Bush charts second-term strategy

msnbc.msn.com ^ | Dec. 10, 2004 | Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen

[inquest]

The whole idea of making them permanent would be to put pressure on them to cut spending.

[Drennan Whyte]

The whole idea of making them permanent would be to put pressure on them to cut spending.

Why?

[inquest]

Why what? Why should we want to put pressure on them to cut spending? See FR's mission statement.

[Drennan Whyte]

Why should we want to put pressure on them to cut spending.

No, why should we expect this President or this Congress to cut spending? Neither one has shown any inclination to reign in federal spending, regardless of the size of the deficit. Just the opposite, Bush has indicated that he is prepared to accept $1 trillion to $2 trillion more in deficit spending in order to privatize a part of Social Security. Congress just passed an omnibus spending bill so laden with pork that it squeals. And you expect them to respond to some vague pressure from us to cut spending? Please.

[inquest]

There's a limit to how much they can load onto the deficit without causing major economic trouble. That's where the pressure comes in. Making the tax cuts permanent will increase the pressure that much further.

[Drennan Whyte]

There's a limit to how much they can load onto the deficit without causing major economic trouble.

Agreed. But this administration and this Congress have shown no signs of believing that. It will take a major economic disaster to accomplish that.

[inquest]

I don't think they'd be willing to risk a major economic disaster. That generally doesn't help their political fortunes.

[BJClinton]

Aside from these being very necessary reforms this should create some coattails for '06.