Roy Blunt, the majority whip and a candidate to succeed Tom DeLay as majority leader, spouts supply-side nonsense on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page:
[T]he tax cuts have even helped reduce the federal budget deficit through record revenue growth fueled by an expanding economy.
But as I pointed out, revenues are way down as a result of the tax cuts, not up. The recent mini-surge in tax collections still leaves revenue levels far below what they would have been if we had never passed the tax cuts in the first place.
This is, of course, the same tactic used by President Bush and the WSJ editorial page. Any suggestions for a good analogy that would explain the fallacious reasoning behind this claim? (I'm struggling for something catchy and succinct.)