Well, conservatives argue, if the money's not there, big-ticket Democratic projects would have to be postponed. But the greatest threat, in this regard, isn't that the money will have been given back to the taxpayers in the form of Bush's rate cuts. Then, when they finally get a chance to achieve the ancient liberal dream of national health care, the surplus they've been counting on to finance such a system might be gone. Bush's plan prevents this disaster scenario, restraining the natural bipartisan impulse to fritter away trillions on a hodgepodge of mid-sized subsidies. True, Democrats will probably have to raise taxes to get it.
Democrats seem to have lost faith in their governing appeal.
While no politician likes to cast a vote to raise taxes, it can be done. Taxes were raised in 1983 under Reagan, in 1990 under Bush I, and in 1993 under Clinton. Many of the big reductions don't take effect until 2006. In reality, of course, these Democratic priorities are quite popular, as the last election showed. Even those Bush tax cuts that do go into effect will increase the ability and willingness of taxpayers to be taxed later.