WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who on Friday voted against the Republican-authored tax cut, Sunday suggested that not only should taxpayers get a bigger break this year, but that if he were elected president, he might keep the cuts he opposed in place.
But in another sense, Lieberman's comments Sunday could be seen as continuing a 4-year-old pattern of going back and forth on the worth of big tax cuts. It dates to 1999, when he was one of only six Democrats who opposed massive cuts. A year later, as Al Gore's running mate, he favored a $500 billion break.
In 2001, Lieberman opposed Bush's $1.35 trillion, 11-year cut, but in 2002, the economic program he offered kept already-enacted Bush cuts in place while "redirecting" other breaks.
That 2002 plan, which Lieberman touts as he campaigns around the country in his bid to win the Democratic presidential nomination, would cost between $120 billion and $150 billion over 10 years, his advisers reiterated last week.
Whether it's an innocent inconsistency, simple spin (say you want tax cuts but don't specify what type), or a blatant lie on Liebarman's part, it's an interesting read.
St. Louis must be destroyed!
Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease. THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.
"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.