Bruce,

Minor quibble re: your #1: If "temporary" tax cuts (on individual labor income or individual investment income) are to last at least for several years, and then quite possibly be extended further (largely or completely), wouldn't the impact get considerably closer to that of "permanent" tax rate cuts (which could be reversed at any time anyway) than would the one-time rebates or other tax cuts scheduled to expire in a year or two (and expected to be allowed to expire)?

Even though I have substantive disagreements with your take on economics, I find your candor refreshing. I don't see a way for our democracy to succeed unless and until we have more(quantity) thoughtful participants in our civic dialogue from the right side of the aisle. (Looking forward to reading your new book.)

"Therefore, it is not surprising that there is no evidence of a supply-side economic effect anywhere in the data of the last few years."

Nor would there have been , even if designed to perfection by you or the other "Laffer".

Have you been in a coma for the last 8 years ? Companies flush with cash chose not to invest , instead doing buybacks and increasing dividends , because they correctly questioned the sustainability of DEMAND.

Why expand production to serve a middle-class that was overleveraged to the hilt ?

Please , face the facts. The "Chicago Boys" economic model has trashed what was once a stable , prosperous economy that raised living standards across the board. Suck it up and admit that your side was wrong , by a lot.

Jeesh! I come here hoping to get a view from the merely far-right , as opposed to the looneytune extreme right , but no such luck.

Can someone elucidate just what W's economic policy *was?* I'm not being snotty here - I seriously don't know.

He was a fiscal liberal, spending at an alarming rate, while ostensibly being a "supply sider."

The only terms I know that describe someone who says one thing and does another aren't very flattering.

Unfortunately I get to use them even more, with our new Spender In Chief.

2003: Dividends 38.6 to 15, Cap Gains 20 to 15, Top Marginal 38.6 to 15. That was a supply side tax cut that was intended to be permanent. The tax cuts were only proposed for 10 years because of silly budget rules. The cuts also made the tax code less favorable for debt compared to capital, reducing incentives for the housing bubble.

The vast bulk in dollar terms of every tax cut has been to lower and middle class taxpayers. To get any tax cut passed it needs to include tax cuts for everyone. The problem with "compassionate conservatism" is that it gets full blame for the deficit and no credit for the demand side benefits.

TDM - the top marginal rate went from 38.6% to 35%, not 15%.

In addition Bush's tax cuts were not proposed for ten years "due to a silly budget rule". Instead the Republican-run Senate employed a rule called reconciliation that allowed them to avoid Senate filibuster rules. The vote in the Senate was 50 - 50 with VP Cheney voting for passage for the 2003 tax cuts. The rules sunset not in 10 years, but instead on 1/1/2011.

The Senate used this rule on all three Bush tax cut initiatives to avoid filibuster. Prior to 1996 reconciliation was used only for budget deficit reduction initiatives. But the 105th Congress (Republican majority) started using this rule to pass budgets that would increase the deficit, like the 2003 tax cuts were projected to do. According to the CBO during debate on this act, the 2003 tax cuts were predicted to add $340 billion to the 2008 budget.

The tax cuts worked; see who for:
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/category/share-of-income/

I know this is off topic, but I am interested in your opinion and that of your readers. I dont get the healthcare deal at all. Obama describes the millions of Americans dying because they dont have health insurance and this was his reason for trying to pass a bill in August. If this is the case, why would it not be enacted until 2013? Could it be that he would be rewarded in the next election for passing health care reform without being judged for its cost and results?

What is the reason that it would take that long to implement? The plan to pay for it is by cutting waste and fraud in Medicare. Why can't they begin cutting that today? It seems to me that if we are going to pass healthcare then it must be impemented immediately and then Obama will be judged either positively or negatively in the 2012 election. I dont at all understand why anyone who wants this passed would disagree with implementing it in 2010 instead of 2013.

Readers, please dont get into what George Bush did, or republican bashing, just a direct answer to the questions posed.

Thanks

"It was always a key tenet of supply-side economics that only permanent tax cuts affected incentives; temporary tax cuts never did."

I've been reading the news since the late 1970's, and I don't recall this ever being emphasized. I'm not saying that nobody ever said it, just that the overwhelming bulk of what didn't mention, let alone emphasize the permanency of the tax cuts.

In addition, the situation looked pretty good back in 2001-3 for continued GOP dominance, and therefore reduced taxes on the rich. We didn't see jack for economic growth.