From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: The 1990 tax hike (was Re: "We don't want a draft  ..)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:13:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.205915.9748@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.205739.27170@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep11.233338.8242@cco.caltech.edu> anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:
>>>In <1992Sep11.152200.11549@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>
>>>Look, Bush has no more credibility or less credibility than Clinton
>>>in my eyes. But this draft thing is RIDICULOUS. The important
>>>issue in this campaign is the ECONOMY. Who cares if Clinton
>>>dodged the draft or was even for or opposed to the war. That is past. 
>
>>>Bush did something much more relevant to the major issue...the economy.
>>>He raised my taxes.
>
>>A history lesson:
>
>>In October 1990, the Democratic Congressional leadership and the Bush
>>administration brokered a budget deal with small tax increases and some
>>(substantial) budget cuts. This deal failed to pass the House, when
>>conservative Republicans rebelled at a tax increase, and liberal
>>Democrats rebelled at spending cuts. After this failure,
>>the House Democrats rewrote the bill more to their liking. They
>>raised the tax increases, and watered down the spending caps.
>>The revised bill passed the House and Senate and was
>>signed by President Bush.
>
>And, as you conveniently leave out, was then *praised* by Bush as a
>significant and positive step.
Quotes, please?
>
>>No. Bush and the Democrats in Congress *together* raised your taxes
>>to "fix" the deficit. The Democrats had a shot in 1990 to prove
>>they could craft a bill that would reduce the deficit.
>>The Democrats failed, and the deficit ballooned, while the
>>economy stumbled. We are living today with the consequences
>>of the Democrats' failure.
>
>>Did you oppose the 1990 Budget Deal and Tax Hike?
>>Was it a good idea in your opinion?
>>If it was, it is hypocritical to accuse Bush of signing the bill.
>
>No no.  You don't understand.  No one is complaining that Bush signed
>the bill.

YOU don't understand. YOU supported the 1990 Tax Hike, but
I didn't. A LOT of us, especially conservative Republicans, 
did and are complaining about the negative effects of the tax hike,
and how it damaged the economy and hurt rather than helped the budget.
So, yes, I *am* complaining about it. But I also understand where the
real responsibility lies, with BOTH Bush and the Democrats in Congress.

> It's just a *character* issue.  It goes to the issue of trust.

Yeah, Bush admits he made a mistake. He shows far more character than
the Democratic clowns in Congress who are *still* proud of
the bill.  Gore doesn't admit he made a mistake.
Clinton proposes yet more mistakes.

>(And he failed the character test.  Not just with the lie, but with his
>statement afterwards, that it was a mistake.  *Why* did George Bush call
>the budget deal a mistake?

Because it was true.

> Not because it was bad economics, but
>because it got people upset.

Nope. He has mentioned both as reasons in an interview with David
Brinkley. 

> What kind of leadership, what kind of character does THAT show?)

A leader who compromises is not always a bad thing. He compromised
on the wrong issue, with the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.
It was a mistake. He shows courage and honesty in owning up to
that, and he shows more wisdom and sense than Clinton/Gore in trying
to find a way to *lower* taxes and spending and not increase them.

>>"Read my lips. The Democrats are hypocrits"
>>Al Gore voted for the tax hike bill - and now campaigns like he was against
>
>>it.  Are you going to reward the party that crafted this legislation,
>>that forced the tax increase, with the Presidency?
>
>(As opposed to rewarding the person that signed this legislation, and
>praised it, with the Presidency?)

Okay, so the 1990 tax hike costs Bush the election, and the
people rejoice at dumping the man who signed the bill, voting in
a veep who also voted for it.
.... then we get socked with the 1993 Clinton tax bill, and assorted
spending and regulatory increases.  Go figure.

>No, parties don't craft legislation.  People do. (Gee, I sound like the NRA.)

Yeah.
People by the name of Foley, Mitchell, Gephardt, Rostenkowski, Gore, etc.
Who will wield power next year, more if Clinton is elected, and will decide
to repeat the mistake of 1990.

>Despite what George Bush is trying to claim, the Democratic party isn't
>running for president.  Jimmy Carter isn't running for president.
>Michael Dukakis isn't running for president.  Congress isn't running for
>president.  Bill Clinton is.  

.... same warmed-over (or wormed-over) programs though.

>And Bill Clinton, ..... He's a
>moderate Southern Democrat, with views that really aren't that far from
>George Bush's on most issues.

Yeah, isn't that how Carter ran in 1976? 
Gee, if this is true, one wonders at the vehemence of opposition to Bush.
If Bush, as claimed by the Clinton/Bore folks, is so bad, then 
"not-far-from-Bush" Clinton promises to be pretty bad too.
"Clinton:  The positions of Bush, without the troubling character issues"
Hilarious.

>Besides, the Democrats didn't "force" any tax increase.  The budget
>situation did.

False. There was never an absolute need to raise taxes. And, despite
Clinton and other Democrats' claims, there is no need to do so now.
The Democratic inducement for tax hikes was this: Raise taxes,
and we will once and for all adopt spending restraints that will
end the deficit. Now where did those spending restraints go?

> Despite the cries from both the left and right, the
>truth is, as even Ross Perot finally admitted, the only way to deal
>with the deficit is *both* tax increases and spending cuts.

I reject that. We could solve it wholly through spending cuts.
And before you argue that it is "politically impossible", I'll answer
"that may be true, but all other alternatives have been tried and
found to be political or economic impossibilities."

>Further, as you note, the Republicans rejected the original Bush proposal too.

They fought it because they knew we didn't need to raise taxes.
They tried (and failed) to save Bush from himself (or from Brady, Darman
and company). Their loss was the nation's loss as well.

Pat  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush