The Bush Tax Betrayal

Townhall ^ | 12/11/18 | Stephen Moore

[from occupied ga]

The eulogies for George H.W. Bush keep rolling in, and a great American hero's life has been given proper tribute.

But there has also been a rewriting of history about the Bush presidency that needs to be cleared up. Liberals love Bush for the very tax increase betrayal that destroyed his presidency. This was the official end of the Reagan era. This was not just the political blunder of the half-century, it was a fiscal policy catastrophe.

Most readers under the age of 40 have no idea the real story of what happened. What the history books are writing is that Bush showed political "courage" in breaking his "Read my lips: No new taxes" pledge, and he was thrown out of office for doing the right thing.

Wrong. The quick story is that the Reagan expansion -- in no small part due to the reduction of the highest tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent -- was shrinking deficit spending dramatically by the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency. The budget deficit had fallen in half, to 2.9 percent of GDP by 1988. It was headed to below 2 percent if Bush simply had done nothing.

We will never know whether Bush always had a secret plan to raise taxes, but we do know that Dick Darman, Bush's budget director, persuaded Bush to agree to a budget deal with congressional Democrats to raise income taxes in exchange for spending cuts from Democrats.

But instead of cutting government spending, the 1990 budget deal became a license for Democrats to spend and spend. The budget deficit in 1991 was supposed to be $253 billion, and if Bush simply allowed the Gramm-Rudman automatic spending cuts to occur, the deficit would have fallen to below $100 billion. Instead, the deficit that year was $269 billion -- with the tax increase.

The eulogies for George H.W. Bush keep rolling in, and a great American hero's life has been given proper tribute.

But there has also been a rewriting of history about the Bush presidency that needs to be cleared up. Liberals love Bush for the very tax increase betrayal that destroyed his presidency. This was the official end of the Reagan era. This was not just the political blunder of the half-century, it was a fiscal policy catastrophe.

Most readers under the age of 40 have no idea the real story of what happened. What the history books are writing is that Bush showed political "courage" in breaking his "Read my lips: No new taxes" pledge, and he was thrown out of office for doing the right thing.

Wrong. The quick story is that the Reagan expansion -- in no small part due to the reduction of the highest tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent -- was shrinking deficit spending dramatically by the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency. The budget deficit had fallen in half, to 2.9 percent of GDP by 1988. It was headed to below 2 percent if Bush simply had done nothing.

We will never know whether Bush always had a secret plan to raise taxes, but we do know that Dick Darman, Bush's budget director, persuaded Bush to agree to a budget deal with congressional Democrats to raise income taxes in exchange for spending cuts from Democrats.

But instead of cutting government spending, the 1990 budget deal became a license for Democrats to spend and spend. The budget deficit in 1991 was supposed to be $253 billion, and if Bush simply allowed the Gramm-Rudman automatic spending cuts to occur, the deficit would have fallen to below $100 billion. Instead, the deficit that year was $269 billion -- with the tax increase.

Democrats could not hardly contain their glee. They knew that the tax hike would divide and conquer the Republican Party and win back the White House for the first time in 12 years in exile. With a third-party candidate Ross Perot in the race, George H.W. Bush, who had a 90 percent approval rating in 1990, got less than 40 percent of the vote two years later.

Few events of the last four decades have had a more profound political impact than the Bush tax betrayal. This folly solidified the Republican stance as an anti-tax party, and Republicans have not voted for a tax hike ever since.

Three enduring lessons should be learned by the 1990 budget deal.

1) Tax increases always lead to more government spending, not less.

2) Tax increases damage the economy and can make deficits worse.

3) When Republicans raise taxes, they lose.

Democrats would seemingly give up their first-born son to get Donald Trump to vote for a tax hike as Bush did. They harbor secret hopes that high budget deficits (due to spending hikes, because revenues are at an all-time high) will sucker Trump into a 1990-style tax hike. He likes to make deals. This scenario would guarantee Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden or whomever it might be, the keys to the Oval Office.

President Trump, don't go there unless you want to be as George H.W. Bush put it "a one-termer."

[kearnyirish2]

Never mind that, liberals never loved Bush or McCain while they were politically active in their younger days. They only lionize them in death because 1) they aren’t in office as Republicans anymore, and 2) they want to pretend that type of Republican (as opposed to Trump) was some kind of ideal to which Trump should be compared. McCain was a foil to use against Trump when he was old and sick; like Bush I, when he ran for president all of these libs were arrayed against him.

Look at the campaigns waged against these dead Republicans while they were active, and you see right through this BS.

[from occupied ga]

Bush was an honorable man, with integrity

You can only postulate this if you also postulate he was dumb as a box of rocks to believe what the Democrats told him. I think he knew exactly what would happen, but for public consumption apparently "believed" the Democrat deal to placate his voters - didn't work. The voters saw through the bullsh!t. You actually think that Bush BELIEVED that the Democrats would cut spending if he signed the tax increase? Does anyone really believe that a Washington insider was that naïve?

[DIRTYSECRET]

We could eliminate 10% of the government TOMORROW and no one will notice. A shutdown is needed to show just that. Could be on par with the firing of the air traffic controllers in regard to our enemies.

[Psycho_Runner]

I really have a hard time believing Bush was honorable! He either lied to the American public about no new taxes or his words are meaningless. Either way, it was not honorable to for him to raise taxes.

[LouAvul]

And what happens when 52% of voters are democrats and demand the increases? That's America today. We're a psychotic dog that's biting itself.

[from occupied ga]

And Reagan made a good faith immigration deal with the dems

I reiterate You cannot reason with them. You cannot bargain with them. They will take everything you have and give you nothing in return.

