On The Supply Side

Megan McArdle tries to shift the debate now:

Chait, and others writing in this vein, refute the strongest claims of the supply-side movement: that tax cuts produce astonishing growth, or that cutting taxes can increase tax revenue. Then they imply that they have thereby refuted all the economic claims in favor of tax cuts, which they haven't, not even close.

I don't think this is what anyone's doing. Rather, what Chait's doing -- and what I'm doing here -- is noting that there is this huge grotesque error lurking at the heart of the Republican Party's political agenda. Brendan Nyhan has a big ole list of instances of Bush and Cheney citing the notion that tax cuts will pay for themselves if there's still any doubt as to the centrality of this notion. Meanwhile, the reason people like Jon and I and other liberals spend so much time pointing out that this claim is false is precisely the same as the reason conservatives spend so much time defending it: it's an extremely potent political claim.

There's a systematic effort by the right to convince people that tax cuts are not merely beneficial in some ways or beneficial all things considered but that there are actually no tradeoffs whatsoever. Getting that idea taken seriously in the press is very powerful politically, so those of us who don't approve of the tax cutting policy agenda are very upset about the ability of conservatives to get away with making it, over and over and over again.

Meanwhile, Megan's comparison of this phenomenon to the idea that Bill Clinton has been known to, for example, overstate the role of Urban Empowerment Zones in spurring the economic growth of the 1990s is a little say. The point about the supply siders isn't that politicians sometimes lie. The point is that a vast superstructure has grown up around this particular lie. Most national leaders in the Republican Party subscribe to it. Those who don't, meanwhile, keep quiet about it. The major conservative opinion publications propagate it, as do the conservative talk shows on radio and cable, as do many conservative newspaper columnists, and the major conservative think tanks.

This is a weird phenomenon. If Hillary Clinton got up at the next presidential debate and said "I believe a policy of 'Medicare for all' could save enough money to pay for a universal preschool program and more generous Social Security benefits," Barack Obama would say she was out of her mind, major liberal commentators would agree, and if she started angrily defending the claim against all comers it would be big trouble for her campaign. By contrast, were Mitt Romney to attack John McCain's embrace of supply-side dogma, that would swiftly destroy Romney's campaign as all the major institutions of the right moved to expel him from the movement.

Comments

She's a dunce, but the best break for a major Dem candidates would be to announce that he/she will keep some Bush tax cuts.

Raising taxes is THE ISSUE that will defeat Hillary either in the primary or the general. She'll be a national Janet Reno.

Posted by wellbasically | September 6, 2007 12:23 PM

Giuliani claimed that he raised city revenues in NY during his mayorship by cutting taxes in the debate last night.

I don't remember any of the other candidates rebuking him either.

Posted by DrexelDem | September 6, 2007 12:26 PM

Meanwhile, Megan's comparison of this phenomenon to the idea that Bill Clinton has been known to, for example, overstate the role of Urban Empowerment Zones in spurring the economic growth of the 1990s is a little say.

A little...what? You didn't mean to write "a little gay," did you?

Posted by Haggai | September 6, 2007 12:29 PM

I think yglesias and chait have touched a nerve here. conservatives, when presented with evidence of intellectual dishonesty in the movement, love to argue that they don't do anything different than liberals do, everyone is partisan and cares about political considerations, etc.

fine, as far as it goes. but as chait and yglesias point out, the supply side thing is quite different than anything liberals do. liberals don't enforce any patently false (as opposed to contestable) claims as a matter of orthodoxy, with the full backing of the movement's financiers.

it's a really great point, because conservatives aren't going to be able to effectively reply to it (and of course aren't going to drop the supply side argument given its political potency).

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 6, 2007 12:31 PM

Yeah, Megan is just a tad bit defensive, since "supply-side economics" isn't really economics. But what counts politically is this: cutting taxes puts money in people's pockets. They can see it happen.

That's why Americans have been voting Republican for the past 25 years. Lower taxes has been the Republican ace, just as Social Security has been the Democratic ace. It's fine to expose supply-side economics as the fraud that it is, but to pretend that it's "crazy" or "weird" for Republicans to use supply-side jargon is childish. Lower taxes is the most effective political argument the Republicans have ever had. It's no wonder they keep using it. And they will keep on using it as long as they keep on getting elected.

