More on the "10-to-1" Spend/Tax Question

Pete Wehner:

...And to repeat what I argued before: if we have reached a point where Republicans running for president cannot envision (or at least admit to) any scenario in which they would raise taxes, even if as a result they could roll back the modern welfare state, then it’s time to consider loosening the philosophical straightjacket they are in.

Wehner cited the case of Mitch Daniels, who DID allow Indiana's sales tax to rise by 1%, but....well, you know the rest of the story.

Charles Murray:

...If Pete had altered that parenthetical phrase “or at least admit to” and made one other emendation, I would have no argument. Here’s the statement I could agree with: “If we have reached a point where Republicans running for president cannot envision (though they must never admit to envisioning) any scenario in which they would raise taxes, even if as a result they could roll back the modern welfare state, then it’s time to consider finding candidates who are more adept politicians.”...

Wehner and Murray both issue the conditional '...assuming Congress is honest' language.

There are (obviously) several other conditionals, having mostly to do with "what to cut".  But I can accept either Wehner's or Murray's formulation of the question.  The problem with Murray's, of course, is that he accepts wink-and-lie from a Presidential candidate while not accepting same from Congressmen.