I've promised not to say too much more about Jonathan Chait's piece, as I'm doing a TPM book club on the topic next week. But here are the two areas that I think are being misunderstood.
My quarrel is not with the notion that Republicans make supply-side arguments; they do and they oughtn't, and I won't stand in the way of any Democrat who criticises them for doing so. I have dabbled in such criticisms myself. The only reason that I haven't criticised the Republicans on this this time around is that I am not paying any attention to any of the campaigns. If you want to send me ridiculous supply-side quotes from Republicans, please do. I will be happy to make fun of them. But I am not willing to spend time seeking them out.
My quarrel is with the notion that supply-side theories have enormous influence on Republican policy. Supply-siders haven't had the kind of influence that Chait describes since the Reagan administration. And that's because everyone observed the Reagan tax cuts opening up huge deficits. Supply side theories are window-dressing--bad, horrible window-dressing, but still, just window dressing. You don't need it to construct an argument for tax cuts, which is why, contra Chait, getting rid of the supply siders would not much change the desire for low taxes among Republicans. Nor do I think you even need supply-side arguments to sell the tax cuts to the public. The benefits of tax cuts to the public are quite evident: you send less money to the government.
Politicians like to tell people that the goodies they hand out will cost less than they actually do, which is why Republicans exaggerate the revenue they can recoup from supply-side effects, and Democrats lowball the cost of new spending. And people like to pretend that they believe them. But even if the costs were higher, many people would still want tax cuts, or health care plans, or whatever. If people actually cared that much about the cost of these things, they would punish politicians for widening the budget deficit. They don't.
And are these lies more uniquely horrible than, say, John Kerry pretending that his health care plan would cost half as much as most reasonable estimates predicted, so that he could claim it could be paid for out of repealing part of the Bush tax cuts? I don't think that John Kerry believed that this was true--at least, I hope he didn't. Nor do I think that any of his supporters would have been shocked and horrified to find that the program actually cost 2-3 times what Kerry promised.
From an economist's perspective, these are the same thing: fiscally, a tax credit is no different from a subsidy, and underestimating the revenue cost of a program is underestimating the revenue cost of a program whether that program is a tax cut or a health care plan. Morally, my liberal friends seem to feel that the two are very different, which is the source of a lot of this outrage.
Okay. Here's what you need to answer. Contrary to your earlier "misstatement," the Bush tax cut was proposed in 1999. Times were good, and the tax cuts were debated and sold as a way of giving back money to the people in good times (and the predictions that said surplusses existed were based on these good times lasting forever). Then the economy busted. Instead of revising the plan (since there was no longer tons of money coming in to give back to said people), they rolled out the EXACT SAME PLAN, and had an entirely different rationale. Not just politically, but if you read the WSJ, the National Review, everywhere. The new rationale is the one you "identified" - stimulating the economy.
If cutting taxes is the response to EVERY ECONOMIC situation, then what does it mean to be not beholden to the supply siders? Does it mean that they don't believe the revenue effects will come, but will behave just as if they did? If so, why should we care that, contrary to their public statements, they don't actually mean it, if the distinction at best lays in their subjective, unelucidated mind?
If all you meant by the supply-siders being in control is that you don't think the GOP's plan for every situation is to cut taxes independent of spending, then you're just wrong - and the only tax plan that has been supported by the conservative economic elite since you allege that elite has learned its lesson - Bush II's - is proof.
I'm sorry, Megan, but there is no rhetorical gesture in the liberal arsenal which approaches the mendacity of literally arguing that the government can simply give people money for free.
To make the point clearer: that the government can give EVERYONE money for free.
"My quarrel is with the notion that supply-side theories have enormous influence on Republican policy. Supply-siders haven't had the kind of influence that Chait describes since the Reagan administration. And that's because everyone observed the Reagan tax cuts opening up huge deficits."
What about the Bush administration and the Bush tax cuts? Brendan Nyhan provides a list of quotes of Bush Cheney citing supply-side rhetoric:
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2007/09/mcardle-bush-no.html
And that's because everyone observed the Reagan tax cuts opening up huge deficits.
This isn't true, for the simple reason that Reagan just didn't lower taxes all that much. Revenue as a percent of GDP peaked in 1981 at 19.6% (this was anomalous; just three years before they had been only 18%, and were only 17.2% on 1976), and never fell below 17.4% (the average for the '70s was around 18%). The four-year trailing average for receipts as a percent of GDP barely moved at all. The deficits were fueled more by spending increases than by tax cuts.
Also, although "supply-side" has colloquially come to refer to silly misapplications of the Laffer curve, doesn't it technically refer to the idea that encouraging production tends to lead to more economic growth over the long-run than encouraging consumption?
In addition to the argument clearly elucidated by Justin in the first post, I would add that the internal Republican party politics were aghast at Senators Voinovich from Ohio and Spectre of Pennsylvania. Remember how nasty things got for them? If political expediency (as you argue) was the reason for this supply side lunacy, versus actual belief in it, why would they target vulnerable senators in swing states for saying something much more mainstream? That's a kind of anti-political expediency example, but a perfect ideological purity example.
