President Bush is willing to raise taxes. That reality was a big surprise to me 16 years ago, in 1990, when I was working in the White House. It’s less of a surprise to me in 2006, when I am on the outside – because, after a while, you learn to identify the warning signs.

In 1990, the former President Bush broke his word on taxes, and he broke his own presidency. In 2006, his son, President Bush, seems poised to destroy what little remains of his presidency.

In both cases, both Bushes have been willing to talk about “process” and “common ground.” But, when it comes to taxes, the opposing Democrats know two things: First, the Republicans have a winning issue on taxes – specifically, when they promise not to raise taxes. Second, if taxes are indeed to be raised, the Democrats want the Republicans to go first and say that taxes are “on the table.” In other words, Democrats want Republicans to take the blame.

So here’s the “on the table” language, right on the front page of Wednesday’s Washington Post: “Signaling a new flexibility on issues in the wake of the Democrats’ wins, Bush said he is willing to discuss Democratic ideas for solving the Social Security problem, including tax increases.”

The president is quoted as adding, “I don’t see how you can move forward without people feeling comfortable about putting ideas on the table.”

Those are the magic words the Democrats were waiting to hear. As Post reporter Michael Fletcher explains, Bush’s “new flexibility” is “part of a larger White House plan to renew the effort to tame the rising costs of government entitlement programs as the nation’s population ages.” And so, the Post reporter added, the administration is willing to consider “higher payroll taxes.”

The Post, of course, has never met a tax increase it didn’t like, and the Powertown paper is not above trying to cajole Republicans into generating more revenue for its Beltway readership.

But a look at the transcript confirms the Post’s interpretation. Asked whether tax increases are on the table, Bush answered that the Democrats “can come to the table and talk about them.” In D.C., that’s code for opening up a discussion that leads, inevitably, to a tax increase. I know because I was there the last time this happened.

It was May 3, 1990, when then-President Bush was asked if he would consider a tax hike, in light of his famous “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge from his victorious 1988 campaign.

At that 1990 news conference, a reporter reminded Bush, “I haven’t heard any ‘read my lips.’ ” To which the president responded, referring to the tax-hike-hungry Democrats, “No, you haven’t heard it, because I’m going to sit down and talk to them.”

In other words, Bush was agreeing to put away the powerful “no new taxes” pledge. So the Democrats were free to talk about what they had always wanted, a tax increase – and Bush was free to destroy his own conservative, limited-government base. Which is exactly what happened. The president “negotiated” a real tax increase in return for illusory spending cuts, culminating in party-busting budget votes in October 1990.

Meanwhile, burdened by this new tax increase, the economy sank into recession, spending ballooned and the 41st president was soundly defeated for re-election in 1992.

So it’s deja vu for me to see this President Bush about to repeat the same losing process. As he said at Wednesday’s press conference, he wants to find “bipartisan cooperation” on Social Security financing.

Advisers are telling Bush that such bargaining will result in a solid domestic-policy legacy, as well as the shoring up of congressional support for the Iraq war. But history tells me that, if he raises taxes, he will demolish – as did his father before him – what little remains of his presidency.