praise from the same conservative groups that are criticizing Mr. Bush.
The watchdog groups have been demanding that the president repeat his earlier pledges not to raise taxes in order to reform Social Security. But the White House has refused, with officials saying everything is on the table, including tax increases.
“So far, no one in the administration has simply stood up and said, ‘We will not raise payroll taxes in any way, shape or form,’ ” said Pete Sepp, a vice president for the National Taxpayers Union, which led a coalition of several dozen groups to write a letter asking for such an assurance.
Meanwhile, the House’s top Republican on tax cuts, outgoing Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, warned last week that the White House has hinted that it will accept a tax increase on higher-income families in order to win accommodations from Democrats.
As a liberal conservative, I am no fan of taxes either, but… tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts is (I’ll be blunt) stupid. At the moment certain programs have to be reformed, a government might need more money (in the short term at least), in such a situation it seems quite logical to me to raise taxes. Without those raises, the reforms cannot take place and that might, in the long run, cost more money.
On the other hand, when one is going to raise taxes, one should always try to find other ways of getting the additional money first: save spendings in other areas. When that’s not possible, at least not right-a-way, it makes sense to go ahead and raise taxes.
Others on this:
Greg Tinti at the Political Pit Bull
[W]hile The Times frames this as a legacy play, I think reforming Social Security is something that Bush rightly sees as something that needs to be done–and the sooner the better. And that Bush isn’t willing to adhere to conservative principles to do so should really come as no surprise; as Governor of Texas, Bush sought compromise with the Democratic legislature with only one principle in mind: get things done. He is The Decider, after all.
But assuming that the Democrats will only work with Bush on Social Security if a tax increase on upper-income families occurs, heres’s an interesting question for conservatives: What would you rather have? A compromise solution to Social Security that fully solves the current problems and ensures the program’s viability with the mentioned tax increase or the status quo–an entitlement program that will eventually go bankrupt and lower taxes, probably only in the short-term?
Professor Bainbridge, who isn’t exactly happy:
With two years left, Bush’s legacy now looks likely to include:
* A massive increase in entitlements
* A massive increase in the role of federal government in education
* Infringements on civil liberties
* A huge budget deficit
* Higher taxes
* A lost warOther than two good SCOTUS appointments, this is not exactly the sort of record those of us who once supported him expected. Indeed, it’s enough to make me rethink my position on the question of whether Bush is a worse president than Jimmy Carter.
Welcome to Neoconservatism, I’d say.
At this point, I’m open to the suggestion that President Bush is hell-bent on destroying the Republican party. If he goes along with a tax increase, the party will be badly damaged as the MSM will savage the conservative wing. The party needs to be cohesive heading into 2008, not “bi-partisan� (which means caving to silly liberal demands).
Heh.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.