I'm puzzled by this reaction; is it because the author's opinion does not march lockstep with that of President Bush? Even though he makes the case for a permanent tax cut, it's drivel?
Why must support for the President be of the complete and total sycphant variety? Why can't a fella say to the President (like Mr. Adkins is doing): "Mr. President, heaven knows I love a tax cut as much as the next guy, and God bless you for working to get one for us. But maybe you haven't entirely thought this through (I know you've a lot on your mind). Or maybe your advisors - also very busy people - haven't completely gone through this. For sustained economic growth, the American people need the assured stability of a permanent tax cut. The one-time shot in the arm is nice, but short-sighted."
Or would this be "complete and total drivel" as well?
And, as Mr. Adkins wrote, we haven't even discussed the spending yet.
Yep... that sums up this piece -- the author fails to decipher the "tactics" from the "strategery"... Bush's $330 billion tax cut can't be simply divided by 10 and assumed to be $33 billion of tax cuts per year. About $250 billion of it shows up in the first 2-3 years. And by working on the margins (capital gains, dividends, and all the individual tax rates), it provides strong growth-oriented, investment oriented incentives. And the "strategery" of the sunsetting provisions means that the Fall 2004 election will feature a revisiting of the issue: "the Democrats want these Tax Cuts rescinded! They want to raise your taxes!" For people (voters) on the margin (at say the 10% marginal tax rate or enjoying the dividend tax cut), reversing those tax cuts will mean Tax Rate INCREASES of 50-100%! How well do you think that will play, Mr. Mondale?
Like you, I can see what the author intended but he didn't do a very good job of making his point.
The reason the last three tax cuts worked is because they were permanent. People knew they could buy a car, house, or invest money with a future tax rate that was predictable.
Milton Freidman won a noble prize in economics as a supply sider for writing basically what is stated above. This isn't drivel, Bush believes in supply side, and a big thanks on tax cuts being a policy goes to Reagan who used Friedman as the basis for this policy, but he does have a legitimate point, in a way, we have to hope that one of the best economists and a huge advocate for supply side is wrong on this one occasion.