In an April 2 article discussing Sen. John McCain's economic views and campaign advisers, McClatchy Newspapers reported that "[a]ll Republican economists champion low taxes. They disagree, however, on whether reducing taxes produces enough economic stimulus to pay for itself -- a doctrine called 'supply-side economics' -- or creates worrisome federal budget deficits. McCain listens to tax-cutters on both sides." In fact, far from simply “listen[ing]” to “both sides,” McCain has at least twice asserted as fact that tax cuts increase government revenues or that “most economists” believe that they do, only to subsequently have his campaign release statements backing off those claims.

In an interview with National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru posted to the magazine's website on March 5, 2007, McCain asserted: “Tax cuts, starting with [former President John F.] Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues. So what's the argument for increasing taxes? If you get the opposite effect out of tax cuts?” In a December 13, 2007, post on the washingtonpost.com blog The Fact Checker, Michael Dobbs highlighted McCain's statement to Ponnuru as McCain's “Most Revealing Fib[]” and wrote: “Asked to explain the candidate's position, the McCain campaign sent me an e-mailed statement from [senior domestic policy adviser Douglas J.] Holtz-Eakin claiming that the senator 'has never supported the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves.' ” Dobbs asserted, “It looks as if the master of the 'Straight Talk Express' is trying to have it both ways.”

In addition, in a December 7, 2007, Boston Globe column, Scot Lehigh reported that during a December 5 meeting with the Globe's editorial board, McCain said of the tax cuts passed during the Bush administration, “I would suggest that most economists agree that there was an increase in revenues ... associated with the tax cuts.” Lehigh also wrote:

Asked specifically about the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves, McCain said that “a lot of economists” believe the Bush tax cuts had stimulated the economy and that without them, “the economy would not have boomed, and therefore you would not have seen these increases in revenues.”

His campaign later insisted McCain didn't mean that tax cuts pay for themselves. But the notion that tax cuts somehow leave the federal government with as much revenue - or nearly as much - as it would have had without them is a popular one in the Republican universe.

As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, numerous Bush administration economists have stated that tax cuts, including those enacted during the Bush administration, produce a net decrease in revenue. Media Matters has also noted that Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson testified during his confirmation hearing that "[a]s a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves," and that Jim Nussle, director of the Office of Management and Budget, has been quoted as saying, “Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme.”

From the April 2 McClatchy Newspapers article, by Kevin H. Hall:

All Republican economists champion low taxes. They disagree, however, on whether reducing taxes produces enough economic stimulus to pay for itself -- a doctrine called ''supply-side economics'' -- or creates worrisome federal budget deficits. McCain listens to tax-cutters on both sides.

Among his tax-slicing advisors are former New York Rep. Jack Kemp, a champion of supply-side tax cuts, and billionaire publisher Steve Forbes, who like [former Texas Republican Sen. Phil] Gramm has championed a flat tax to replace the income tax.

McCain also has a long-standing friendship with Arthur Laffer, one of the original theorists of supply-side economics.

Yet Holtz-Eakin, his chief advisor, is no supply-sider. While he was the director of the CBO in 2005, Holtz-Eakin conducted a study into whether a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes could pay for itself by spurring so much economic activity that more revenue would flow into the Treasury even at the lower tax rate. The study concluded that 22 percent of lost revenue could be replaced in the first five years and 32 percent over the second five-year period, but lower tax rates wouldn't come close to paying for themselves.