I'm going to make fairly broad analogy here..but think of Mexico as the USA about 100 years ago...the establishement of an income tax here was designed to break up the mega-rich regional control of the country, acquire federal and local resources with which to build infrastructure in rural areas, and accelerate and facilitate the transition from an agricultural economy to a manufacturing economy. When we deal with the present Mexican leadership,who have read history north of the border, their gamble is to keep their oil assets and not be forced to invest in their countrymen , as ultimately many of the American "robber barons" families and corporations were 100 years ago. If George W. Bush is serious about bringing the benefits of the American Republic to Iraq, I expect to see him and his leadership doubly serious about the septic mess south of the border...not to prop up the status quo there on the backs of the American middle-class. Likwise, if he is intellectually and politically honest about homeland security, I expect to see real, functioning, constructive border solutions at the North and South that ultimateley enhance our relations with our neighbors. ("Good fences make good neighbors"). This is the only American approach to these issues.
I'm impressed! It's not that common to meet a socialist on FR, and it's less common to meet a socialist who admits it. Contrary to your socialist version of history, though, it was the mega-rich who lobbied for an income tax. Why? Because before income taxes, the government was funded by import duties and excise taxes, mostly paid by the mega-rich. The income tax was a massive tax-cut for the wealthy.