Dan, My point is that "trickle-down economics" is a pejorative propoganda term. Not a term for serious discussion. Or at least, not if you want me to take you seriously.
You state the supply-side economics is touted as a means of reducing the nominal federal budget deficit, namely by boosting economic growth, which should boost federal revenues. I find this definition of yours difficult to believe, however, as President George W. Bush has always expliticly stated that his tax cut plan would decrease revenues. During his election campaign he proposed his tax cuts as a means of reducing the nominal federal budget surplus, and afterwards he was very explicit about his intent to run a nominal federal budget deficit in a time of the so-called "trifecta" of "recession, war, and national emergency." While fiscal policy as a means of smoothing economic cycles is certainly currently in disfavor among economists, I think that it is entirely possible that the very, very, mild recession experienced by America in the wake of the popping of the stock market asset bubble may cause some rethinking of this. Well, actually, the real criticism is that it is hard for the government to pull the finger off the fiscal primer once the good times get rolling again. We will see what happens this time if America does indeed re-enter a boom cycle under Bush's Second term. Lastly, you wrote: >In general, if Republicans want to change tax structures, they think that a >less progressive structure is better. Democrats think a more progressive >structure is better. In part, that is because a more-progressive tax structure means higher tax rates, and presumably boosts the size of government. Indeed, this can be seen in the way that under Clinton, the government began taking around 21-22% of GDP in tax revnenues, whereas Bush's tax plan (his first tax cut was progressivity-neutral BTW), has reduced the government's take of GDP to 17%. Thus, it is not just progressivity, it is the size of the government's share in the economy that is also debated. I would argue that supply-side economics predominantly argues that by reducing government's share of GDP that economic growth can be increased. Moreover, supply-side economics further argues that by "pumping" the supply end of the economy, rather than the deamdn-end of the economy, one can boost economic growth without increasing inflation. I don't think that there are many people serious arguing the view you allege - that the United States is currently on the top end of the "Laffer Curve", and that government revenues can be increased through tax cuts. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
