But, but, but... The tax cuts are supposed to pay for themselves! Of course Bush may decide to bankrupt everyone rather than admit he was wrong.
By early 2005, I expect the pressure to reduce deficits to be inexorable. While Republican control of the House and Senate may cause any budget deal to focus more on budget cuts and less on tax increases than they usually do, the latter are inevitable. It is simply unrealistic to think that a large deficit-reduction plan can rely solely on budget cuts. Revenues will be on the table. Remember that Ronald Reagan signed major tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987. By 1988, he had taken back almost half of the 1981 tax cut. But at the end of the day, he cut taxes more than he raised them. That is why conservatives forgave him and why they will probably forgive George W. Bush as well.
and...
The Bush administration says spending discipline can forestall the projected deficits. The fact is that high and growing deficits remain in the cards even with extraordinary spending restraint. Without tax increases or politically unpalatable service cuts, the only source of savings is a gigantic, wholly improbable 75 percent cut in so-called "discretionary spending" -- the kind of spending used to finance rockets to the moon. Of course, Congress just added a new entitlement -- the drug benefit. Unless they opt to pay for it by reducing benefits for the tens of millions of baby boomers who will be retiring soon, the only alternative is tax increases.
Current Events » in reply to P.S.
how about some bush tax increases?