There were some technical problems with my earlier post on GOP deficit phoniness, although not in any way that changes the message. So, here’s an update. I use the intermediate-cost estimate from CRFB (pdf) for the four Republican plans, and for consistency, I use CRFB’s own estimate (pdf) for Obama. And here’s what we get:

So it remains true that all of the proposals, except maybe Ron Paul’s (which contains huge and probably impossible spending cuts) would lead to higher deficits than Obama, based on a common assessment.

I see, however, that some commenters are declaring that it’s all OK because of the voodoo “dynamic” effects of tax cuts for the wealthy. I guess my question is, what on earth would make anyone believe in that old nonsense at this point?

I mean, we’ve had two fairly clear-cut tests in recent decades: the Clinton tax hike, which all the usual suspects said would produce disaster, and the Bush cuts, which would supposedly produce a wonderful boom. How did those turn out?

Also, the Romers have some careful new research looking at older data — the drastic tax swings of the interwar years — and find only small effects.

So let me rephrase my question: what conceivable evidence would convince people that supply-side magic doesn’t work?

And meanwhile, the whole deficit hawkery of the right continues to be revealed as a fraud.