Chait is using the same kind of argument that Thomas Frank did: the Republicans are tricking the people into voting against their own best interests. But that isn't true. People who vote Republican get pretty much what they want: lower taxes, and government programs that benefit "the deserving," i.e., the middle class, and not the poor. This may be "wicked," but it isn't stupid. Exposing the "fraud" of supply-side economics won't make people vote Democratic.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | September 6, 2007 12:32 PM

It's really unbelievable that we even need to have this discussion. I've stated my opinion before about Megan - I DO think that she gets a lot of undeserved grief from the left (see, e.g., health care issues, where she is also somewhat obtuse but where her position vis a vis health care and the elderly has been unfairly characterized by some on the left) - but really in this case it's like explaining something to my six year old.

Obtuse really is the word for Megan. It's a shame, really, as I think she COULD provide a valuable perspective at times, but for that characteristic. (In fairness to her, though, some of the responses to her do give her a small opening to make her more recent argument - some people do go a little too far in the other direction - see, e.g., Ezra Klein. But forest/trees.)

Of course even worse are the innumerate comments (on your last post, e.g.) from the people who have bought in to the big lie.

Posted by LarryM | September 6, 2007 12:33 PM

Giuliani claimed that he raised city revenues in NY during his mayorship by cutting taxes in the debate last night.

I think there's a stronger argument, for what it's worth, regarding the stimulating effects of tax cuts at the state and local level because the competition is much more evident. If your city has exorbitant tax rates, there's an awful lot of businesses that can locate in the suburbs instead. But if your country has exorbitant tax rates, it's not nearly as easy to relocate overseas.

The thing is, though, that I think this is an argument for increasing the relative share of taxation at the federal level, so that cities and states don't get caught up in a race to the bottom. But most people who want to cut taxes at the local level also want to cut taxes at the federal level, so this point doesn't actually provide me any common ground with them.

And by the way, I really think this post nails it 100%.

Posted by Steve | September 6, 2007 12:37 PM

LBJ bought a ton of votes for Democrats by vastly understating what the true cost of Medicare would be, despite people like Friedman noting what was obvious to anyone with a pulse. How would a Democrat been treated by his party in 1968 if he had pointed out that the cost projections for Medicare were completely ridiculous?

Of course, we saw the same phenomena repeated, this time by both parties, with the Medicare drug benefit.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 12:37 PM

A little...what? You didn't mean to write "a little gay," did you?

MY's using an archaic definition of "say." Possibly an archaic definition of the German word "say." It could be some other language.

In any case, I'm sure it makes sense. Just think of the best of all possible words to replace "say," and read that word in.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 6, 2007 12:38 PM

Hey Will, why even stick around? I'll just put "Democrats do it too!" in every topic and that way you can spend more time doing other things, ok?

Posted by Rob | September 6, 2007 12:41 PM

That's why Americans have been voting Republican for the past 25 years. Lower taxes has been the Republican ace, just as Social Security has been the Democratic ace. It's fine to expose supply-side economics as the fraud that it is, but to pretend that it's "crazy" or "weird" for Republicans to use supply-side jargon is childish. Lower taxes is the most effective political argument the Republicans have ever had. It's no wonder they keep using it. And they will keep on using it as long as they keep on getting elected.

Yeah, this really is a huge point. When discussing Republican success over the past couple of decades or so, we don't place nearly enough emphasis upon the "free lunch" aspect of the tax cut debates. I mean, Megan focuses upon the pure policy aspect of this - she believes, basically, that the tax cuts make sense as policy, independent of the more extreme (and patently false) claims made in favor of taxes cuts. Which is the defense used by real economists who have played a policy role in the Bush administration. But really that completely misses the point about what Chait and Matthew are saying. The problem isn't just policy - and here I think Megan is CLEARLY wrong, given long term budgetary issues - but the politics of the thing, AND the fact that those political implications prevent tax policy from being fairly considered on the merits. We have a situation now where it's just politically impossible to address long term budgetary issues.

