From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Tax Increases - A Little Truth
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:09:01 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Aug12.200948.29368@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
> In article 9L7@solbourne.com, kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
> >While reading article <1992Aug11.162155.20722@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, I noticed that
> >acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) said the following:
> > >George Bush's 1990 tax increase had 73 separate tax increases.
> >As Rush would say, please remember that "George Bush's" 1990 tax increase was
> >written, sponsored, and passed by your friends and mine, the Democrats in
> >Congress.  Bush didn't say "let's raise taxes," he said "Fine, I'll go along
> >with the Democrats to try to appease them."
>

This last sentence above is totally correct.  Given that without a budget,
congress was just extending the Graham-Rudman cutoff dates out into the
future (3 times they did this), Bush didn't have much of a choice but to
work out some sort of comprimise.  In exchange for the tax hike, Bush got
serious spending limitation concessions.  However, there were two provisions
in the agreement that would allow the spending limits to be broken: War (as
in the Gulf War which happened almost 2 years later), and Recession.

> Let me try some basic logic here.  If the Congress is responsible for all the
> tax increases and Bush is powerless to do anything about it then what difference
> does it make who is president?  Obviously, the president has no power in this
> matter of taxation.  Why all the fuss over Clinton's tax promises and whatnot?
>

Congress IS responsibile for the tax increases - according to the constitution.
Us conservatives WON'T ignore the constitution or try to alter it :)  Bush is
NOT powerless to do anything about it - he has the veto.  Bush used the veto
over 30 times, including vetoes of tax hike bills.

Expect any vetoes from Clinton?  Sheesh, I hate to imagine how much worse
the economy and recession would be/have been without those vetoes.

> Bush is not the agent of change as he claims.  He will be a lame duck who
> what makes anyone think things would be different under Clinton?
>

Bush is a fine agent of change.  His proposals for education reform, welfare
reform, and economic growth were simply not passed by congress.  Most didn't
even get out of Democratic loaded committees to get voted on by the whole
congress.  What makes Bush a good agent of change is the fact that we are
likely to see 150-200 NEW congressmen this election.  This is a mandate of
the people to get people in there that will not gridlock the govt.  I would
much rather have had the gridlock, though, than to have had more tax hikes
and anti-growth programs that the democrats passed (simple majority needed)
and Bush vetoed.


> ---
>
> ====================================================================
> Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
> internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
> uucp:		lsil!msako
> RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
> Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
> 		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
> 		management, or my mother

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024