Also, there is no sense in which supply-side economics and the starve the beast theory are “diametrically opposed.” Do you dispute that if you raise tax rates enough, revenues (and eventually spending) will decrease? I think that withan across-the-board effective tax rate of about 80% the beast will be quite dead. (Republicans want to reduce government spending because they think it will be better for the economy. Reducing spending by destroying the economy would amount to achieving a means by defeating your end).

Finally, I strongly doubt your claim tat the starve the beast hypothesis has more and/or more legitimate defenders than the Laffer curve is inaccurate.

Thanks so much for your comments, particularly the logical (and non-sensical) proposition, that if republicans really wanted to “starve the beast” they should raise tax rates in order to reduce tax revenues (particularly among the rich, since, given the chance offered by lower taxes, they are presumably those most responsible for the phenomenal growth which produces the increased tax revenues).

I hadn’t thought of this argument before and will surely use it the next time I return to my rural Iowa roots and resume the on-going argument with my mostly Republican old friends and extended family.