Posted by LarryM | September 6, 2007 12:42 PM

Dilan's right, and it also explains the hatred of Krugman:

I think yglesias and chait have touched a nerve here. conservatives, when presented with evidence of intellectual dishonesty in the movement, love to argue that they don't do anything different than liberals do

The thing conservatives find so infuriating about Krugman is that he came to a quick realization back in '99, already, that Bush was a fraud, a liar, and a dangerously unserious person. He did this simply by looking at the Bush campaign's plan for a tax cut, and the absurd arguments they were making about 1. who would benefit and 2. the effect on the federal budget. Conservatives can't stomach that Krugman's clear understanding of the fraudulence of the Bush tax cut claims (remember how the budget was supposed to remain in surplus?) captured the essence of the man and the people who were pushing him into power. And Krugman, an economist, was then right on Iraq, while most of the foreign-pol community was wrong, because he understood the nature of the way the Bush Administration dealt with information -- its fatal divorce from reality.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 6, 2007 12:42 PM

Dilan, I'll gladly join you in ridiculing the supply siders. Will you do the same with regards to people who advocate government spending, and thus purchase votes, with equally fraudulent claims?

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 12:44 PM

Hey, Rob, why stick around? You know in your heart that the people who you agree with are virtuous, and those you differ with are evil, and anyone who questions those positions is a troll. What is there left to discuss, right?

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 12:49 PM

Of course, we saw the same phenomena repeated, this time by both parties, with the Medicare drug benefit.

Anyone who tries to claim that the fraudulent selling of the Medicare drug benefit was a bipartisan effort is guilty of the most disgusting sort of Broderism. Seriously, did you not notice that Tom DeLay had to hold the vote open for hours and threaten the kids of Republican legislators in order to get the bill passed? Democrats were hardly complicit in that particular Republican sham.

Posted by Steve | September 6, 2007 12:51 PM

"That's why Americans have been voting Republican for the past 25 years."

Balls. When Republicans propose kooky tax cuts, they lose just like Dems who propose to tax the millionaires 100% and give all the money to the poor.

In the old days, Democrats would argue for government spending as a necessity or argue that it would pay for itself in some way. Somebody just did it for roads.

Today, the Rubinites argue for tax increases as a way to stimulate the economy. Clinton holdovers seem to love this. It's dead weight.

I really hope a Democrat gets elected in 2008, so please let go of this stupid idea.

Posted by wellbasically | September 6, 2007 12:53 PM

Will,

The thing is, they AREN'T, by and large, "equally fraudulent." At least not in the systemic way that the Republican position on Tax cuts are. It's one thing to underestimate the costs of a political program (whether that be new or increased spending on the one hand, or decreased taxation on the other hand). It's quite another to pretend that your policy preference has no cost, and, more to the point, make that a core part of your party's political program. Plenty of politicians of all stripes engage in the former. But really there is nothing TRULY analogous to the supply side lie. I mean, you MAY be able to find a few isolated examples from Dems promising a TRULY free lunch (but not many I'll wager), but not in the systemic way that the Republicans use the supply side lie.

I mean, take social security. One could argue that Democrats sometimes make ... exaggerated claims about social security, or underestimate its long term costs. But to be TRULY analogous, the Democrats would have to claim - all of them, to the point where dissenters would be in essence drummed out of the party - that social security basically was free money, that it did not impose any costs on society. Obviously no one makes this claim.

Posted by LarryM | September 6, 2007 12:54 PM

Next blog by Megan will explore the dimwittedness of scientists who, claiming that there can be no affect of the position of stars on a person's life on earth, dismiss Astrology entirely, thereby ignoring the well known fact that the people who believe in Astrology are able to cope with their misfortunes precisely because of this belief.

Posted by gregor | September 6, 2007 12:58 PM

What I find really amazing about this debate (so to speak) is the extent to which supply-siders are so completely immune to logic. They will argue that any tax cut will raise revenue, no matter what the size of the cut or what the rate is beforehand.

Of course, this is ludicrous. Obviously, if the tax rate (using a hypothetical single rate for simplicity) is cut to 0%, then revenue drops to zero. This is NOT an increase. It seems pretty clear that if instead the tax rate is cut to something very close to 0%, revenue will be only a little more than zero, and thus still reduced. Thus, even if one postulates for the sake of argument that tax rates can be so high that a reduction will increase economic output enough to make up for the reduced rate of taxation (again, consider the extreme of a 100% tax rate...), surely it would be clear that there HAS to be a point below which further cuts will reduce revenue. Thus, EVEN GRANTING THE BASIC IDEA of supply-side tax policy, the (empirical) question should be whether we are on the high or low side of the tax-rate tipping point.

