...letting the current tax cuts lapse is a definite increase.
If nothing is done, [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/washington/12spend.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all|Bush's tax cuts will expire at the end of 2010]. One of the reasons why the Bush tax cuts passed in the first place is that they were [link|http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2004/0121useconomics_gale.aspx|designed to be temporary]:
Is allowing the tax cuts to expire equivalent to a legislated tax increase, as the President and others have claimed? Whatever it is called, it should be noted that this is what supporters of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax cuts voted for. In each case, tax cutters could have obtained smaller immediate cuts that would have been made permanent, but in each case they chose larger short-term cuts that expire.
It's not an "increase" to return to the status quo ante, IMO, because the cut was always understood to be temporary.
Cheers,
Scott.