DeLong steers us to Surowieki in the New Yorker (online) re: supply siders.
At some point long ago I think people would occasionally use the phrase “supply-side economists” – but now it’s just “supply-siders” — which is much better, since “supply-side economist” has since become an oxymoron.
The great lie of supply-side economics.
by James Surowiecki October 29, 2007
In American politics, supply-side economics is the monster that will not die. The supply-side argument that, in the United States, tax-rate cuts pay for themselves–that, after cutting taxes, the government actually ends up with more revenue–has little or no support within the mainstream economic profession, and no hard empirical data to back it up. Myriad studies have demonstrated that both the Reagan tax cuts of the nineteen-eighties and the tax cuts put through under the current Administration shrank government revenues and led to bigger budget deficits.
Yet the absence of proof for supply-side theory has not dimmed Republicans’ devotion to it. Last month, President Bush told Fox News that his tax cuts had “yielded more tax revenues, which allows us to shrink the deficit.” Dick Cheney insists that “sensible tax cuts increase economic growth and add to the federal treasury.” Every major Republican Presidential candidate–including John McCain, who actually voted against Bush’s 2001 tax bill–is on the record as saying that tax cuts pay for themselves. And, just last week, a New York Sun editorial published a list of what “the Republican Party stands for.” First on the list? “Reductions in top marginal tax rates . . . lead to greater government revenues in the long run.”