Why Bush?
This is why even Libertarians like Say Uncle — who say they are so disappointed in Bush’s policies that they will absolutely, positively not vote for him even though they are already benefiting from his leadership — should stay with Bush.
In a speech before the Tax Foundation, a policy group here that advocates lower taxes, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said his staff was preparing “a number of proposals to simplify the tax code” and resurrected the idea of “lifetime savings accounts” that would allow people to put aside large sums of money and pay no tax on the investment income they receive.
The proposed “lifetime savings accounts” would allow $7,500 per individual (that’s $15,000 for a married couple) to be put into an account for which there would be no taxes on dividends or stock profits. And it there would be a large degree of freedom for withdrawing money before retirement age without imposing penalties.
Look for this to be a centerpiece of the re-election message. Also look at it as the first step to Social Security privatization and significant tax code simplification.
Sorry, AP, there will be no tax code simplification any time soon. Maybe in your lifetime. Too many folks have too much to lose: accountants, bankers, financials of all stripes, developers and all the industries that feed into homes, even charities. Not gonna happen.
So what? Bush promised all sorts of things in his first campaign that he promptly forgot once in office.
If he wants to reform the tax code, why wait until next term. Why not now?
Bush started talking about this early in his administration but met resistance from both Dems and members of his own party:
Also, the reforms fit with the overal fiscal message of the administration. For instance, the double taxation issue, Social Security reform and an “ownership society”.
Change is slow and a politician must work within severe constraints. But Bush is more powerful now because of his popularity and everyone wants to jump on board the vote train.
Watch and see . . .
“Bush started talking about this early in his administration…”
Of course he did. Bush is great at talking. It’s Bush’s doing that I finad perpetually disappointing.
“…but met resistance from both Dems and members of his own party:”
OH NO!! NOT RESISTANCE!! Bush might actually have to lead for a change!
Bush is great at talking.
Of course he is — he’s a politician. If he wasn’t great at that he wouldn’t be president.
It’s Bush’s doing that I finad perpetually disappointing.
Yeah, like three tax cuts and reversing an inherited recession. Like rebuilding the moral of the military. Like going from the “domestic president” to the “war president” in the blink of an eye, responding in a measured way to a horrific attack and showing the entire world that America isn’t a paper tiger than any terrorist with a cause can screw with. And then building the largest military coalition in history and taking down a despicable tyrant in record time.
Like actually gaining congressional seats in both houses during a mid-term election. Like restoring honor, decency and integrity to the office of President of the United States.
Bush has done more in three years than Clinton did in eight.
Storm Dude, if you want to vote for a politician that will do everything you want him/her to do, then run for office.
Yeah, i may agree with this but his record on other issues have me down. I can’t accept it.
Yeah, but who else is going to be there? I can’t see anyone running against Bush who would be an improvement in any way shape or form, so I’ll pick the lesser of two evils. Bush might not have a record that makes me all that happy, but compared to the Dimmy Donk Nine? Puh-LEEZ!
To be honest, I’m not really sure Bush is the lesser of two evils. When Bush tries to push through bad liberal laws in the name of a “new tone in Washington,” the Republican congress passes it without any thought. Thus we end up with obscenities like the Campaign Finance Law, the Farm Subsidies Bill, the likely Medicare Drug Benefit, etc. If a democrat were in the whitehouse, the republicans in Congress might actually start fighting these laws again. If nothing else, there would be more gridlock, which is always a plus.
Not to mention, a moderate democrat is preferable to a moderate republican. With a moderate in republican in office, the only person ever running against him will be a democrat who’s either a moderate or a leftist. Thus things can only get worse. With a moderate democrat in office, the only person ever running against him will be a republican who’s either a moderate or a conservative. Thus things can only get better.
And finally, if I really only have a choice between socialism today (the democrat party platform) and socialism tomorrow (which appears to be the new republican party platform), I’d rather have socialism today. Since we’re doomed at that point to the inevitable collapse of our society, I’d at least like it to happen soon, while I’m still young enough to survive the aftermath.
I think it’s just fabulous (not) that Bush is always either proposing to lower taxes or raise spending. The question is who is going to clean up his mess by either cutting spending or raising taxes so that the budget is balanced again?