The Bush Boom

Here is a book review from the future: Johnathan Chait, posting a week from now, discusses revisionist attempts to frame the Bush tax cuts as the engine of growth. Chait broadly supports the point I made about attributing economic growth (or not) to the Oval Office, but takes particular issue with the idea of a Bush Boom:

The initial effect of tax cuts for the rich is to increase public debt and income inequality. Conservatives justify these consequences by pointing to the alleged second-order effects of tax cuts--promoting stronger incentives and higher growth. But, if the second-order effects are so tiny they get washed out by larger economic factors--and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests they are--why should we pay the price for them?

A reasonable question. Perhaps we could ask John, one of the most recent converts.