Recently Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham have both come out with statements saying they could support tax hikes under certain circumstances. Which of course was attacked by some on the right as caving in or waffling on the issue. One such complaint is in the link below: https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.c...d-lindsey-graham-join-the-charlie-brown-club/ My point is not about the the adviseabilty of tax hikes (I'm basically against 'em), but rather the issue of cooperation, coordination, and compromise with those who don't agree with you. Obviously there are going to be some issues upon which one does not budge, usually social issues like abortion, gay rights, capital punishment, etc. But fiscal or monetary issues are I think more dynamic, and a politician who wants to lead this country as effectively as possible needs to be able to adjust to the changing situation and do what's best for everybody. IOW, there are times when a tax hike is a bad idea, but other times when it's not. When the economy is flying high, a tax hike might be a good idea to preclude overheating and incidently save up some money for when the bad times hit or pay down debt. Any taxing or spending policy ought to be resilient to be as effective as possible, taking a hard and inflexible line is not good governance IMHO. I don't think we should label somebody as a flipflopper for being willing enough to adjust a position when it's necessary. If it's for political reasons, that's one thing; but if it's in the best interests of the country, that's called patriotism.