If there was any question that Fred Thompson is off and running, his op-ed in this morning's Wall Street Journal should not only put that to rest, it even goes so far as to sketch his strategic platform: demagoguery piled on windbagged simplicity piled on factual omissions piled on willful historical blindness piled on raving, plutocratic paranoia of socialist schemers, the devils.
His editorial, "Case Closed: Tax Cuts Mean Growth," is so offensive to both very recent and 20th-century American history, it stands as an instructive monument to the right's "push-pull" philosophy of politics: push misleading b.s. forcefully enough and long enough, and you'll get just enough voters to pull your lever. The others -- in fact, the great majority, since most folks neither vote or care -- can go to hell.
Both the content and attitude of Mr. Thompson's op-ed are contained in its title, and the title itself is self-evident. Supply-side economics is a proven, frolicking success, and anyone who says otherwise is a Marx-Engels-leaflet-distributing, nitwitted pinko out to destroy our rightful American Dream. Thompson's piece is, in just two words, frightening and pathetic -- laughably ahistorical but ominously effective. People actually buy this crap.
Merely a few samplings should suffice for your edification. Should you choose not to read Thompson's full piece, believe me, you're not missing much, unless you simply enjoy savoring the full flavor of demagogic falderal.
"Since the first tax cuts were passed, when I was in the Senate," he writes, "the budget deficit has been cut in half." That would be the budget deficit that came about after those tax cuts? Imagine this: he doesn't mention that.
"The reason for this outcome is that, because of lower rates, money is being invested in our economy instead of being sheltered from the taxman." Any mention that big money's investments are increasingly made overseas because big money knows we're teetering on economy-crushing bankruptcy? Pshaw. But let's not quibble. Fred is a tough guy who knows his own mind. And we know that, because he plays one on TV. And we love that.
"Job growth is robust, overcoming trouble in the housing sector; and the personal incomes of Americans at every income level are higher than they've ever been." Last I read, about one million mortgages are expected to go into default in the near future, so at least homelessness and downward social mobility will be "robust."
"President John F. Kennedy was an astute proponent of tax cuts and the proposition that lower tax rates produce economic growth." This little historical "fact" ignores two other little items: the tax bracket for the wealthiest Americans then hovered around 90 percent, and Kennedy's administration didn't follow a fiscally moronic one that had balled everything up as far as the fiscal eye could see.
But here's my favorite: "Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan also understood the power of lower tax rates and managed to put through cuts that grew the U.S. economy like Kansas corn. Sadly, we just don't seem able to keep that lesson learned."
Yes, it is sad, isn't it? Sad that we don't know, because we don't read history, that under the Coolidge administration's supply-side policies, the worthy -- the upper crust -- indeed had a grand and profitable time of it, but at the expense of workers (ring any bells?). Ultimately wages fell to the point that workers could no longer afford to buy the goods they were producing, so inventories stockpiled unbought on warehouse shelves and we slid into the Great Depression. At least Reagan's supply-siding revenue increases only quadrupled the national debt.
As for Mr. Thompson's happily envisioned future only if we maintain suicidal fiscal policies, I'll just quote economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, formerly, no less, of George W. Bush's employ. This is what he had to say to the New York Times when government revenues began upticking: "The long-term outlook is such a deep well of sorrow that I can't get much happiness out of this year."
It is sad, as well, that "long-term" doesn't seem to exist in the right's lexicon.
Thompson ends with this red baiting: "Are you really interested in tax rates that benefit the economy and raise revenue -- or are you interested in redistributing income for political reasons?" As I said earlier: frightening and pathetic.
But at least Fred Thompson does offer us a choice: Which would you like to see in a presidential candidate? Stunning ignorance or staggering effrontery? Well happy days and this year and next are your lucky ones, because he delivers both.