Bush is backing off of his "renew mah tax cuts NOW, before I call my mommaaaaa..." cant, and instead saying that we should just make all the tax cuts that would expire next year permanent.
Now, there's something about the hypocrisy of battling over a highway bill to save $10 billion a year while simultaneously battling for a tax cuts that would add billions more to the deficit each year even if the highway bill was passed the way Bush wanted it that just sticks in my craw, but anymore, I've got 75% of what Bush does stuck there at any time, and it's getting a little bit clogged.
Anyway, this change in Bush's strategy, I hope, marks a sea change in the legislative thinking on tax cuts. It's been a lot of blather, a lot of hype, and a lot of deficits for very little in the way of real change, especially the promised ones. I'm hoping that tax cuts have ceased to be the free ice cream of politics and that George W. Bush has finally exhausted the political tolerance for overlooking the actual economic and fiscal effects of tax cuts. He's pushing for the soon-to-expire tax cuts to be passed because he (and, more importantly, congressional Republicans) realize that another massive tax-cut package won't pass electoral muster.
Of course, they have no plan to rectify the effects of the other tax cuts, either...but small steps, people. Small steps.
*Oberon points out, rightly, that this is basically a ploy to delay making the other tax cuts permanent until after the election. But, at the same time, they realize that cutting taxes right now is a liability rather than a boon.
Posted by Jesse Taylor at February 26, 2004 06:16 PM | TrackBackSea change? I doubt it. They're still planning on making all other tax cuts permanent, they're just waiting until after November.
the money for the highway bill comes from the federal gas tax, and so won't contribute to the deficit either way.
Posted by: Sam at February 26, 2004 06:43 PMYes, but he's portraying it as a deficit matter. Gotta cut spending and all.
Oberon - I have to be an optimist at *some* point.
Posted by: jesse at February 26, 2004 06:50 PMWhy can't someone make the basic point that Greensapn's plan to cut social security IS raising taxes!
Posted by: karl rave at February 26, 2004 06:55 PMNah, after the election, taxes are going up no matter who the president is.
I know because Bruce Bartlett said so.
Posted by: praktike at February 26, 2004 07:01 PMThis is good news. They are bleeding, wounded, defensive, scared. They are toast.
Posted by: bob mcmanus at February 26, 2004 08:51 PMIf you went into a store that was having a sale good through the weekend, would you feel justified in storming out, denouncing them because they were going to "raise their prices" on Monday?
No? Then why is the expiration of tax reductions specifically labeled "temporary" described as a "tax increase?"
Posted by: LarryE at February 27, 2004 05:11 AMI am not an economist but it is not difficult to prove that there is no way the US can afford a permanent tax-cut without serious cuts to services. The extra tax revenues generated by giving billions back to the top 1% is not going to cover the cost of such tax cuts. That did not happen during Reagan and certainly won't in the future.
To balance the budget the government would need to either cut Defense, Social Security, or Medicare as these are the biggest chunks of tax expanses. Since Bush had already increased Medicare costs this year, and the fact that Iraq war will be going on for a while, the only thing the government can really do, is to cut SS costs.
This is actually a very good campaign issue as long as the PR people can expain this issue to people effectively. Many people in the US are anti-SS although they probably will be benefitting a lot more from SS than Bush's tax-cuts. However, to make them understand this, is difficult.
Posted by: blah. at February 27, 2004 08:54 AM
