Agree -- good article, Scot. Republican terrain may look green and thriving from a distance (and to the unwashed masses) but when you are standing on that lush landscape you start to notice it's all crab grass and fire ants. Watch where you step (in fact, don't stand in one place for a long time) because the fire ants will find you and launch a coordinated attack to bite, and, of course, the crab grass is a comforting as steel wool to relax on.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Republicanism should be (and used to be) about personal and governmental responsibility, conserving resources, fostering individual effort and growth, efficient government with effective regulation where necessary and no regulation where not, freedom, tolerance. Republicanism is now about trying to undermine scientific fact, supporting right wing pseudo-religious moral codes, growth for the priviledged, supporting past ways of doing things, slogans that have no basis in fact.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The amazing thing to me is how close the GOP came to winning the election using their retrograde formula. But it will be harder and harder to make the sale with the Internet dialectic vetting fact and fiction and "ideas" no longer able to be managed by the powers that be (be they political, religious, or media-based).

It is funny that Scot loves to peddle this line about the alleged failure of supply sidism, but ignores the facts and history which proves that it is true. And there are many economists who acknowledge it. Most recently, Matin Feldstein of Harvard gave his blessing to the Romney plan. But I guess to Scot, Felstein is not a credible economist. NEW PARAGRAPH: It is a common trope to suggest that the robust growth of the economy in Bill Clinton's second term was caused by higher tax rates. This is just laughable. The economic bubble that led to the balanced budget began with the IPO of America Online (AOL). It got heated up as the fear of a Y2K meltdown triggered massive investment in computer upgrading technology; and of course, the dot com run up was the final lift. Only charlatan could seriously suggest that this bubble was caused by higher tax rates, but it was this bubble which led to the balanced budget. NEW PARAGRAPH: I have over the years provided clear, concise, and factual evidence of how the Supply Side process works. Scot never acknowledges them, but they are historical fact. A few highlights: The tax increases of Bill Clinton were put into place retroactively in 1993, the Bush tax cuts were full implemented in 2003. Therefore, a good comparison of the two policies would be the tax revenue history in the years that follow. Between 1993 and 1997, tax revenue to the treasury grew from $1.154 Trillion to $1.579 Trillion, growing 37%. NEW Paragraph: Between 2003 and 2007, the tax revenue grew from 1.782 Trillion, to $2.568 Trillion, a rate of 44%. How does Scot explain the faster revenue growth after the tax cuts than after the tax increases? He does not. He ignores it. But it is factual. The answer lies in the rate of economic growth, which accelerated at a faster clip after the tax cuts than after the tax increases. I have provided many similar examples, which illustrate the basic tenet of the theory. The rate of economic growth is the most important determinant of tax revenues. The reason Obama won was not because he won the argument on the economy. He won by promising more and more government handouts, and by winning the special interests who benefit from them. If his 4 year promise of higher tax rates had grown the economy, I might change my mind about this. But the economic performance of this nation under his stewardship has been atrocious, and the leading cause is fear of higher tax rates and more regulation. We need a supply side lift, not higher taxes, and history is proof of this. (But Scot ignores the history)

Couldn't agree more. I think it might have been Scarborough that was saying (not metioning them by name but it was aparent who he was referring to) that Fox News, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. all have great models for making money (and there's nothing wrong with that in the good ol' US of A), but they should not be regarded as legitimate sources of news reporting. I mean "dumbed-down" doesn't even do justice to how infantile the stuff on Fox News usually is. For instance, towards the end of October when Trump made his challenge to Obama to give up his college transcripts in exchange for the $5 million to his favorite charity, this exchange unfolded on the Steve, Gretchen, and Brian "show". They had Trump on the phone talking like the blowhard idiot he is about his "birther" nonsence, and his new leads, and here's Gretchen talking to him like she's a 13 year old, breathless school girl, and he's a visiting professor from MIT (exagerated for effect...but not by much). Gretchen: Golly gee, Mr Trump, do you think your new find wil affect the election? Trump (in his deepest voice, with reassuring parental affect): Why it might my dear Gretchen...it just might. It really made me uneasy about the election knowing that it was going to be decided by many people who regard this kind of thing as news.

