Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 01/08/2007 1:46:00 AM PST by GiovannaNicoletta
WASHINGTON -- More than the ascension of Nancy Pelosi & Co. was disturbing congressional Republicans last week. They worried that George W. Bush may proceed down the same path that made his father a one-term president. Thus, they ask this question: Will the current President Bush embrace a tax increase that would produce potential economic disaster and guaranteed political catastrophe?
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Since it's hard to detect Bush's core economic principles it's impossible to say what he'll do. I'm guessing he'll go along to get along. Meanwhile, another thread here on commodity prices points to a downturn in the economy. Tax increases in the face of a downturn would be a disaster.
President Bush won't go along with this. But it's possible for a bill to be passed through Democratic Congress but that means there will be an opportunity for him to veto it.
The discussion is about removing the cap on payroll taxes that are supposed to fund social security. According to the article it would be the largest tax increase in history. So far the administration won't rule it out. Bush would destroy whatever credibility he has left if he goes for it.
I hope he does veto a tax increase and in a very loud and public way that makes clear the Dems did it. That would be the time to send forth every flack and rep he can get.
"...Congress but that means there will be an opportunity for him to veto it."
are you still talking about Bush?
Instead, Bush and all the Republicans should be loudly proclaiming that the democrats want to tank the economy and play JFK's famous words that tax cuts stimulate the economy. Republicans are about to become extinct through stupidity.
Bush will raise taxes, then use the money to provide satellite navigation devices, for illegal immigrants... ;)
Sag,
The turn about would be fair play if he vetoed this considering the grief they gave him for just considering SSI reform. What is even juicer is the fact his proposal was not all that different than Clinton's, Ergo Clinton's was a transfer of 5% and Bush's was 4% but under GWB's you had choice of the same funds that the Congress has in their 403(b)'s. What Clinton wanted to do with his RDDB mindset was to pick the fund for you, ergo an S & P 500 type of fund and eliminate you ability to choose.
Granted a really good option that no one talked about was having people take an asset allocation test to give them an idea what mix was good for them. If I am not mistaken, the methodology behind these test is based on the Nobel Prize winning work of the likes of Mankowitz, Tobin, and Sharpe (Read the book: "The search for Alpha").
GWB could couch it as this is not real reform and get a lot of mileage out of it. It would be sweat to see the firestorm that this would create.
GWB could couch it as this is not real reform and get a lot of mileage out of it. It would be sweat to see the firestorm that this would create.
That would be effective. An alternate theory as to why the administration isn't flatly rejecting payroll tax increases is 1:they want to control the debate about where those tax increases would go (individual savings accounts) or 2:they simply want the Democrats on record as calling for the largest tax increase in history so they can beat them over the head with it in 2008. I hope it's the second strategery myself.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
For the President to backdown now, on a subject he repeats nearly everytime he speaks, would be far worse than the *Read my Lips* promise.
Bush has the Public Relations awareness of the Microsoft Nerd.
He and his GOP team have no talent or guts to stand up to Democrats or Liberal Media, or Islamofascists for that matter.
Reagan was a man who named his Commie enemy, declared it evil, and ridiculed the Democrats incessantly. He also played Liberal Media like a fiddle.
Bush has become a total farce, and his betrayal of Conservative principles lost the Congress.
Fund social scurity for Mexico?
What you say is true. The Bush Team and their poor PR probably did more to add to the 2006 losses than people wish to admit. They were totally inept at communicating and defending attacks from Dems.
The Republicans really need to become more savvy or they will keep losing. This has become so frustrating for the Republican voters. I think we are tired of watching them eat c**p from the RATs with no hot defense in return. They always end up looking like bumbling fools.
Of course it might help if the Prez and the party were on the same page. Perhaps they could do more than just reacting and go on the offensive once in a while!
It could be a good campaign issue to bring up the fact how well the economy performed with the GOP Congress and Pres while the Demonrats take over and it goes to hell. Demonrats are a disaster; Clintoon was lucky to have a GOP Congress save his arse.
Fund social scurity for Mexico?
I think the best way to oppose this new tax is to couch it in exactly those terms.
"Tax increase to fund SS for mexicans" has a wonderful leaden ring to it.
Yes it does...
Now, the "no social issues" crowd who blame social conservatives for the recent GOP defeat, can also have their cake crammed right down their throats...
Only 19 replies, interesting.
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.