Do you remember the ’80s? Hair bands? Supply-side economics? Well, I hope you do, because not only is supply-side economics back, but it’s on the verge of sinking our country into the worst years since Reagan.Last week, President George W. Bush announced his tax-cut plan, which would cut tax revenue by $1.6 trillion. This is, in part, because Bush, like any good politician, wants to pay back the super-wealthy who purchased the presidency for him, but even more importantly, Bush sees it as a way to combat the looming recession.While I can understand the desire to pay back political favors, and I can assure you that Gore would have done the same thing, Bush’s attempt to reinstitute supply-side economics is asinine. After all, as anyone who’s seen “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” could tell you, even George Bush the elder knew supply-side was stupid, referring to it as “voodoo economics” when Reagan tried it.Supply-side economics is a theory that, among other things, advocates tax cuts to stimulate the economy, since people will have more disposable money, which they would previously have paid in taxes. They will then spend that money in American markets, which will create greater profits for the corporations, which will then, faced with a higher profit margin, be able to hire more workers and stimulate the economy even more.So, in other words, it’s easy to understand why people can fall for it. In a perfect human society, supply-side would work. Of course, so would communism, for that matter. That doesn’t mean we should try it on this large of a scale.There are several reasons why Bush’s plan is not only absurd, but dangerous. First is the size of the cut, which Bush estimates at being $1.6 trillion once the plan is fully implemented.That’s a lot of money, even for the government. To safely implement such a cut, we would need to cut spending, unless we want to return to the deficit spending we saw during Reagan’s presidency.Cutting spending is virtually impossible for any Congressman to do because that money has to come from somewhere, and no one’s willing to cut from the money spent in their district. No one wants to go home to the people who voted them into office and say “I successfully pulled $42 million in federal funding out of this district.” So we can safely say that to cut spending on that large of a scale, it will take a lot of work, blood, sweat and tears. In other words, it’s safe to say it won’t happen any time in the near future.Second, supply-side will not save us from this recession. The wealthy get a larger chunk of this money, due to the end of the estate tax and its simple structure which cuts income taxes, rather than payroll taxes like Social Security and Medicare. Since the wealthy get to stop paying payroll taxes after roughly $80,000 of income, the brunt of these taxes hits the average American, whereas the estate tax and income tax make their profits off the wealthy. Instead, to stimulate the economy, Bush will hand a lot of money to a few rich people who won’t return it to the market sector. After all, you can only have so many Lexuses. The economic stimulation that will occur in the markets will also be temporary, since the upward flow of spending will soon plateau, unless we continue to cut taxes year after year, bankrupting our nation and our children. Furthermore, the recession is probably just cyclical activity, so combating it might actually make it worse. I’ll make this as simple as possible. The United States has a budget surplus. Budget surpluses are good. Also, the United States has a national debt, and a big one at that. National debts are bad.Now, this economic boom we were riding for such an unprecedented period helped us create this situation of surplus. It is no time to end it for the sake of a few hundred dollars a year that I might gain in federal taxes. Alan Greenspan made a major mistake. Though tax cuts are probably the best plan for America in a hope to stimulate the economy, he only gave Bush a sanction to drive a stake through the heart of American economic success by plunging us back into deficit spending. With an ultra-slim Republican majority in the House and VP Dick Cheney casting a deciding vote in the Senate, it will require Republican opposition to keep Bush’s plan from going through. It’s unlikely. No one wants to vote no on a tax cut because of political ramifications. The democratic system is based on currying popular support. You don’t do that by saying no to tax cuts, even if they really are aimed at the rich.During the campaign, we learned that Bush was a man of excess in his days as an alcoholic. This week, he’s returned to form. He hasn’t learned that tax cuts, much like alcohol, are best consumed in moderation. He is now a junkie of the tax cut, ready to make all of America overdose. Tim Kearns is a junior in political science from Bellevue, Neb.