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.

Yes, this is the issue that demands to know whose facts are right, not whose talking points are loudest. I look at what Scot really thinks are the economic facts, then I read Steve Moore this week; Different facts from two people I know and like. Maybe the only way to find out is to experiment: watch California, which just voted to raise rates on the rich. Watch the rich find another state to live in. Quick, raise the national rates to catch them where they went. Then sit back and watch what happens to the economy. Then we will know.

I'm going to make one more comment on this deletion nonsense.  I do not wish to see anyone banned from the board I merely want this deletion nonsense to stop.  It is childish and we all know how it is done.  When a quote from Barry Goldwater gets deleted things have gotten out of hand. 

Barbara, I don't Moore has ever been concerned with facts or evidence. Don't forget that he came from the Club for Growth. It would be absolutely wonderful if income tax cuts really paid for themselves. Who in the world would ever be against them if you could regularly cut taxes, give people more of their money back, and still have more government revenue than you had before the tax cut? If that really were the case, people would be falling all over themselves to cut taxes to the lowest point possible. But look at the experiences we've had. Recall that Old Gipper thought, perhaps sincerely, that tax cuts would pay for themselves, and at a time when rates were far higher than they are now. Nevertheless, he had to raises other taxes at least three times to address the deficits than ensued from the the big income-tax cut of 1981. George W.'s team made the same basic claim. At least Cheney did. Obviously, there was a lot of spending exacerbating the problem, but if you look at the revenue tangent (I've post that charter a number of times), it clearly shows that the Bush tax cuts have not come anywhere near paying for themselves. It's pie in the sky. Scot

Dems vs. republicans-50 years Years held presidency- R28 years D22years Total jobs created- R24m D42m Stock market return- R109% D992% Gross domestic product- R2.7% D4.1% Income growth- R.6% D2.2% Source; Bloomberg, POLITICO, US Dept. of Labor

"Kitch" No doubt some folks move due to taxation but I would say it is a small fraction of the wealthy.  There comes a point of diminishing returns whether it is in taxation or simply in the movements of individuals.  If you think about it we have talked about nothing except cutting taxes for the last 40 years or so.  Why?  Not because it was an economically advisable thing to do but because it was a politically advantageous thing to do.  A rational discussion regarding tax policy would include the fact that the American public desires the federal govt. to do certain things.  It seems to me it would behoove politicians to start talking rationally about revenues meeting or coming somewhere near expenditure.  A rational discussion would also include preventing citizens from earning income in the US and not paying taxes in the US. 

I remember years ago a friend of mine saying he wasn't going to make more money simply to pay more to the govt.  My response to him was simply, "you still end up with more money".  It is not as if every extra dollar you earned is taken away. The choice becomes one of not how much you make but is it worth the effort.  Some would say yes, some would say no.  Me if I made an extra 1000 and the feds got five hundred.  I'd still feel it was worth it. 

Clinton's "impressive prosperity" was due primarily to the dot com/telecom bubble which burst early in W's term.

Scot,

The Paul Krugman socialist rants continue! I love how you smooth over the gross overspending, which is the MAJOR issue. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature, knows from REAL LIFE, that you increase taxes all you want, but if you don' control spending or elimnate increases you keep getting bigger deficits. If you increase tax revenues by 5%, but are spending 6%, oh wel!!

The democrat theory of digging yourself out of a hole and thinking it will work! The hole only gets deepe. Drop the shovel and climb out! You have to put a freeze on spending that is the only to find out what you need. From there it is math.

we are paying $3 billion a day in interest!!! Do that math that is over $1 TRILLION in simply dept payment. Obama ad the Rhode scholar democrats are going to cut spending by $1.6 trillion over 10 years!!! That does nothing!  The true test of leadership is to go back and tell everyne, those under 30, you won't be collecting social security until you are 75. So they will start putting more money in 401k plans, reducing their federal liability of taxes.

When the federal government and the state government give more annual dollars to welfare recepients than a private and their family in the military, it is a liberal idealogy that is causing this failure. Scot, since the Globe knows all the answers, why didn't the country just elct the editorial board to run the country! Everything would be fixed now!!!

Definition of crazy - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. that is Washington - both sides

Guys, I feel like every time I write about economics I have to teach the same lessons to the unitiated. So be it. For those who still cling to the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves, here's a very good discussion, one that quotes several conservative economists on the matter. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/can-tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves/ BAM: Oh my. Here's a link that, if you invest two or three minutes in reading the study, will leave you much better informed on the matter of what is really driving the deficit. Scot Scot

I would like to emphasis Scott's brief mention of the ridiculous 15% tax on capitol gains ... One of the biggest, if not the biggest road block to raising the 15% tax on capitol gains and eliminating the carried interest provisions that let hedgefund managers et al, pay only 15% on their regular income is the well respected long time DEMOCRATIC senator Charles Schumer of New York. This according to an episode of Independent Lens (PBS) titled "Park Avenue". 15% capitol gains, carried interest - talk about class warfare.

A counter point

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443684104578066611560765402.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

who said it:

"Maybe peace would have broken out with a different kind of White House, one less committed to waging a perpetual campaign--a White House that would see a 51-48 victory as a call to humility and compromise rather than an irrefutable mandate."

Scot: no matter how many time I've written you refuse to see my point, so this is the last. I'll try to keep it simple. Of course, in a static model, tax cuts don't pay for themselves! But if the tax cuts starve wasteful programs, or prevent wasteful new programs, or force reforms, or control the unions, then they address deficits: EXCEPT, at the federal level, where the money is just borrowed and spent anyhow, creating the national debt. So by all means raise taxes on the rich (what's wrong with a 50% rate for them, go for it! though I do feel bad for our small Sub-S businesses). But at least require it be used to rollback the national debt instead of funding all the next round of buying-election giveaways. So,do you support making the government use the money ONLY for cutting the national debt, while instituting long-range reforms? Yeah, I'm no fan of the Club for Growth, keep asking, where are we growing TO? Enough "stuff": lets return to a simpler time. With our tax increases, we'll shop less, buy less, save less (flaw in my plan, create fewer private sector jobs....darn.)

