Suitably Flip

Laffing All the Way To the White House

Republican Presidential candidates, GOP primary voters, and the American public in general should be paying a lot more attention to Art Laffer.  For all I know, they're paying plenty of attention to Laffer, but it's hard to pay too much attention to him, so I'll stand by my assertion that everyone should be paying more.

There are few living standard bearers with more credibility, cachet, or intellectual capital in the area of sound, pro-growth  fiscal policy than Laffer, one of the principal architects of something-d-o-o economics and thus of not only our own prosperity, but that of numerous far-flung post-socialist states now more unabashedly free market capitalist than the United States.

Responding to a boldly asinine, refreshingly illogical argument by redistributionist Jonathan Chait at The New Republic, Laffer recently published a response (pdf) that not only dispenses with the foolish policy implications of Chait's soft-socialist sensibilities, but offers us a refresher course on why supply-side economics works, promoting prosperity by facilitating (or rather, simply getting out of the way of) sustainable growth, while the ostensible charity of resdistributionist strategies typically harm most immediately those they purport to help.

We are approaching the most critical presidential election in a generation, and the voice of the Left is gaining prominence. As the timeless growthist vs. redistributionist debate once again takes center stage, it will be crucial to see the truth. This paper is a first step in that direction. Then, in preparation for a potential Democratic victory in 2008, we’ll soon publish an indepth analysis of historical asset market responses—magnitude and timing—to anti-growth policies.

Summary

• This paper serves as a response to a recent The New Republic article by Jonathan Chait which criticizes the supplyside economics movement and lays out the typical redistributionist’s case for raising taxes on the rich.
• While the article refers to supply siders as “wingnuts,” the tenets of supply-side economics—low taxes, sound money, free trade, reduced regulations, etc.—have been adopted (successfully, I might add) in the U.S. and across the globe.
• The best way to help the poor is not to make the rich poorer, but to make the poor richer. All Americans as a whole have gotten richer as a result of pro-growth supply-side policies. The economic and social gains of the past 25 years—across class, race and gender lines—speak for themselves. The irony is that many of the policies promoted by the Left would hurt the very classes of people whom the Left professes to champion.

Read it, then e-mail it to your favorite Presidential candidate.

(HT: Laffer devotee Larry Kudlow)

Comments

Laffing All the Way To the White House

Republican Presidential candidates, GOP primary voters, and the American public in general should be paying a lot more attention to Art Laffer.  For all I know, they're paying plenty of attention to Laffer, but it's hard to pay too much attention to him, so I'll stand by my assertion that everyone should be paying more.

There are few living standard bearers with more credibility, cachet, or intellectual capital in the area of sound, pro-growth  fiscal policy than Laffer, one of the principal architects of something-d-o-o economics and thus of not only our own prosperity, but that of numerous far-flung post-socialist states now more unabashedly free market capitalist than the United States.

Responding to a boldly asinine, refreshingly illogical argument by redistributionist Jonathan Chait at The New Republic, Laffer recently published a response (pdf) that not only dispenses with the foolish policy implications of Chait's soft-socialist sensibilities, but offers us a refresher course on why supply-side economics works, promoting prosperity by facilitating (or rather, simply getting out of the way of) sustainable growth, while the ostensible charity of resdistributionist strategies typically harm most immediately those they purport to help.

We are approaching the most critical presidential election in a generation, and the voice of the Left is gaining prominence. As the timeless growthist vs. redistributionist debate once again takes center stage, it will be crucial to see the truth. This paper is a first step in that direction. Then, in preparation for a potential Democratic victory in 2008, we’ll soon publish an indepth analysis of historical asset market responses—magnitude and timing—to anti-growth policies.

Summary

• This paper serves as a response to a recent The New Republic article by Jonathan Chait which criticizes the supplyside economics movement and lays out the typical redistributionist’s case for raising taxes on the rich.
• While the article refers to supply siders as “wingnuts,” the tenets of supply-side economics—low taxes, sound money, free trade, reduced regulations, etc.—have been adopted (successfully, I might add) in the U.S. and across the globe.
• The best way to help the poor is not to make the rich poorer, but to make the poor richer. All Americans as a whole have gotten richer as a result of pro-growth supply-side policies. The economic and social gains of the past 25 years—across class, race and gender lines—speak for themselves. The irony is that many of the policies promoted by the Left would hurt the very classes of people whom the Left professes to champion.

Read it, then e-mail it to your favorite Presidential candidate.

(HT: Laffer devotee Larry Kudlow)