Take the Voo Out of the Doo

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4657404.html

"Over the past fortnight, the Gillard Government has arrived at the position that any transition back to budget surpluses in the near, or more likely distant, future must depend upon revenues growing more strongly, rather than significantly reducing expenditures."

Well duh. Can we please expunge all verbiage containing even a hint of the 'voodoo economics' promulgated by the discredited supply-side, fresh-water economists from the public discourse. The idea that reducing taxes on the wealthy, hence increasing vastly their disposable income, inadvertently balances the national budget is so patently absurd that even a scion of right-wing thought such as George H.W. Bush could come up with a descriptor such as 'voodoo'.

The concept is relatively simple. Extra disposable income in the hands of the wealthy, created by reduced taxation of their wealth, inevitably, automatically and absolutely is always expended on innovation of existing wealth-creating endeavors, and creation of new wealth-creating endeavors. This theory therefore assumes that the wealthy elites are in the best position to know where best and most efficiently to allocate this wealth so as to create the greatest increase in the common good. Since when is an increase in the common good even a marginal goal of the wealthy elites? But just for fun let's examine the imbedded assumptions of  voodoo economics further, and perhaps to their logical conclusion.

If we reduce taxes on the wealthy and the excess disposable income is expended on innovation of existing wealth-creating endeavors and creation of new ones, government revenues will increase, even at reduced taxation levels, because of the increase in taxable economic activity. Budgets could then be balanced, even pushed into surplus if desirable. This concept was tested in the US economy, by the Dubya administration in the noughties. No rises in government revenues were observed and an offshoot result was the real estate bubble and subsequent GFC.

Why is this verbiage even available for view?