I keep reading posters saying that Obama won. Thay are correct. We will know in a year if the people won.  

I would like to know why Obama had his first post-election press conference while most of America was working?

what about looking at impact of higher taxes at the state level? NY, Maryland, CA have been shown that they lost people due to high taxes - and Texas has been gaining b/c of low ones. Unfortunately, we can't move away from federal taxes so what will the end result be?

I don't think we'll know anything today. I expect you'll be fine if you just confine yourself to being annoying and stop trying to get other people's comments deleted.

Scot - the Globe should not censor ANY postings or allow other posters to have posts deleted.  It is annoying!  If the posts are not violent then they should be left for all to see because it would be illustrative to see who is the worst among us!

LordC: I have asked them to look into that very censorship by certain posters ... Scot

I wanted to come back to see if Scot could explain all the instances where tax cuts led to greater revenue, and tax increases failed to do so.  The reason is, he cannot explain it without embracing supply side economics.  His argument against it is political and ideological, but it is not economic.  NEW PRARAGRAPH:

While I am certainly a proud conservative, my belief in the truth of supply side economics is grounded in fact and history.  Not ideology.  I will state unequivocally that there are thousands of variables which ultimately determine tax revenue growth and economic growth.  Marginal tax rates are but one of these variables.  But all else being equal, there can be no other conclusion but what history has revealed:  Lower tax rates are better for the economy, and often lead to greater revenue growth.  NEW PARAGRAPH:

Scot can ignore all the evidence, but he diminishes his own credibility.  I can recount each change of tax rates going back 50 years, and demonstrate the exact change in tax revenues that followed.  The truth hurts, Scot, but the numbers do not lie.

this guy is very well respected. thoughts are much different than you hear from the mainstream. fwiw

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-mosler/fiscal-cliff-debt_b_2114140.html

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

his blog here too

http://moslereconomics.com/

Raise your hands: how many people here, including the columnist, know what a Subchapter S Corporation is, and can define static and dynamic analysis?

"barbara"  I saw your earlier post and get where you're going.  However, the fact is "dynamic analysis" does not show "tac cuts" paying for themselves.  If you look at the Kennedy cuts or the Mellon cuts you will find an increase in taxes paid by the wealthy as a percentage of tax revenues but an overall loss in tax revenue. 

I would refer you to an article written by Simon Johnson in Economix regarding tax cuts paying for themselves, "That’s why we have the economic analysis, particularly by the budget office, to disentangle what tax cuts can really do. If the supercommittee buys into dynamic scoring for tax cuts, at best this would be wishful thinking. At worst, it would represent yet another round of fiscal irresponsibility at the top of American politics."

In general you can only find tax cuts self sustaining even under the Laffer model up to a certain point on the curve which we have already passed.  There was a time JFK's for example where it may be applicable but we no longer even come close to revenues matching expenditures.  Cuts at this point can't carry you over the top never mind sustain themselves.

Ya, Scott, let's just tax everyone back to the stone age, that'll work.

Richmond: I think the truth of this would be that I have explained this over and over and over again, but like the poor benighted character in Memento, you see to forget it almost as soon as we finish the discussion.

Waytoo: Although we have several conservative ideologues here in the troll colony, I don't think there is a liberal ideologue in the House.

The WSJ runs far more informative editorials on supply side vs. demand side (Keynesian) economics.  You'll note the complete lack of substantive data in this article.  It's just the standard Liberal line thinly disguised as actual economics.  If Scot was serious on the economics, he would note that there is a significant difference between income taxes and investment taxes (capital gains and dividend) when it comes to the effect of changing marginal tax rates.  While one could debate the data behind income tax rate changes and the resulting impact on tax revenue (though the data backs the supply siders), there is no doubt that investment tax rate changes have significant supply effects.  Historically in the U.S., for example, increases in capital gains rates have resulted in a net decrease in capital gains tax receipts and decreases in capital gains rates have resulted in net increases in capital gains tax receipts.  Although that is generally counterintuitive to the layman, that's the way it works in the real world.  On the other hand, the U.S. has tried demand side economics for the last four years on a massive scale in the U.S. with over $800B per a year of additional "stimulus" spending (yes, the 2008 stimulus was not a one time event, but was made part of the baseline budget for the last three years).  The result is obvious even to the layman.  Complete failure.  The "stimulus" combined with other misguided laws, regulations, etc. from Washington stunted what otherwise should and would have been a strong recovery from a steep decline in 2007.

Indeed - it is time for the GOP to switch its support to Austrian Economics, a la Ron Paul.  More and more people are beginning to wake up to the fact that the Keynesian edifice that has dominated the economic landscape for much of the last century is rotten to its core - but they need a better alternative than that provided by supply-side ideas.  The Austrian School is the only contemporary branch of economic thought that rigorously roots out all the errors of Keynesianism - this is where the future of the fundamental economic debate lies, with or without the aegis of the GOP.

Wow, my comment was removed?  Why should we bother commenting, if they just get removed? I dont think I said anything nasty or personal? The Globe is going to drive away those readers still willing to humor the paper online.

You guys delete one more copmment of mine and I my subscription is out of here!

LifeLib: I have logged the complaint about deletions with the editor of Boston Globe.com and he has our monitoring outfit taking a look, so hopefully that will start happening. Scot