Democrat wins govenor on platform of tax rebates; instead raises them by 1.5 billion

[e-brake]

Democrat wins New Jersey governorship on platform of providing tax rebates; six months later, wants to raise taxes by $1.5 billion.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008155

[PETA]

hmmm - odd that a Dem wouild do that

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

hmmm - odd that a Dem wouild do that

As opposed to the current president's father, when he was in office.

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

As opposed to the current president's father, when he was in office.

PWND!

lol

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

As opposed to the current president's father, when he was in office.

lol - absolutely true - and I even read his lips


(but recall it was a Democratic Congress that broke his teeth to shove the tax increase down his throat - still an assinine promise he had to know was going to bite him in the ass)

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

(but recall it was a Democratic Congress that broke his teeth to shove the tax increase down his throat

If it was such a forced move, why didn't he veto it?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

If it was such a forced move, why didn't he veto it?

good question - maybe the Congress had the votes to override or maybe he was a weenie - too lazy to verify either (well we know the latter - too lazy to verify the former)


found this quickly - didn't read it - feel free to do so if you'd like a qualifed answer to your question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_No_new_taxes


man - feeling like a data mining bitch

When in office Bush found it very hard to keep his promise. The Bush campaign's figures had been based on the assumption that the high growth of the late 1980s would continue throughout his time in office.[8] Instead, a recession began. By 1990 rising deficits, fueled by a growth in mandatory spending and a declining economy, began to greatly increase the federal deficit. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act mandated that the deficit be reduced, or else mandatory cuts unpalatable to both Republicans and Democrats would be made. Reducing this deficit was a difficult task. The obvious government waste and easy spending cuts had already been made during the eight years of the Reagan administration. New cuts of any substance would have to come either from entitlement programs, such as Medicare or Social Security, or from defense.[9] The Democrats, who controlled Congress, refused to agree to any massive spending cuts without at least some tax increases.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

good question - maybe the Congress had the votes to override or maybe he was a weenie - too lazy to verify either (well we know the latter - too lazy to verify the former)

I'll cast my vote with "empty campaign promise".

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

I'll cast my vote with "empty campaign promise".

um - hello - when was that in controversy



and it wasn't exactly hollow as the wiki article explains - just a risky political ploy (empty suggests that he knew he'd have to back down rather than just taking a calculated risk - must've cost Peggy Noonan her job though)

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

um - hello - when was that in controversy

You're the one trying to portray it as something the Dems stuffed down his throat.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

You're the one trying to portray it as something the Dems stuffed down his throat.

they did


In order to argue that it wasn't shoved down his throat you'd have to believe that he wanted to raise taxes all along and was able to do so with the help of the unsuspecting Democrats - - that idn't how it went down.

[matt]

bushy's son might want to give that a try himself...

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

You're the one trying to portray it as something the Dems stuffed down his throat.

The Democrats, who controlled Congress, refused to agree to any massive spending cuts without at least some tax increases.

Uh...

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by xian

they did


In order to argue that it wasn't shoved down his throat you'd have to believe that he wanted to raise taxes all along and was able to do so with the help of the unsuspecting Democrats - - that idn't how it went down.

Not so. I think Bush really intended to not consider raising taxes while in office (which was more or less an impossible option), but he wasn't expecting the cost of the Iraq war, the economic downturn, and Congress' unwillingness to cut more social programs (rightfully so) to fund the military. He had little choice but to accept the need for a tax increase. I would suspect, but I lack the specific evidence to be conclusive, that he believed his approval rating was high enough to survive through a tax cut. It didn't work out for him.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Adam D

Not so. I think Bush really intended to not consider raising taxes while in office (which was more or less an impossible option), but he wasn't expecting the cost of the Iraq war, the economic downturn, and Congress' unwillingness to cut more social programs (rightfully so) to fund the military. He had little choice but to accept the need for a tax increase. I would suspect, but I lack the specific evidence to be conclusive, that he believed his approval rating was high enough to survive through a tax cut. It didn't work out for him.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying GW said it never meaning it?

Also, the first Gulf war went down after the tax increase had been passed, as I seem to recall anyway - too lazy to verify.

Did you mean a tax hike? It hurts no one's approval ratings to give a tax cut.

Otherwsie - your analysis is pretty much the same as the Wiki note I posted, and I agree. The basis for the assertion (continuing rosey economy) was in error and the Congress had him by the balls when he tried to cut social spending to help pay for the military that was about to go to war (another example of the DNC getting it wrong - one poke deserves another )