Alas, it is not. Supply-side economists (and supply-side non-economists) never consider this question. Why? It's obvious, isn't it?

Posted by jeb | September 6, 2007 1:00 PM

"That's why Americans have been voting Republican for the past 25 years."

Balls. When Republicans propose kooky tax cuts, they lose just like Dems who propose to tax the millionaires 100% and give all the money to the poor.

This is really just stunningly obtuse. Please provide even one example of a Republican who lost - or suffered any political price at all - for proposing kooky tax cuts. Of course, counter examples abound.

Even Reagan was forced during his second term to raise taxes, because SOME of his first term tax cuts were, indeed, "kooky," in the sense that they were not sustainable, and were justified on "kooky" grounds (remember voodoo economics?). This was apparent to thinking people in 1984, yet Reagan paid no political price. Then we have Bush the younger. Now let me just say that the first round of tax cuts, while IMO a mistake (at least in the form that they took), and which were justified on the usual "kooky" grounds, are certainly defensible on sane economic grounds. But subsequent tax cuts weren't defensible, they were "kooky" in justification and in fact. Yet did Bush pay a price for that in 2004? Of course now.

Posted by LarryM | September 6, 2007 1:03 PM

LarryM, when you understate the cost of a program by 700%, yes, that is a completely systematic attempt to purchase votes by fraudulent means. It works very well, which is why Republicans now do it too. I'll give Democrats credit for now for not adopting their opponents tactics wholesale, but also note that people like Richardson have come pretty close on the state level.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 1:05 PM

Oops, messed up the tags in that last post. Obviously the second paragraph should have been part of the quote.

Posted by LarryM | September 6, 2007 1:05 PM

Steve, do I really need to reproduce various Democratic drug benefit proposals, with their advertised costs?

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 1:10 PM

If Hillary Clinton got up at the next presidential debate and said "I believe a policy of 'Medicare for all' could save enough money to pay for a universal preschool program and more generous Social Security benefits," Barack Obama would say she was out of her mind, major liberal commentators would agree, and if she started angrily defending the claim against all comers it would be big trouble for her campaign.

Hahahahaha!

Matthew lives in a fantasy land. If Hillary said that, all Democrats and liberal comentators would AGREE WITH HER.

Here's Paul Krugman, for example, who has already said that going to going to universal health care would save so much in administrative costs that would coving all the uninsured would pay for itself:

McKinsey & Company ... recently released an important report dissecting the reasons America spends so much more on health care than other wealthy nations. One major factor is that we spend $98 billion a year in excess administrative costs, with more than half ... accounted for by marketing and underwriting - costs that don't exist in single-payer systems. ... McKinsey estimates the cost of providing full medical care to all of America's uninsured at $77 billion a year. Either eliminating the excess administrative costs of private health insurers, or paying what the rest of the world pays for drugs and medical devices, would by itself more or less pay the cost of covering all the uninsured.

Maybe Matthew can point me to all the liberal commentators who responded to Krugman that he was "out of [his] mind".

Posted by Al | September 6, 2007 1:15 PM

Uuh, Al, you didn't read Matty post completely. His example was Clinton claiming that universal health care would not just pay for itself but save enough money for a bunch of other fairly expansive programmes.

Posted by Patrick | September 6, 2007 1:19 PM

Uuh, Al, you didn't read Matt's post completely. His example was Clinton claiming that universal health care would not just pay for itself but save enough money for a bunch of other fairly expansive programmes. Besides, Mc Kinsey isn't exactly a house of hard-left lunatics.

Posted by Patrick | September 6, 2007 1:20 PM

And the Krugman column I quoted in response to Matthew says that Krugman thinks would would have at least $21 billion/year to spend on those other programs if we just went to a single payer system.

Posted by Al | September 6, 2007 1:21 PM

It's been said before, but is always worth repeating: Al's shameless hackery has really dropped in quality from the legendary period at the beginning of his career. You have to hope that things are going okay for him at home.

