The prospects for major tax changes in the Senate are unclear. The key may be the Alternative Minimum Tax, passed in the 1960s to apply to just a few high-income taxpayers but which, because it is unindexed for inflation, is slated to apply to about 10 percent of all taxpayers by 2010 and to far larger percentages in high-income states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California. Those four states are represented by eight Democratic senators. Many of their votes come from high-income liberals who will be discomfited, to say the least, to discover that generous deductions will no longer apply to them because they have become subject to the AMT. Former New Jersey Sen. Bob Torricelli, always quick to sniff the political win, sponsored a bill for AMT repeal. Senate Democrats who want AMT repeal may find that they can get it only by supporting a tax bill with other measures they otherwise wouldn't vote for.
advertisement
Browse through an archive of columns by Michael Barone.
Many conservatives have expressed dissatisfaction with the Bush administration and the Republican legislative record on the grounds that it hasn't produced the kind of massive changes that Bush has promised. Many liberals in the media and otherwise have made similar characterizations. There is some truth to these charges. But what Bush and the Republicans have been doing—you can see it most clearly on tax cuts, where they have rolled out one incremental change after another—is less to reduce government than to change it, step by step, so that it provides individuals with more choice and accountability.
In football terms it is a ground game, not a passing game. Sometimes it fails: You may be at fourth down and three to go and not get the yardage. But on CAFTA, the administration and the Republican leadership once again put points on the scoreboard.
Previous Page