With its election disaster and post-election whining, it's now an established fact that the current version of the Republican party is based on a conspiracy of lies so deep it will take years (if ever) for it, its leaders, and its most committed members to extricate themselves from their ideological morass. Supply-side economics is emblematic of their many failures. Here's David Stockman (Reagan's OMB Director and a former supply-side advocate) in August on Paul Ryan's supply-side budget plan: "The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for "job creators" - i.e. the superwealthy - to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base. Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends. The crony capitalists of K Street already own more than enough Republican votes to stop that train before it leaves the station. In short, Mr. Ryan's plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn't pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation's fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity - just empty sermons." Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html

Scot: Reagan-era tax cuts and the 1986 tax reform did get modified when George H.W. Bush raised taxes. But one part of the Clinton-era successes is missed: Crude Oil prices were at their lowest point in real terms during that administration. Gasoline at .999/ gallon. People bought lots of big expensive SUV's because the cost of operation was lower. Peace had broken out, the dot-com boom was flourishing, and we were hiring programmers from everywhere to address the Y2K deficiencies. But yes, taxes WERE higher during that time, and it did not get in the way of our growth. Obama did hit the key problem with supply side dogma: the math doesn't work. It also doesn't work politically. It is relatively easy to get tax cuts passed. It is much harder to cut programs or restructure the huge SS, Medicare and Medicaid programs. And it is easy to pass new programs to replace the ones that were previously cut. The end result is the same as in Reagan's time: higher deficits and a Keynesian stimulus. If Obama signs on to tax reform where loopholes are closed and deductions for home mortgage interest are capped so that we are not subsidizing mansions, we might be able to keep rates the same or even lower them, and the well to do may still pay more. Obama would be showing leadership if he can make that grand bargain.

"...no credible economist still takes seriously the notion that income tax cuts will spark enough growth to pay for themselves."  could you be more diingenuous or dishonest?

With sub 50K earners being the only salary "grouping" voting for Obama, it would seem that there are millions of intelligent people who more closely adhere to the economics proposed by the Romney/Ryan ticket.  Middle income America voted overwhelmingly Republican.  Are they equally self-serving or just ignorant? 

TheSystemWorked:  Have you read your own comments ?  "Ugly, ungracious, nasty, disgusting", those are your words. I repeat - you lost, the American public rejected your ideas, get over it.  Try to be constructive, and I might add patriotic.

Guys, Here's what is so odd about the more outlandish claims of supply-sidism: The pre-Reagan party knew that there's no such thing as a free lunch. The was a basic axiom of common-sense conservatism. Supply-siders promised just that -- and conservatives put their skepticism aside and made it their economic theology. I can see that, maybe, for one or two election cycles, but when it is completely discredited -- so much so that even the Old Gipper raised taxes three times to make up for the supply-side shortfall -- when keep beating the same drum? It's not rational. Scot

The fact remains that while conservatives are chastised for getting bogged down in statistics and having sour grapes, the victory was about statistics.  If most Americans "had no idea what Mitt proposed", you must be suggesting that the enlightened majority, those struggling financially, had a solid understanding of the benefits of the Obama plan.  Or was it the inflammatory scare tactics that caused so many to rely on a "sensible approach" of proven failure.

geolovely 11/16/2012 06:56 AM I am going to tell you something my mother told me in 1962. Had Patreus mom told him, he would be sitting in Foggy Bottom, VA right now, instead of the hot seat: "Never write anything down you wouldn't want the whole world to read." True then, truer now. Thanks, mom. Hope you don't mind, geo, but that was a great post, and it seems particularly appropriate given the tenor of commenters to this article.