Leftists can only win by destroying us or lose if we destroy them. There is no common ground. Their wants and desires for the citizens are not remotely like anything we want for ourselves. The want to rule us with an iron fist dictating what we eat, where and how far we can travel, where we can live, what we're allowed to say and not say, what modes of transportation we're allowed to use, what temperature we're allowed to keep our houses, how much water we can use. The list is endless. And above all they want us disarmed and helpless so their beloved jackbooted thugs in blue can do as they want without any serious opposition.

We on the other hand simply want to be left alone to live our lives they way we see fit. I can't understand why anyone smarter than a clam would vote for a Democrat.

[Moonman62]

Jul 13, 2018 - Overall, 40 percent of voters in 31 party registration states are Democrats, 29 percent are Republicans, and 28 percent are independents, ...

[Susquehanna Patriot]

“...beating a dead horse.”

Depends on how one approaches the subject, perhaps a learning history. The history that was purposely overlooked by the born-again-lovers-of-HW-because-it-is-time-to-use-a-funeral-to-bash-Trump, bad-haircut, cheap suit wearing media and their democrap party hacks. Their hypocrisy was more than obvious to those that lived through and remember HW’s Presidency.

HW’s broken tax pledge did not fix the problem that it was supposed to “solve” (deficit spending). There were plenty of democraps who saw it as a way to unwind Reagan’s tax cuts. HW’s broken tax pledge gave him 37% of the popular vote in his ‘92 loss. They also saw it as a way to dispirit his voters in the next election.

WJC won with 43% of the popular vote; there were a lot of people who would not vote for him in ‘92. Perot made it possible taking 19% - he received significant votes for those who heard the sucking sound of US jobs leaving the country due to NAFTA and federal “daficits” were going to ruin the country .... he got a significant votes from people who rejected HW because he broke his pledge.

When Perot first came out, he was a serious challenger because of his focus on a few, significant fiscal issues. However, when he dropped out before the summer because of an odd story how the Bush family was sending secret agents to disrupt a family wedding. The secret agent story cost him votes when he re-entered the race later in the year. Despite such peculiar behavior which came across as someone a little unbalanced “upstairs”, he took ~19% of the vote... mostly from people who left HW because of his broken promise.

Perot in one way made WJC President - electorally. HW made WJC President by breaking his promise. A promise made at the convention in order to bring aboard Reagan supporters who did not quite trust him as a supporter of the Reagan revolution. What HW gained in ‘88, he lost in ‘92. No one should be surprised at the outcome. Just as no one should be surprised that the democraps today “love” HW.

[Moonman62]

And the best way to beat the Democrat percentage is to run as a Conservative. Self identified Conservatives outnumber liberals everywhere except Hawaii and Washington DC.

[GoldenPup]

Bush showed political “courage” in breaking his “Read my lips: No new taxes” pledge, and he was thrown out of office for doing the right thing.

Patent Bullshit. All of Bush’s previous lofty positions (with one exception) had been appointments (yes he rode to VP on Reagan’s coat tails) so he really didn’t realize the price he would have to pay by breaking his promise. AND he most likely got some really stupid advice.

[ProudVet97]

“What purpose in beating a dead horse?”

Don’t you know according to PETA it should be “feeding a fed horse?” lol

[from occupied ga]

Self identified Conservatives outnumber liberals everywhere except Hawaii and Washington DC.

And MA and MD and NY and IL and CA and NJ just to name a few with VA sliding into the liberal camp recently too.

[Susquehanna Patriot]

“There is no common ground.”

And there is no good will.

Once the elected GOP understands and believes this, and more importantly many voters who have been indoctrinated and kept ingnorant of our history, only then will institutional change take place from within. This morning, I am beginning to believe it isn’t going to happen that way.

[from occupied ga]

he really didn’t realize the price he would have to pay by breaking his promise. AND he most likely got some really stupid advice.

I kind of agree since he was a Wash insider he obviously held the little people in contempt thinking that the patently false BS of "believing" an out year series of spending cuts would happen would fool his voters into voting for him again. Didn't work. So we got Slick Willie and the Hacking Hag and now we can't seem to get them to go away.

[saywhatagain]

The Bush Tax Betrayal "may be" the the political blunder of the half-century. Does it compare how Bush lied to the American public regarding China?

This 10 minute YT explains in simple detail the failure and betrayal of the American public by 41 regarding China and the policy going forward. This betrayal "bad judgement?"

George HW Bush's muted response to Tiananmen Massacre greatest US China policy failure

In the presentation, he states over 2,500 people gunned down that night. That appears to be the "official" record. Whispers are between 10,000 to 12,000. They were NOT killed by the local police and military.

As we saw, the tank driver refused to run over the single protesto. Records show troops from many different provinces were called. The group from Mongolia did the dirty deed . . . per the whispers.

[Moonman62]

The point is that there is a much bigger advantage running Conservative versus liberal rather than Republican versus Democrat.

I don’t know why so many FReepers insist on being pessimistic no matter what. Perhaps it’s all the liberal propaganda that gets posted here.

[Buckeye McFrog]

That lie brought the Democrat Party back from the brink of extinction.

He has much to answer for.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Worse than that was the refusal to implement the border security and enforcement promises in the 1986 amnesty that assured we would be flooded with 10 times the number of illegal aliens.

The Bush Plan for North Mexico (aka USA) is the legacy for which he will be remembered.

[trebb]

We on the other hand simply want to be left alone to live our lives they way we see fit. I can't understand why anyone smarter than a clam would vote for a Democrat.

Amen....

[JimRed]

There were no “new” taxes, just increases in the old ones!