[Steve Schulin]

Although I'm disappointed in the output of the models, I hope it doesn't dampen the spirits of those championing tax cuts. The New York Times article on this last week mentioned that "Holtz-Eakin said the new analysis did not necessarily refute claims about tax cuts because the report examined the economic impact of Bush's spending increases as well as his tax proposals. 'It's apples and oranges,' Holtz-Eakin said Tuesday, after testifying before the House Budget Committee. 'We looked at the whole budget here.'"

"'They did not analyze the impact of the tax cuts by themselves,' said William Beach, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group."

I understand that Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation is hiring four folks to work full time on "dynamic scoring". I look forward to seeing not just estimates on proposed tax cuts, but studies running historical data through the various models with an eye on the "tax rate - revenue" connection.

[GovernmentShrinker]

It matters little whether or not the tax cuts cause economic growth -- what's really important is that they'll increase the percentage of wealth that remains in the hands of free citizens, and decrease the percentage that is grabbed by the socialist government for its own purposes.

[MattinNJ]

Fascinating. Both conservatives and socialists should be trying to compete to see who could cut taxes the most. Conservatives obviously advocating keeping what you produced, and socialists (assuming tax cuts increased revenues) would be championing them so there would be more money to dole out to their constituents.

I never could understand their position on that. Of course, I can never understand their position on anything.

[Publius]

Ah, Arthur Laffer. That's a name I haven't heard for a few years. I remembered how he eviscerated Mitch Rogovin during a debate on PBS in 1980 when the staffs of the presidential campaigns went at it, rather than the candidates themselves. It was a lot more educational than the staged appearances known as "presidential debates".

I almost met Dr. Laffer.

When I worked in LA during the mid-Nineties, I spotted the investor relations VP of my company in the fine Italian seafood restaurant across the street talking with someone who was a ringer for Art Laffer. After lunch I dropped in at the VP's office.

ME: Was that Arthur Laffer with you across the street?

VP: Yeah. You should have come over and introduced yourself. Art's pretty approachable. He was my economics prof at USC.

ME: I remember how he ripped Mitchell Rogovin a new one in 1980 on TV.

VP: Art would have liked someone remembering that. We were finishing a debate we'd started last night at Chris Cox's house.

ME: You know Christopher Cox?!

VP: Yeah, I've known him for years. Dan Quayle was in town, and Chris threw a dinner party for him. I hadn't talked to Dan in years, and then I ran into Art.

ME: You know Dan Quayle?!

Needless to say, I was blown away.

[Eaglefixer]

Having done my masters thesis on a large computer simulation I can say that without full validation with actual past data the computer models mean less than nothing.

[RAT Patrol]

The government takes my money in complicated ways, spends it on complicated programs, also spends it on complicated "studies" that prove whatever the freak they want it to prove, then they spend more money on more studies that prove exactly the opposite thing as the last study, then they tell me that they cannot afford to let me keep more of my money because I'm not earning enough for the both of us.

[NutmegDevil]

Allan Murray sits down to pee. His show on CNBC is a Democrat Party fest.

[RAT Patrol]

it took 35 government analysts a month and a half to complete the work -

For a follow-up study, let's examine what effect high-cost government studies that frequently contradict each other and admittedly depend on your starting "assumptions" have on the economy.

[ggekko]

Typical Alan Murray; what a beltway-centric spin on this issue.

What Murray neglects to mention is that EVERY single major tax increase in the last 30 years has underperformed on its revenues to the Treasury versus what was forecast by the CBO static model. What is hugely important about the move to dynamic scoring is that TAX INCREASES will now be seen to have the economic deadening effect that they truly produce in practice. Under the old CBO static model it was always assumed that an increase in the marginal tax rates produced no compensating change in business and consumer behavior. In the real world this is a ridiculous assumption.

As a result of this change it will be MUCH HARDER to raise taxes in the future. Bravo to the Pubs!

[Arthur McGowan]

According to local lore, Mr. Laffer sketched a curve on a cocktail napkin suggesting that a cut in income taxes could provide such a spark to the economy that government revenues would rise, not fall. The free lunch was born.

To my knowledge, NO reporter has ever properly explained the Laffer Curve. For the curve to "work" the ECONOMY AS A WHOLE does NOT have to grow or be "stimulated." SOME tax rates might be at the point where they are collecting the most revenue, while other rates may be higher than that point. Thus, for the curve to "work," it isn't necessary for the economy to grow, it is only necessary to cut the rates that are too high. Revenue will increase instantly. The economy WILL grow, and revenues will increase as a result of that, too.

You can always tell a reporter who hasn't bothered to think about the issue, and who understands that a tax rate is a price, charged by the government. Reporters who don't think always just spew out well-worn phrases like "stimulate the economy," etc.