Bush doesn’t raise taxes

In light of H.W’s recent passing, I thought back to his Presidency, all the highs and lows and ultimately what ended up sinking his Presidency. H.W making the courageous decision to raise taxes to deal with a massive budget deficit that Bush predicted would come about from Reagan’s voodoo economics. H.W was a representative of a forgone era of Coursge, Country and Compromise. The 90’ Tax Deal was the cutoff point for the Republican Party where Pragmatic Conservativism was thrown off for full throated Opposition and Antagonism, first with Gingrich and later the Tea Party to Trumpism. It was also the last time Republicans ever made any tax compromises of any kind. Ultimately Conservatives worst fears about Bush were realized and they ultimately betrayed him In 92’, First by Primary then in the General. Let us assume Bush put political calculation over a Conservative fiscal discipline. How does that affect the economy going forward and the 92’ Election?
 
If Bush doesn't sign the deal, then either Congress passes it over his veto or the government shuts down as the economy gets increasingly worse. Bush would be seen even by many Republicans as a heartless "do-nothing" President. He still loses in 1992. The fact is that Bush was caught between a rock and a hard place, and he did the right thing in agreeing to raise taxes despite the mindless opposition of Newt Gingrich.
 
I'd imagine he'd lose a bit less to Perot in '92 but not enough to win. Perot took from both Clinton and Bush, but the tax pledge was cited by many as a turning point.
 
"Poppy Bush’s 1992 defeat enabled Norquist to spin the straw of ATR’s failure into gold. Bush’s loss was commonly thought to have resulted from his violation, not of Norquist’s Pledge (which Bush never signed) but of Bush’s own ill-considered “read my lips: no new taxes” pledge in his 1988 convention speech. Evidence for this hypothesis has always been weak; among other difficulties, four months after his Great Tax Betrayal (i.e., at the start of the Gulf War) Bush saw his approval ratings soar to 89 percent. Bush lost mainly because of the slow recovery from a recession that the National Bureau of Economic Research, the official referee of the business cycle, didn’t declare over—hard cheese for Poppy—until December 1992. (Ross Perot did Bush a fair amount of damage as well.) No matter. Republicans took away from the 1992 election the simplistic lesson that they must never, ever, raise taxes—something they hadn’t been particularly inclined to do, of course, in the first place." https://newrepublic.com/article/110499/grover-norquists-illusory-power

One might also note that Republican losses in November 1990 were quite modest: "The Republicans lost nine seats in the U.S. House, lower than the average number of seats lost by the U.S. President's party at the time, which was 29.[1] Out of the 33 Senate seats up for election, the Democratic Party picked up a net gain of one seat.[2] In the gubernatorial elections, both parties lost a net of one seat to third parties.[3]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_United_States_elections This is hard to reconcile with the tax increases being political suicide for Bush--even granted that by November, Iraq had displaced the tax increases as the focus of public attention.
 
If Bush doesn't sign the deal, then either Congress passes it over his veto or the government shuts down as the economy gets increasingly worse. ... The fact is that Bush was caught between a rock and a hard place, and he did the right thing in agreeing to raise taxes despite the mindless opposition of Newt Gingrich.

The alternative is he takes a long hard look at certain members of his staff, & Gingriches leadership in Congress. Newt is a very tough problem for the President, but shaking up his staff is a lot easier. I have a feeling a lot of those guys did not have their finger on the pulse & were constantly misreading the situation. The diplomatic miscommunication that led to the Kuwait invasion & Desert Storm is a example of that in foreign affairs. If Bush can do a top down purge of his staff, aiming for better skill and more practical thinking in a number of key positions, the second half of his term may be a lot more effective.

As for Newt, I suspect only a nasty scandal would get him out of power quickly. OTL it took several years for the system to reject him.
 
Gingriches leadership in Congress

Gingrich was actually the leader of a minority faction in the House opposed to the Republican leadership, which supported the tax hike.

Shaking up his staff wouldn't do anything either. The economy entered recession largely because of the Fed's actions to reduce inflation, and the massive deficit was largely Reagan's doing. Bush entered office at a bad time and was undone by factors mostly out of his control. He could've won in 1992 had the Democrats decided to nominate Jerry Brown, but as it was Clinton was just too tough to beat and the odds were against Bush. It's commendable that he did such a good job under the circumstances.
 
I'd imagine he'd lose a bit less to Perot in '92 but not enough to win. Perot took from both Clinton and Bush, but the tax pledge was cited by many as a turning point.

If Bush could knock out Perot, he has a good chance of beating Clinton plus the continuing tax cuts would stimulate the economy in the short term which would help him against Clinton even though the debt going up in the long term.
 
Top