The way that most of the tax cuts were structured, is that they had a "sunset" provision, and unless the provisions for the cut are renewed, they revert to the old rates. This was at the insistence of the Democrats and a few RINOs in Congress. A conscious policy of KEEPING the rates at a low level would be called upon, and Kerry has not evinced that belief in such a policy.
The next thing kicking around out there is to eliminate the progressive income tax altogether, and replace it with a national sales tax. This is not as drastic as it sounds, because as the tax is applied to the end product, the corporate income taxes of every level that were built into the price of the goods disappears. The consumer, no longer liable for the payment of taxes on income, has more disposable income to purchase goods and services, and controls the level of taxes paid to the Federal government.
Social Security, a separate income tax that is totally regressive, is an entirely different issue.
I believe that you are wrong on that. Tax plans can not be filibustered if they are only for 10 years and originate in the house of rep. If they are "permanent" then they need 60 votes in the senate.
DON'T BLAME IT ON RIO, OR RINOS
go here
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett022603.asp
and read this
"Unfortunately, it is almost a certainty that any new tax cuts enacted this year will suffer the same fate. That is because it will take 60 votes in the Senate to make a tax cut permanent. It takes that many votes to cut off a filibuster, which Democrats would use to defeat the effort. Therefore, tax-cut supporters will have to use a complicated legislative procedure known as reconciliation to avoid a filibuster. "