Reaganomics Redux

New label + new voice = new concept. Not.

If you make it, they will buy.

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

   Supply-side economics, also known as trickle-down economics or Reaganomics, is back, this time being touted by a new set of conservatives under a new name -- dynamic scoring.
   According to the "new" concept justifying tax cuts for the wealthy, supposedly with the result that the more cash investors and firms have to play with, the more stuff will be made and sold, and the increased tax revenue from increased sales will more than offset the tax reductions. Now, with a moving dynamic of scoring the range of possible results from changes in government fiscal policy, backers of the "new" strategy can pick and choose the numbers that best fit their preconceived notions of what they want to achieve.
   In its Reagan-era incarnation, the theory claimed that the benefits of tax cuts for the wealthy would encourage them to invest the extra cash in producing more stuff, thus resulting in more jobs and more sales and increased economic activity and more tax revenue for the government.
   Sounds great, if in fact that happens. Except that it didn't then, and it won't now. Reducing taxes on the wealthy only gives them more cash to stash in private accounts.
   A supporting pillar of Reaganomics was the Laffer Curve, named after economist Arthur Laffer. His theory was that high taxes interfere with production, so cutting taxes would boost production significantly enough as to overcome any deficits caused by the cuts.
   Except that during the Reagan years, the benefits did not trickle down to the rest of the population, and the government deficit tripled.
   It is to laff.

  Even President George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics," and the supply-side or trickle-down theory has little backing among mainstream economists. It does, however, have strong support from the Radical Righteous and their corporate election campaign donors.
   With "dynamic scoring" of the potential benefits of changes in fiscal policy, backers develop a range of possibilities that any changes would bring about, and then select the option that best suits their goals. It would be better to use the option most likely to reach reality, and adjust goals accordingly.
   But no. The historical reality that supply-side economics doesn't work has no effect on their thinking and planning. They remain afflicted by the Riley Syndrome: "My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts."
   Or maybe, the resident cynic said, they do know, but don't care. Their self-aggrandizing strategy dictates that they develop a new name for the same concept, and market it through new voices, so the public is led to believe it's a new concept.