Supply-side economics, often deemed by opponents as “Trickle-Down” economics, is a macro-economic theory that argues sustained economic growth is spurred primarily by lowering taxes on the wealthy and removing regulations on investments. It developed in the 1970s from the teachings of economists like Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer and suggested the exact opposite of the theories of John Maynard Keynes. Supply-side economics claims “supply creates demand,” while Keynes argued “demand creates supply.”

While I’m in no position to tackle these enormous issues from an academic standpoint, and few are, we can all make some basic observations on how the supply-side theory has played out when put to the test here in the United States. Supply-side economics has been given its time in the sun via political and legislative policies over much of the last 30 years.

Supply-side economics was first introduced into U.S. economic policy by the Reagan administration, under the influence of Alan Greenspan, and it soon became a household term. Reagan pressed Congress for across the board tax cuts, claiming that he could cut taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget. When enacted, these tax cuts tended to favor the highest income brackets the most, with larger cuts in capital gains taxes, which primarily apply to the wealthiest of Americans. Mathematics has since proven Reagan’s claims to be false. As tax receipts fell and spending increased, the nation went in debt. Following the tax cuts of ’81, the deficit soared to new heights, with the nation borrowing 25 cents for every dollar spent. Throughout Regan’s two terms, the U.S. ran up yearly deficits from $150 billion to $220 billion, not adjusted for inflation.

The trend of yearly deficits continued under George H.W. Bush and for much of Bill Clinton’s term. Finally, in 1998, the budget was brought back into the black and we began running on a yearly surplus for the first time since 1969. Taxes rose under the first Bush presidency and rose further under Clinton. The Clinton tax raises were particularly harsh on the upper income tax brackets. In general, the 1990s offered America a break from the policies of supply-side economics. In that period, the economy boomed. GDP grew for the longest consecutive period in U.S. history. The same period experienced amazing results in the stock market, low inflation, job growth, and increased productivity.

But, supply-side economic policies returned in 2001 under the presidency of George W. Bush. Tax cuts were again enacted, heavily favoring the wealthy. National spending increased, especially in defense with wars in Afghanistan and later Iraq. In 2002, the nation once again began operating in yearly deficits and has ever since.

I’m sure many thought that the “liberal” presidency of Barack Obama would bring a turn away from supply-side economic policy, but that simply was not the case. In more ways than one, the Obama administration has been a continuation of the policies put in place by George W. Bush. Tax policy is largely unchanged. One difference is that yearly deficit spending has finally started to decrease under Obama, but not enough to put a dent in our nation’s overall debt. The Bush tax cuts remain intact for the most part and the results of supply-side policies remain the same: more debt. Today, the percentage of debt to GDP is estimated around 72 percent.

Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden spent a good deal of time analyzing the nation’s economic results under supply-side economics throughout the Regan and George W. Bush administrations and came to some pretty damning results of the economic theory when put into practice. They came to the following conclusions. Investment growth was weaker under supply-side policy. Productivity growth was weaker under supply-side policy. Economic growth was weaker under supply-side policy. Employment growth was weaker under supply-side economic policy. Wages stagnated under supply-side policy. Well … I think you get the picture. It isn’t just these two who have come to the same conclusion. Data doesn’t lie and economists of all stripes and colors have found the same results.

Today’s U.S. economy faces many challenges that it has not faced before. Emerging markets are doing just that, they are emerging and becoming larger. China and India have already blossomed and many once smaller economies are poised to grow, making growth here in the U.S. all the more difficult. Having seen the results of supply-side economic theory, perhaps it is time for us to head in a different direction.

James Bliss is a Jamestown resident who studied literature and philosophy at Florida State University.