rkers to pay even more taxes, even at lower rates. The supply-side idea is a simple one, and makes a popular political message. However, it is interesting to note that mainstream economists, even conservative ones, almost universally reject supply-side theory. In the early 80s, the influential and multi-partisan American Economics Association had 18,000 members. Only 12 called themselves supply-side economists. In trying to figure out where this idea came from this information became available. In American universities, there is no major department that can be called "supply-side," and there is no supply-side economist at any major department. This is significant, because evidently economists who espoused a more conservative economic theory dominated academia in the 70s, and conservative economists normally welcome any ideas that make the case against government intervention. The fact that they scrutinized supply-side theory and rejected it wholesale gives eloquent testimony to the theory's bankruptcy. When candidate George Bush called it "voodoo economics" in the 1980 presidential campaign, he was doing so with the full backing of America's economic community. Many people are surprised to learn that "conservative" does not necessarily equate to "supply-side" economics. The difference in general conservative view of government and supply side lies in spending. Mainstream conservative economists generally believe that tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts, that is to say one should exercise fiscal responsibility in regards to spending and cutting. Supply-side economists believe that taxes should be cut without regard to the deficit or spending. Spending cuts and deficits, they believe, are not important considerations. The 1980 supply-siders claimed that the growth resulting from tax cuts would be so great, and the total tax collections increased so much, that America would simply outgrow its deficits. This is to sa...
