I'm glad to see Bob Dole picked Jack Kemp as his running mate.

I would say I'm surprised, but hey, this is politics, so the hypocrisy just flows and flows.

It was not too awful long ago that Bob Dole was joking about how a busload of supply-siders (Kemp) going over a cliff was a good news, bad news situation. Good news that it was going over the cliff. Bad news that a few seats were empty.

But now Dole has happily embraced the supply-side theory of economics and has chosen one of its champions (Kemp) as his running mate.

And to top it off, Dole has proposed a giant tax cut as the hingepin of his economic revitalization plan - a classic supply-side tactic.

So there you have it, a giant supply-side waffle smothered in tax-cut syrup.

And you thought President Clinton was a classic flip-flopper.

Frankly, I'm glad Dole waffled. I like supply-side stuff. I think it can work. And so does Kemp.

Supply-side economics says that you can increase revenue to the U.S. treasury by decreasing taxes. That if you let the supply-side work, the economy will grow and so will the tax base.

Supply-siders urge taking money out of the hands of the government and placing it in the hands of the people. I have no problem with that.

Kemp is the perfect guy to push this theory throughout the upcoming election. Kemp is a veritable storehouse of facts and figures on the positive attributes of supply-side economics.

He really knows his stuff.

Of course, the detractors are those in Congress who never saw a dollar they didn't want to spend. They call supply-side economics voo-doo or doo-doo or whatever.

But those who detract from supply-side economics ignore history.

A recent study by the Heritage Foundation points out that the economy grew and the revenue stream into the treasury from income taxes grew substantially - from $601 million to $1.2 billion after tax rates were lowered across the board in the 1920s.

Those cuts were the work of Republicans, but the study further points out that Democrat John F. Kennedy also lowered taxes across the board in the 1960. Those tax cuts boosted revenues from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968. The cuts generally are credited by historians for a healthy, long-lasting economic expansion.

Enter Ronald Reagan. His budgets have been so demonized by Democrats and the media that most people believe the tax cuts he enacted were the cause of the huge deficit amassed during his administration.

But again, the critics ignore the facts.

During Reagan's presidency, the nation's economic growth rate was a robust 3.9 percent, unemployment dropped from 9.6 percent to 5.3 percent, and revenues into the treasury increased.

In 1983, revenue was $601 billion. In 1989, revenue was $1.1 trillion.

OK. Stop. Understand.

Reagan cut taxes. Revenue to the treasury from taxes increased from $601 billion to $1.1 trillion during his presidency.

It's fact. It's history. It can't be denied.

Those who call supply-side economics voo-doo simply ignore those very basic, fundamental facts.

They point out, instead, that the nation's deficit ballooned under Reagan. How true, the defict was five times greater at the end of Reagan's tenure than at the beginning.

But the deficit was not caused by tax cuts. (Remember, revenue increased.) The deficit was caused by wild spending in Congress.

Along with his tax cuts, Reagan proposed cuts in programs. But when the legislation came out of Congress, the tax cuts were left in. The program cuts were left out. Coupled with a hefty increase in defense spending, the deficit grew.

If you want to blame somebody for the deficit, blame Congress. Those guys hold the purse strings. The president can't spend a dime. Who was running Congress in the 1980s? Anyone remember?

Now comes Bob Dole.

He proposes cutting income tax rates 15 percent across the board, cutting the capital gains rate and enacting a $500 per child tax credit. He says this will spur investment and consumer spending. That will create growth and jobs. That will generate more revenue for the treasury.

Enough revenue to offset the $550-odd billion in lost tax revenues? Probably not, but Dole wants to cut programs. He's been a bit vague about which programs, though.

If Bob Dole would happen to get elected, I think his supply-side plan could work. But the deficit will have to be addressed. It is the one thing that screws up the supply-side equation. It makes for higher interest rates and slower economic growth. It also chews up bigger and bigger chunks of the federal budget because of the interest that has to be paid each year.

But to get at the deficit, entitlements like Medicare and Social Security will have to be restructured or cut.

Those are tough choices. Choices I'm not sure Congress or Bob Dole are ready to make. [[In-content Ad]]