Kudlow’s latest is entitled Evidence, Evidence, and More Evidence. Yet, he fails to link to or even mention the title of a single study preferring to write:
Before making her strange assertions, Bernasek should have referenced the work of Harvard economists Martin Feldstein and Greg Mankiw, along with numerous articles published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Then there’s the work of Columbia economist Glenn Hubbard and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen. These are no small thinkers when it comes to tax theory. Each has found a high correlation between lower tax rates and higher economic growth. Then there’s the Nobel-prize-winning Edward Prescott of Arizona State and Robert Mundell of Columbia. Add two more sound minds to the lower-tax, higher-growth list. Sure, the above economists have been Republican advisors at one time or another, but Bernasek could have found a trove of data contrary to her thesis had she looked to the “non-partisan” OECD, IMF, or Congressional Budget Office. Then there’s the real-world evidence. Let’s start overseas.
So as he attacks Anna Bernasek, I guess she is left wondering which scholarly papers Kudlow refers to. Lawrence does refer to the 1920’s and the 1960’s when aggregate demand stimulus got us closer to full employment. He seems to think the Clinton boom was due to Clinton’s tax cuts. That’s odd. And of course, he had to mention his hero – Ronald Reagan. I guess Larry has not read Mankiw’s textbook that noted the fiscal fiasco of the 1980’s lowered savings and investment and hence long-term growth.
This is why Bruce Bartlett needs outlets for his honest op-eds other than the National Review.