I have friends with children who appreciated their child related "tax subsidies for the wealthy".

I recalled when those tax cuts were first proposed, and being disgusted by the bastardization of economics they represented.  Basically there's a political dichotomy in "mainstream" economics between the [minority] Keynesians and the [majority] rational expectations, or RE, crowd.  The latter group has changed its name to "SDGE",* but generally does plies the same ideologically pure anarcho-capitalist position it did in 1393. 

Bush's most zealous defenders in the economics field are the DGSE crowd, with the usual caveat that he is not sufficiently extreme.  At no time has this cohort ever objected to the oddly un-libertarian fiscal policy; to a man, they insist that the Hogarthian excesses still enforce an ideology of categorical detachment from social welfare that the demand of the state--they are proponents of the "starve the beast" creed.

Yet Mankiw, his chief economic advisor, is a New Keynesian and Bush used pseudo-Keynesian arguments arguments for the taxcuts in, among other venues, the 2004 presidential debates. 

The DGSE crowd argues that fiscal policy is ineffective ("Ricardian Equivalence"), so one cannot truthfully use tax cuts to stimulate the economy during a downturn; only a permanent taxcut will suffice, which of course requires no possible change of mind by the government or the political machinery. 

The Keynesians, as everyone knows, believe that deficits (tax cuts and/or increased state expenditures) are essential to maintaining sufficient aggregate demand.  "Supply-siders" are merely Keynesians who believe (or rather, who claim  to believe) tax cuts are the best method of stimulating a stalled economy.  It is worth pointing out that the one honest economic rightwinger, David Stockman, was horrified and dejected when Reagan's tax cuts triggered a gigantic budget deficit; he refused to accept any credit for the post-1983 recovery, since it was achieved by dishonestly applying Keynesian policies in an underhanded way.**

So, to sum up: Bush proposes tax cut as response to 2001 Recession (a Keynesian idea) but wants to make it permanent, appealing to DGSE theory (i.e., appealing to the concept of Ricardian Equivalence).  And economic pundits, particularly Robert Barro, bought into it.

___________________________________________________
* Stochastic Dynamic General Equilibrium: in the last 15 years or so, economists have tended to blur the line between Keynesians and the RE/RBC schools of thinking.  Many Keynesians, for example, simply modified the mathematics-intensive models of the RE/RBC school to include Keynesian observations, such as sticky prices and realistic descriptions of money creation.  Alan Taylor is an example of an economist who has ported the mathematical modelling of RE to Keynesian theory.

The anarcho-capitalist diehards of the new classical econonics are called SDGE; DGE is itself not necessarily associated with any particular ideological assumptions.

**by dishonestly applying Keynesian policies in an underhanded way: I know this sounds redundant, but it's not: underhanded, because the policies were implemented in ways that prioritized stealth, and hence inflicted horrible human costs; dishonest, because the Reagan Administration and its adherents lied about the economic plan persistently.  Had the Reagan Admin. openly and collaboratively pursued a Keynesian attack on stagflation, the social cost would have been far less.

I have friends with children who appreciated their child related "tax subsidies for the wealthy".

Your point?

JRM, as usual, I am deeply appreciative of your insight and concise analysis of the actions of these bounders and fools.  Their contempt for those whom they consider beneath them is so apparent in terms of the economic policies they pursue. I waver between cynical laughter and despairing anger when I think of the large number of working people in this country who support these clowns when their policies run counter to the best interests of these same folks.  Jay Gould's claim that he could hire half the working class to kill the other half seems less and less grandiose as time goes by.