Here's the lede to a Louis Uchitelle story in Wednesday's New York Times about the "political comeback" of supply-side economics:
When Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980, he promised to cut taxes in what seemed, at the time, a magical way. Tax revenue would go up, not down, he said, as the economy boomed in response to lower rates.
Since then, supply-side economics, as it was called — first with derision but then as a label embraced by its supporters — has become a central tenet of Republican political and economic thinking. That’s despite the fact that the big supply-side tax cuts of the 1980s and the 2000s did not work out as advertised, as even most supporters acknowledge.
But advocates see broader economic benefits from lowering tax rates, which is one of the reasons the concept has reappeared as a point of contention in this year’s election campaign, in an amended form.
While Uchitelle does a good job of explaining why the supply-side claim that tax cuts increase revenue is almost certainly wrong, he is curiously non-specific about which politicians are making these supply-side claims -- only Reagan is mentioned. (There is an allusion to Arthur Laffer advising John McCain but no direct quotes of the GOP candidate.) The article focuses instead on the views of various economic advisers and economists. But how can a New York Times report on this issue fail to mention the fact that President Bush and other administration officials have repeatedly implied that tax cuts increase revenue? Or that McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson all made similar claims during the GOP primary campaign? Aren't those relevant facts?