Posted by grh | September 6, 2007 1:22 PM

"In any case, I'm sure it makes sense. Just think of the best of all possible words to replace "say," and read that word in."

my money is on "silly".

"Meanwhile, Megan's comparison of this phenomenon to the idea that Bill Clinton has been known to, for example, overstate the role of Urban Empowerment Zones in spurring the economic growth of the 1990s is a little silly."

Posted by kid bitzer | September 6, 2007 1:23 PM

Not to be nitpicky, but it isn't good style to defend yourself by refering to an article which is hidden behind a subscriber wall and which you at first (at least that's your claim) didn't quote completely. But I will take your word for what the article says.

Posted by Patrick | September 6, 2007 1:29 PM

my money is on "sad".

Posted by peep | September 6, 2007 1:31 PM

Re: Here's Paul Krugman, for example, who has already said that going to going to universal health care would save so much in administrative costs that would coving all the uninsured would pay for itself:

The problem with this criticism is that it falls flat when confronted with empitrical evidence. Every other industrialized country on earth provides universal health care to its citizens, and in every single one of these countries without exception, the per capita cost of healthcare is lower than in the US. Now to be sure it may or not be true that we could cover the whole country for exactly what we spending right now (that falls into the category of debatable proposals) but it is pretty certain that with universal healthcare our per capita costs would be lower than they are now.

Posted by JonF | September 6, 2007 1:38 PM

Will Allen -- Thomas Friedman was born in 1953.

That would have made him about 12 years old when LBJ
passed the Medicare legislation.

Do you really remember reading his columns that pointed out the problems with Medicare at that time?

Posted by spencer | September 6, 2007 1:38 PM

I guess this post is necessary but DUH.

McMegan is not really a very serious person is she? ThoughI am sure is she "serious."

Posted by Armando | September 6, 2007 1:41 PM

Will,

Underestating the costs of Medicare is not the same as stating that tax cuts pay for themselves. The former acknowledges that there are tradeoffs and costs imposed by such goverment spending, but fails to provide an accurate measure of how large those tradeoffs & costs are relative to the benefits of such spending. The latter argues there are NO tradeoffs or costs at all associated with tax cuts.

Sorry, Will, but promising something for nothing is a far worse sin than understating the ratio of costs to benefits.

Posted by eltoro | September 6, 2007 1:42 PM

I think Will Allen meant Milton Friedman, not Thomas Friedman.

Posted by Patrick | September 6, 2007 1:44 PM

Only if you want us to take you seriously, Will.

Posted by AlanC9 | September 6, 2007 1:44 PM

Spencer....oh, forget it.....

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 1:45 PM

"And the Krugman column I quoted in response to Matthew says that Krugman thinks would would have at least $21 billion/year to spend on those other programs if we just went to a single payer system.

Posted by Al | September 6, 2007 1:21 PM "

Taiwan actually saved money when it switched to universal healthcare. This not an uncommon effect. Similarly, nobody here is arguing that cutting taxes under certain circumstances can lead to higher revenue, as happened under JFK. However, it is Republican orthodoxy that this always happens. In addition, you ignored what MY actually wrote. Even Reagan's Undersecretary of the Treasury is arguing that we passed the point this can happen by 1980. This suggests you are arguing in bad faith.

Posted by Reality Man | September 6, 2007 1:47 PM

Well said, brooksfoe. I agree wholeheartedly.

This should be a major theme of the Presidential race in 08. The central message of the Republican's economic policy is a big, whopping lie.

The Dem candidate should call it what it is (with slightly more tactful language). Assert that, of course, all things being equal, we would all love to pay fewer taxes, but all things are not equal. Among other things, we need to pay for a robust military, provide universal health care (or at least expand health care dramatically), maintain social security and medicare/ medicaid and address the looming deficits in those programs (preferably with phased-in means testing, though that may be too politically volatile to say in the campaign).
While Republicans have repeatedly asserted that they were cost free, the tax cuts have jeopardized our financial security and endangered our ability to adequately address our basic needs.

This combination of themes is attractive because it (i) hits a conservative note, fiscal discipline, and a progressive one, critical social policies, (ii) plays on a strength from the late 1990s, a balanced budget, (iii) forces the Republican candidate to align himself with the presumably still seriously unpopular Bush at least rhetorically, and (iv) underscores the dishonesty of the Republican party on a very big issue, which again coming off Bush is a theme likely to resonate with independents.

