« More attacks on dissent from media, GOP | Main | Israel's naked ambassador »

March 12, 2007


However, he also falsely asserted that the administration had not made those claims:

He asserted that he didn't "think" they'd made (or, better, "advanced") such claims. That may not be credible, but it's not something that is easy to demonstrate as false. And query what counts as "excessively rosy." If you're going to be a relatively strict textualist, you should probably be a consistent one.

That's a fair point; I've amended the language above to the following:

However, he also stated that he thought the administration had not made those claims, which was -- and is -- false:

Or, to put it clearly: he was claiming ignorance about the fundamental, openly stated and adhered to fraudulent economic policies of the administration for which he wanted to be the economic advisor.

That's not credible at all.

Not so fast!

Alan Reynolds on humanevents.com, The Laffer Curve Renamed (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15441) writes:

”I grow weary of people telling me what supply-siders supposedly said, thought or wrote without bothering to actually quote anyone. No economist ever claimed that all taxes are so distortionary that increasing any tax rate would reduce revenue. Art Laffer never said that. Bob Mundell never said that. Larry Lindsey, Larry Kudlow, Craig Roberts, Steve Entin and Bruce Bartlett never said that. I never said that.”

It’s shocking the amount of ignorance people have about supply-side economics, and it’s not much to go into here. However, if you’re interested, please see Voodoo Economics = Liberal Fantasies (or What Supply-Side Economists Really Said):"


The comments to this entry are closed.