[JohnGalt]

"supply sider would disagree that more consumer spending is good for the economy"

Supply-siders don't position 'consumption' with an 'improved economy.' That is the Keynisian equivalent of suggesting public works projects to cure unemployment.

Supply-siders argue that reducing the opportunity costs on risk, is how economies grow.

Consevative supply-siders use a mix of some of your posts about budget as percentage of GNP (as Grover Nordquist does).

Bush should have argued for tax-cuts based on good government, rather than claiming his tiny meaningless tax cuts would somehow save the economy. No serious conservative could back him on this which makes him just another politician promising the world and delivering very little. This kills pulic hatred towards taxation, and demands the Bush either get more clever or perhaps pursue a program of revenue neutral tax reform.

[elfman2]

" No serious conservative could back him on this which makes him just another politician promising the world and delivering very little. "

Bush sold himself as a moderate/compassionate conservative from the beginning. This tax cut was difficult enough to get through without having to be brutally honest about its limits. Whether or not exceptional honesty, rather than Keynisian arguments for incremental supply side programs (triangulation), is productive or not is beyond either of us to know with certainty. With Democrats promising economic collapse due to the "crippling cost" of the cuts, I tend to think that calling it of little benefit would have ended its chances, along with any psychological effect on consumers.