Posted by Greg | September 6, 2007 1:53 PM

I posted a nasty comment yesterday about trying to get rid of Megan by lessening the "buzz" around her craptastic posts by not commenting when Matt links to her. I suggested, seriously, that I think he has to link to her dull nonsense based on his contract with the Atlantic. Andrew Sullivan also linked to her briefly, but now he seems to fulfill his in-house link quota with Ambinder.

Anyway, here's my point: Megan's presence on the Atlantic page is generating quite a bit of heat but very little light. She really doesn't seem to have the goods, beyond a finely honed ability to tap a few hot buttons. Hiring her is turning into the Atlantic's version of Crossfire: a kind of spectacle intended to generate appalled stares if not real intellectual curiosity. Like a car wreck.

Needless to say, I can (and will from now on) ignore any post that involves Megan. He work, it seems to me, is dragging down the level of discourse around here. And that's sad to me. I abandonded the cable chats around the Swift Boat fiasco. I'd hate to think that smart sites like the Atlantic's are heading in the same generation: willing to tolerate any level of smarm so long as the consumer keeps tuning in.

Posted by ANMIK | September 6, 2007 1:58 PM

Al,

Krugman is not giving a something for nothing argument. Krugman is saying that for the SAME cost, we can cover more people under a single-payer system than we do under our private insurance dominated system.

Now if Krugman were to argue that lowering FICA tax rates would pay for itself, or that mandating price controls on health insurance premiums paid to private insurers would have no effect on the availability of private health insurance, then you would have a case.

Posted by eltoro | September 6, 2007 1:58 PM

Those who argue that cutting taxes raises revenue are wrong in the eyes of the supply siders themselves. See, e.g. Bruce Bartlett NYT April 6, 2007. What is amusing is that the republicans also told us that the Iraq war would pay for itself. Think about that. It is precisely the same logic and the public bought it whole. Even if anyone in the administration was competent enough to have baked a potato, let alone run a war, this would not have been true. We are say[fill in your own word here]

Posted by Peter Driscoll | September 6, 2007 1:59 PM

You have to excuse Megan. She has no idea what she is talking about, talks herself into corners, and then has to try to talk her way out of them. Poor girl. She's in way over head.

Posted by The Fool | September 6, 2007 2:02 PM

Will Allen is crazier and meaner than any snake. The moron is incapable of rational thought.

Posted by Jennifer | September 6, 2007 2:02 PM

Check out McArdle's follow-up post where we read (emp add): "The only reason that I haven't criticised the Republicans on [supply-side economics] this time around is that I am not paying any attention to any of the campaigns."

What a moron.

Posted by Quiddity | September 6, 2007 2:02 PM

Krugman is not giving a something for nothing argument. Krugman is saying that for the SAME cost, we can cover more people under a single-payer system than we do under our private insurance dominated system.

Moreover, Krugman is basing his argument on numerical analysis from a well-respected, apolitical management consulting firm. That is a far cry from supply-side arguments based on a crude diagram on a napkin.

Posted by Jestak | September 6, 2007 2:04 PM

Sorry, eltoro, but saying that x will cost 9 billion, when it will in fact cost 60 billion, is promising 51 billion worth of x for nothing.

Posted by Will Allen | September 6, 2007 2:05 PM

But what counts politically is this: cutting taxes puts money in people's pockets. They can see it happen.

Personally, I think they can see the money going into their pockets AND they can see what impact the lower taxes have on their infrastructure and services. They know that they are paying for these things anyway (the neglect becomes so obvious after a while), but when someone gets up on the stage and says "Tax cuts for everyone! ... meaning the rich... AND they'll pay for themselves!" it allows people to move the consequences into their subconscious and "accept the delusion". No one is really being lied to, people just like getting something for nothing.

However, Social Security INSURANCE (conservatives just love leaving that descriptor off, FYI, Alan Vanneman, I'm not saying that that's what you are doing) is not the same as "It's yur money, gosh durnet, and weir goin' to Warshinton to get it back fur ya." People actually PAY into the program, and before some idiot says "Hey, they get more out than they put in", well, dummy, that's why it's called INSURANCE. It's intended as a safety net with the assumption that anyone can lose everything before they retire. SSI is intended to keep people from eating cat food in their final days on earth...and, unlike "tax cuts for tax cuts sake", it works.

