Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Senate whittles W’s tax cut down to $1.2 trillion. Let’s also say some of the balance of the cuts are shifted to take place sooner and further down the income scale. Will that be a terrible defeat for Bush? I don’t think so. By the summer, he will have cut taxes by a hefty amount and signed a campaign finance reform bill – not bad for his first six months. Large amounts of this will not have been his personal agenda, but so what? Very, very few presidents get to dictate the agenda. Remember Clinton’s first budget? His defeat on the BTU tax and the “stimulus package” left him raging about becoming “Eisenhower Republicans,” and had Democrats fretting about his irrelevance. But the 1993 budget was the corner-stone of his future economic success. Ditto W. Bush’s big selling points are still a) he’s not a sleaze like, er, you know who; b) he can get along with both sides; c) he’s a moderate conservative like most Americans. A more modest tax cut will be fine. If the economy recovers later this year or next, there will be time for another tax cut soon enough. As long as he keeps spending under control, there’s no reason to panic. Most of the cards are still in his hands. Of course, he will go down fighting so as to avoid the appearance of ditching his hard-core conservative allies like his daddy did. But that’s part of the game-plan too, isn’t it, Karl? Moderation with deniability. Almost as good as triangulation as a political strategy.
TAXED ONCE: Michael Kinsley does a far far better job than I could showing why for most wealthy people, the money they have accumulated for their estate was never taxed as income in the first place. The “taxed-twice” argument against the estate tax is baloney. The column effectively ends this particular sub-debate. Good to see Kinsley back on riveting form.
NUTS, AND OTHER MOVIES: I didn’t think it was possible to parody Barbra – but Chris Buckley has.
The Dish 