We are increasingly seeing less employment in Massachusetts becasue sadly some Americans have figured out how to get extremely wealthy by slaughtering thousands of middle class Americans jobs and the Globe is helping this happen by not reporting this National Disgrace..The reason I object so heavily to what fimrs like State Street Corp is presently doing in sending hundreds of American jobs to INDIA after receiving a TARP bailout package (essentially from the American people) of between 2$ Billion, is that it goes against my "belief system", which is something no one in corporate America seems to have anymore. My uncle "John" was my hero in life and he still is, despite the fact that he passed away a few years ago. My uncle "John W. Kiely" was a US Army Ranger who fought in the Second World War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. The one most defining moment in my life is when my mother gathered us around the dinner table in the late 1960s, around the time of the TET Offensive - I was probably six or seven years old at the time - and she put a salt shaker in the middle of the table and surrounded the salt shaker with several other condiments. She said "This is your Uncle John, and this is the enemy. We are all worried about your Uncle John right now. He is surrounded by the enemy right now in Vietnam and no one has heard from him in three or four days." What she was trying to say was that it is very likely that our Uncle John was killed in action by North Vietnamese forces during the TET offensive. I wished she had never told me that because I can remember that moment which occurred forty two years ago, like it happen yesterday. My Uncle John is buried in Arlington National Cemetery, You can Google his name and it will show you that he was survived by my mother the late "Maureen Kiely Armstrong". It ended up, that Uncle John was not, in fact, killed in action, but that he and his troops fought through their entrapment and met up with US Forces. During the Second World War - another uncle of mine - Daniel J. Kiely, was trapped behind enemy lines during the Battle of the Bulge, when his rifle company was over run by a much large force of SS Troops. My mother told me that someone from the War Department visited her family home in Providence, and gave her mother - my grandmother, a note stating that her son was missing in action. My mother always told me how this was extremely hard on my grandmother and my mother because they were the only ones left in the house, while my grandfather and my three uncles were all off serving in the armed forces. Within a week or so, Patton's Army group over-ran the German's position and my uncle who was hiding in a deserted Barn, was reunited with US Troops. The reason I bring these stories up, is that they are real, and not some stupid movie... I was forced to sit in a desk and train people from another country to take US jobs and hurt people in my city, my state, and my country. If State Street's CEO - Jay Hooley, and the Operations man - Alan Greene think that me and others like me, and my family and other families like ours aren't extremely pissed that we were made to hurt the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the United States... they are in for a very rude “awakening"...

The crisis facing the US appears very much to be similar to the crises in Europe and Asia with respect to deficit spending. I have to wonder if in the next decade we will see new economic theories developed as a result. Personally I see supply-side economics as a lop-sided application of Keynesianism, and I don't think any of the theories developed in the first half of the last century are proving themselves useful for this century.

"Further, no credible economist still takes seriously the notion that income tax cuts will spark enough growth to pay for themselves..."

Scot, this comment is as simplistic and non-persausive as the rest of your article. Did you write it on the way to the office? It echoes the defense of the global warming crowd "no credible scientist still takes seriously any challenges to the concept that global warming exists and is man-made...".  Ignore the hundreds of scientists WHO do dis-agree, hey they can't be credible, right? They disagree! SO the credible economists are those who agree with you? Hmmm... Arthur Laffer is an economist, in fact a "Distinguished University Professor of Economics" according to Google, do you think he agrees with the content of your article? Is he credible re economics?  Are you credible re economics?

Someone could make a persausive case for your point of view, but not by basing it such a silly premise.

?

LifeLib: Arther Laffer doesn't even argue that the Reagan Tax cuts paid for themselves, old boy. His famous curve merely posits that at some point, they could. That might be true at confiscatory rates, but certainly not at anything resembling our current rates. (Honestly, I think you'd do a little bit of checking before excusing someone else of not knowing what they are talking about.)

I think both sides need new marketing. Supply side is a silly term. The issue at its core is what is the right level of taxation to sustain/stimulate growth. Not a bad idea at its core On the other side, we need to raise taxes on the rich ($259k) also needs something new. How do you get to 250? Why are they rich. What will this actually do?

In the end, we need an honest discussion about our tax system and it needs to be overhauled to produce the reveneus and growth we need. Hyperbole on both sides does not cut it.

Waytoo, I have now had several complaints from people who say you are reporting their comments for deletion. Just a word to the wise: The comments monitors are going to do a review ... The troll colony puts up with a lot of annoying behavior from you; that being the case, I don't think you should be objecting to other people's comments unless they are way over the top.