It strikes me that since the Reagan-Bush style economic strategy of lowering tax rates on the people with the highest incomes is called supply-side economics (make the rich even richer, so the thinking goes, and there will be a greater supply of money that can be used to invest in new businesses to stimulate employment), we progressives that recognize that strategy as bankrupt might be advocates of demand-side economics.
We don't really have a good name for our economic strategy.
The party of money has a great name in supply-side economics. That sounds so much better than enrich-the-rich economics.
I do think cutting taxes is a good idea if the people who get the tax cuts (and thus have more income) will spend that income in the United States. That will stimulate employment and economic activity, generating the multiplier effect of a dollar spent on tax cuts generating three or four dollars of economic activity.
Cutting taxes on wealthy people by lowering their marginal tax rate to 35% from 37% or cutting capital gains taxes does not have the same effect, since wealthy people don't spend their additional income. They invest it, and that means they buy equities or real estate or some other financial instrument anywhere around the globe. That does not generate economic activity in the United States. That's why enrich-the-rich policies are not as good at stimulating economic activity as demand-side economics.
I think demand-side economics is a better term than 'targeted tax cuts' that Clinton popularized. What's a competing term for the progressive economic agenda?