"Democrats do it too!"

Isn't it remarkable how the response too every single criticism of the Republican Party for the past twenty years has been some form of that statement? It's the kind of statement you'd expect your child to make. And since when did too wrongs make a right?

Posted by Rihilism | September 6, 2007 2:06 PM

Will Allen is crazier and meaner than any snake.

Jennifer, I'm not sure I can agree with you that snakes are known to be crazier than any other one of God's creatures. They appear to me to operate in a quite rational, albeit snakelike, manner.

Posted by Steve | September 6, 2007 2:08 PM

This entire discussion is lazy. First of all, what conservatives refer to as "tax cuts" are actually "tax cuts for the wealthy," because the cost of government is not diminished. Even though the top marginal rate has declined, people continue to break the law! Business "accidentally" spill some of their refuse into our waterways! And so on.

Democrats need to point out the obvious; the tax burden has been dramatically shifted from the wealthy onto the middle class in the past 30 years. As federal taxes decreased, regressive State taxes (such as tolls, user fees, sales/consumption taxes, etc.) have moved in to take their place. It is true that supply-side propoganda causes political discourse to become more anti-intellectual ("free lunches for everyone!!"), but it is meaningless if Democrats don't use it to their advantage. Democrats must focus on the fact that the wealthy have been sucessfully shirking their responsibility toward society for the past 30 years.

"but the best break for a major Dem candidates would be to announce that he/she will keep some Bush tax cuts"

What would be the point of winning, then? And, to the contrary, people here in the midwest have no problem raising taxes on the coastal elite, such as hedge fund and private equity firm managers, to pay for some of the disaterous effects of NAFTA/GATT. Neoliberals need to leave the Democratic party to the Democrats. Its ridiculous that people take DLC suggestions seriously; "hey, just tell everyone that your basically a Republican who doesn't hate gays!"

Posted by Father Figure | September 6, 2007 2:16 PM

"Hey, Rob, why stick around? You know in your heart that the people who you agree with are virtuous, and those you differ with are evil, and anyone who questions those positions is a troll. What is there left to discuss, right?"

I guess the problem Will, is that you've already admitted that the Bush administration is a disaster but that you'd still vote for them. At that point, what is there left to talk about? You've acknowledged the evidence. But are still unmoved. Clearly reason is not the solution.

Posted by mpowell | September 6, 2007 2:27 PM

Krugman didn't (fraudulently?) project the development of Medicare's costs down in the 1960's, Al.

And if we want to talk about Medicare: Is it the case that Democrats claimed that Medicare did cost 9 billion instead of 60 billion even after it had turned out that, indeed, it had costed 60 billion? That would be the more fitting comparison, I think.

By the way, Medicare is not a single-payer-program, since it heavily contracts out to private insurers (who, Krugman and other proponents of a single-payer system argue, drive costs up). So your point against Matt's post is not very apt.

And finaly, unlike the supply siders, Krugman et al are not as overwhelmingly influencial among Democrats in Congress as are the supply-siders among Republicans. No major Democratic candidate (Edwards, Obama, Clinton) proposes a true single-payer program.

Posted by Patrick | September 6, 2007 2:33 PM

The Dem candidate should call it what it is (with slightly more tactful language). Assert that, of course, all things being equal, we would all love to pay fewer taxes, but all things are not equal. Among other things, we need to pay for a robust military, provide universal health care (or at least expand health care dramatically), maintain social security and medicare/ medicaid and address the looming deficits in those programs (preferably with phased-in means testing, though that may be too politically volatile to say in the campaign).
While Republicans have repeatedly asserted that they were cost free, the tax cuts have jeopardized our financial security and endangered our ability to adequately address our basic needs.

*************************************************

Why don't you go ask Walter Mondale how well that strategy worked for him?

Posted by Campesino | September 6, 2007 4:12 PM

posted a nasty comment yesterday about trying to get rid of Megan by lessening the "buzz" around her craptastic posts by not commenting when Matt links to her. I suggested, seriously, that I think he has to link to her dull nonsense based on his contract with the Atlantic. Andrew Sullivan also linked to her briefly, but now he seems to fulfill his in-house link quota with Ambinder.

