They are not the ‘Bush tax cuts’ anymore

I agree with AJ Strata at The Strata-Sphere. Why the heck are we even referring to the “Bush tax cuts?” Sure, we can do that when referring to what happened after the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, but at this point – eight to 10 years later – any change to the tax code during the lame-duck session or with the new Congress should be referred to as the Obama Tax Increases.

Here’s the post from Strata.

Speaking of Bush 43, I picked up Decision Points prior to my trip and I read it the days before and during my long flight. It’s well-known I’m not in agreement with the most recent GOP president, but I found the book pretty good and it made me take a second look at some of his policies.

As an example, I was dead-set against No Child Left Behind, not necessarily because I did not think it would work, rather I’m a firm believer the federal government has absolutely no authority to spend one dime in the education arena. The way President Bush figured it, if the feds were going to spend the money, he wanted to have some standards and reporting in place. OK, I get that, but I still don’t think it’s done too much good other than having states and local communities rely more on federal funding.

Pick up the book through the link below if you are interested. It’s a pleasant and quick read. (We collect a small fee when you buy through the link.)

Posted in

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.


  1. Dimsdale on December 1, 2010 at 5:00 am

    I am still enjoying watching the lefties tap dance around the sudden admission that the Bush tax cuts weren't only for the rich!  Funny how that story turned on a dime.  Weren't they, up until recently, trying to make it look like it was their tax cuts, or at least claim credit for extending (some of) them?

  2. GdavidH on December 1, 2010 at 8:22 am

    If they are the "Bush tax cuts" only because he was president when congress passed them, then they must be the "Obama tax increases" if this congress does not extend them. If they are extended they should be called the tax rates for however long they are extended for. What I don't get is why do tax rates need to have a time stamp at all? 

  3. sammy22 on December 2, 2010 at 11:34 am

    I believe that the tax cuts have an expiration date, like at the end of this December. If they expire by law, how can what happens next be an Obama tax increase. I believe it's the Congress's tax increase, not Obama's.


The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.