Uh, No, Your Tax Cuts Didn't Pay for Themselves (economist Mark Thoma)

[swag]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/09/uh-no-your-tax-.html#comments

Not too long ago, some people were arguing that supply-side ideas are no longer part of the Republican mainstream. This is President Bush responding to Alan Greenspan's criticism of his tax-cuts:

I would also argue that cutting taxes ... made a significant difference in dealing with the deficit because the growing economy yielded more tax revenues, which allowed us to shrink the deficit.

The tax cuts paid for themselves? I wish the President and others would quit misleading people about this because it's not true. His own economists don't even believe that. I know some of you are tired of hearing this over and over, but somebody has to try to call them on this or they'll just keep saying it, and the press seems unwilling to do so so. For example, the Wall Street Journal article the quote above is taken from doesn't even bother to mention that there's no evidence to support this claim, instead it's treated as a "he said-she said" story between Bush and Greenspan.

The tax cuts made the deficit worse. End of story.

[niceypoo]

1. Their big claim is that it increased income...

...but tax income has yet to reach the level it was when Clinton left office.

See chart on page 13 of this document:

According to the CBO budget summary, it won't reach Clinton levels even by 2017

[swag]

2. They're always desperate for the vindication of Arthur Laffer

and Reagan by association.

Oh, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan!

I'm getting moist just thinking about Reagan!