Anyway, here's my point: Megan's presence on the Atlantic page is generating quite a bit of heat but very little light. She really doesn't seem to have the goods, beyond a finely honed ability to tap a few hot buttons. Hiring her is turning into the Atlantic's version of Crossfire: a kind of spectacle intended to generate appalled stares if not real intellectual curiosity. Like a car wreck.

Needless to say, I can (and will from now on) ignore any post that involves Megan. He work, it seems to me, is dragging down the level of discourse around here. And that's sad to me. I abandonded the cable chats around the Swift Boat fiasco. I'd hate to think that smart sites like the Atlantic's are heading in the same generation: willing to tolerate any level of smarm so long as the consumer keeps tuning in.

Posted by ANMIK | September 6, 2007 1:58 PM

*************************************************
Tell you what. Why don't you post under your real name and let us know where you work so those of us who don't like your puerile comments can work to get you fired. If you don't like her work don't read it and don't comment on it.

Megan's name is public knowledge and she's out there to take the heat. Seems a little cheap for some anonymous commenter who risks nothing to try to plot a boycott.

Posted by Campesino | September 6, 2007 4:28 PM

Why don't you go ask Walter Mondale how well that strategy worked for him?

That's the basic narrative, yeah. McGovern lost because he was a peace candidate, and Mondale lost because he said he would raise taxes, so we must be hawkish tax-cutters forevermore if we ever want to win an election in this country.

There may be a more nuanced way to look at this, sure, but why bother?

Posted by Steve | September 6, 2007 5:13 PM

Another aspect of this is the federal budget process itself: it's purposely designed to be as boring and obscure as possible. Have you ever seen a Federal budget? Republicans have always introduced and passed the tax cuts (really shifts) first, then work out the rest of the budget later. The process is designed to obscure the link between taxes, deficits and spending.

Posted by amorphous | September 6, 2007 5:26 PM

There may be a more nuanced way to look at this, sure, but why bother?

Posted by Steve | September 6, 2007 5:13 PM

*************************************************
Then show us some nuance

Posted by Campesino | September 6, 2007 5:39 PM

"Megan's name is public knowledge and she's out there to take the heat. Seems a little cheap for some anonymous commenter who risks nothing to try to plot a boycott.

Posted by Campesino | September 6, 2007 4:28 PM "

Since commenters are the ones who see the ads, we are the consumers of the Atlantic's blog media. The consumers of any product have the right to boycott anything they want, whether it is mass or just a single person choosing to boycott it. There have to be other libertarian bloggers out there who could argue smarter points than McArdle, who has been rather disappointing since her move here.

Posted by Reality Man | September 6, 2007 6:30 PM

ah, the daily McArdle link...keep it up or she'll flatline.

Posted by jim | September 6, 2007 10:08 PM

"Thomas Friedman was born in 1953.
That would have made him about 12 years old when LBJ
passed the Medicare legislation."

I'm also assuming the Friedman in question was Milton, but now I have an image of a 12-year-old Tommy with a great big mustache . . .

Posted by Dan S. | September 6, 2007 10:33 PM

Ugh. Yglesias is a smart analyst and a talented young writer. I read his blog for his (frequently) insightful comments on global and domestic affairs. I don't read it for this McArdle Response Team NONSENSE.

The biggie political bloggers should seriously consider if they want their precious community to degenerate into the online equivalent of a DC Press Corps cocktail party. High Broderism... "Indeed."

Posted by MR | September 6, 2007 10:37 PM

Sorry, Will, but your logic is faulty.

Saying that x will cost $9 billion when it really costs $60 billion is not akin to promising $51 billion of x for nothing. It is simply understating how much x will cost; it is not saying that x comes with NO cost, which is what something for nothing means.

On the other hand, if one says that $51 billion in tax cuts will quickly generate so much additional revenue that immediate spending cuts of $51 billion to x,y,z are unnecesary for balancing the budget, then one is promising something for nothing. Moreover, if one proposes spending an additional $51 billion on x, without cutting spending on y or raising taxes by $51 billion, and then claims that the budget is in balance, then one is promising something for nothing.

Posted by eltoro | September 7, 2007 11:35 AM