Trouble in tax-cut paradise — redux

I realize the current occupant of the Oval Office would rather marry Karl Rove on the steps of San Francisco’s city hall than reverse course on his beloved tax cuts, but I have found another high profile conservative who has said — in public and on the record, no less — that maybe Bush’s tax cuts may need a little “adjusting.”

“I think some adjustments need to be made,” said Don Nickles, the recently retired Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Nickles said the drug law will need to be reopened to address problems of skyrocketing costs. He also said that Congress will have to be selective in extending the tax cuts, dropping some of the cuts and perhaps modifying the estate tax repeal to keep some of the revenue. (emphasis added)

Progress! Sure, Nickles was a champion of these reckless tax policies when he was in the Senate, and it’s a fairly convenient realization for him to make now that he’s no longer in office, but I’ll take my victories where I can find them. Besides, Nickles has transitioned into a powerful DC lobbying post, where he’ll maintain considerable influence.

And let’s not forget, Nickles isn’t exactly alone on this.

Last week, one key Republican senator, who’s still in office, expressed skepticism about Bush’s plan to make his tax cuts permanent, adding trillions to the overall cost.

[E]ven some Bush loyalists — including Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), former chairman of the Senate Budget Committee — are having second thoughts about Bush’s proposal to make his tax cuts permanent.

And then there’s David Brooks, who committed an act of self-described heresy by indicating he’d rather see changes to Social Security than see Bush’s tax cuts for millionaires become permanent.

It’s not exactly a conservative revolt against reckless and ineffectual tax policies, but it’s nevertheless encouraging. What’s that old saying about three times being a trend?