Posted on 12/21/2006 6:58:32 AM PST by meg88
President Bush is willing to raise taxes.
That reality was a big surprise to me 16 years ago, in 1990, when I was working in the White House. It's less of a surprise to me in 2006, when I am on the outside - because, after a while, you learn to identify the warning signs.
In both cases, both Bushes have been willing to talk about "process" and "common ground."
Here's the "on the table" language, right on the front page of yesterday's Washington Post: "Signaling a new flexibility on issues in the wake of the Democrats' wins, Bush said he is willing to discuss Democratic ideas for solving the Social Security problem, including tax increases."
The president is quoted as adding, "I don't see how you can move forward without people feeling comfortable about putting ideas on the table."
Those are the magic words the Democrats were waiting to hear. As Post reporter Michael Fletcher explains, Bush's "new flexibility" is "part of a larger White House plan to renew the effort to tame the rising costs of government entitlement programs as the nation's population ages."
And so, the Post reporter added, the administration is willing to consider "higher payroll taxes."
The Post, of course, has never met a tax increase it didn't like, and the Powertown paper is not above trying to cajole Republicans into generating more revenue for its Beltway readership.
But a look at the transcript confirms the Post's interpretation. Asked whether tax increases are on the table, Bush answered that the Democrats "can come to the table and talk about them."
In D.C., that's code for opening up a discussion that leads, inevitably, to a tax increase.
I know, because I was there the last time this happened.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Well if he does that, he won't get reelected.
That's not what I voted for.
We are being set up for bubba and the beast part 2
My guess is that if the dems want a tax increase they'll have to pass it over his veto. Luring them in by saying he'll listen is fine. Then let them propose their tax increases and he can simply say "See, I told you so".
Just FYI, the President doesn't have the authority to raise taxes, he can only sign or veto the bill produced by Congress.
I don't think this is what any of us voted for.
I doubt he will but I also doubt he cares too much about pleasing all the backstabbers who wimped out in November.
How is it going to doom President Bush?
Well, even the President himself said it; Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. He was supposedly joking at the time.
The Left despises him because they think he's a conservative.
The Right despises him because they know he's not.
Neither will any R's in 2008 either, just like last November.
But he certainly seems to care about trying to please (futilely) the 47% of the population that voted for Kerry and will hate him no matter what he does.
At least that's what the Germans would have you believe. :-)
I'm guessing more taxes for the "rich" will definitely happen. I'll be retired and deeply into the "underground economy" by then.
But it will be a bad deal for my offspring who are on the lower rungs of their careers.
These people just don't get it. Tax cuts are the simplest and most sure-fire way of improving the economy.
In this particular case, you are raising taxes on younger, productive people to pay benefits to the retired. How is this going to improve the economic condition of the "middle class". I don't think an increase in payroll withholding is going to sit well.
I'll bet V.P. Cheney wishes he was out of this whole hoffenmist.
For those of you in Rio Linda....no, I will not translate "hoffenmist" for you.
Leni
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.