Fair enough, in both cases, they beat back primary challenges, but senators in the economic mainstream are the exception, not the rule, among Republicans. Paul O'Neill was run out of the administration in short order for trying to argue for sane and sound fiscal policy in the face of the supply side lunatics, and what happened to him? He was replaced by a weak and ineffective railroad CEO whose main trait seemed to be not objecting to anything the White House asked him to do.
In other words, Megan, you're trying to have it both ways. You're trying to ignore the fact that sane economic policy is not what comes out of this administration, and that sane thoughts and writings about economics is not what comes out of this administration, but someone, that isn't evidence that supply siders have taken over the Republican party. Tell us, what would be evidence if it isn't the words and writings and policies of a Republican president who, for most of his time in office, has had a Republican-controlled Congress?
Megan said:"My quarrel is with the notion that supply-side theories have enormous influence on Republican policy. Supply-siders haven't had the kind of influence that Chait describes since the Reagan administration."
I guess my point is similar to d, above. Brendan Nyhan and others have exhibited a rather large number of examples of current prominent Republicans justifying tax cuts using supply-side arguments. I think it's reasonable for us to take this as evidence that supply side theories have a significant impact on Republican policy.
Megan, what is your _evidence_ to the contrary? Can you produce a similar list of quotes/references from prominent Republicans (with-in the administration) explaining that although they are using supply side theories to justify their tax cuts publicly, they _actually_ support tax cuts for _other_ reasons?
Megan writes:
"My quarrel is with the notion that supply-side theories have enormous influence on Republican policy."
Prior to this, MY wrote:
"Along with having all of the politicians endorse this view, these "segments" of the Republican Party have also created a parallel intellectual infrastructure, so that we have Heritage Foundation stuff endorsing this and AEI fellows writing articles called "Art Laffer, Righter than Ever" for National Review. And, of course, there's The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal editorial page and Larry Kudlow's television show.
Now maybe Megan's point is that neither the leading conservative weekly magazine nor the leading conservative biweekly magazine nor the leading conservative opinion daily nor the country's leading conservative politicians nor the country's leading conservative think tanks actually believe what they're all saying about taxes. "
Megan, did you read Matt's post? It completely demolishes the point you were supposedly trying to make.
Supply-siders haven't had the kind of influence that Chait describes since the Reagan administration. And that's because everyone observed the Reagan tax cuts opening up huge deficits.
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
-- Dick Cheney, the most powerful man in the U.S., November 2002
The four-year trailing average for receipts as a percent of GDP barely moved at all.
Actually, I got my columns mixed up. It was the eight-year trailing average that barely moved. The four-year trailing average was about 1.6% off the peak at one point, though it quickly rebounded. This was at a time when deficits were averaging 4-5%.
OK, so Republican pols don't really believe the supply side stuff, they just act as if they do. They promise tax cuts and claim, dishonestly, that this will have only a positive impact on the fiscal situation, because supply side theory says so. Is this so far from Chait's position?
I think there is a difference between taking an optimistic view of how much a spending program or tax cut is going to cost, and pretending it isn't going to cost anything at all. The first is tolerable advocacy. We assume the opponents will take a pessimistic view, and the argument will improve our understanding. The latter is an angry refusal to acknowledge reality at all. That anger (more than the refusal) is what makes the Republican coalition so damn scary.
My quarrel is with the notion that supply-side theories have enormous influence on Republican policy.
And the problem with your "quarrel," Megan, is that you are completely wrong. Supply-side dogma (a better word choice than theory) is all the Republicans have to justify their "all tax cuts, all the time" fiscal policy or their endless demands for any and all candidates for office to commit to a "no tax increases" pledge that has no sound economic rationale.
Supply-siders haven't had the kind of influence that Chait describes since the Reagan administration. And that's because everyone observed the Reagan tax cuts opening up huge deficits.
Actually, a great many Republicans are still in denial on this very issue. To this day, I routinely encounter the argument that 1) Reagan's tax cuts brought about increased revenue in the 1980's, and 2) the deficits were due 100% to the Democratic controlled Congress.
As I and others noted in comments in the other threads, every leading contender for the 2008 Republican nomination has explicitly pledged allegiance to the supply-side nostrum that a tax cut will lead directly to increased revenues.
Supply side theories are window-dressing--bad, horrible window-dressing, but still, just window dressing. You don't need it to construct an argument for tax cuts, which is why, contra Chait, getting rid of the supply siders would not much change the desire for low taxes among Republicans.
It is true that some particular tax cut proposals can be justified with sound economic arguments. However, you do need supply side arguments to justify the kind to tax cut proposals that Republicans present on a regular basis.
And please, no more pretending to speak from "an economist's perspective." You aren't an economist, you're an MBA. I'm an economist, and I'm telling you plainly that you are wrong on this issue--totally wrong.
From an economist's perspective, these are the same thing: fiscally, a tax credit is no different from a subsidy, and underestimating the revenue cost of a program is underestimating the revenue cost of a program whether that program is a tax cut or a health care plan. Morally, my liberal friends seem to feel that the two are very different, which is the source of a lot of this outrage.
Your liberal friends are correct. Morally, they are very different.
As an economic matter, you have a point. But the public does not view things this way, which is why morally it's much worse.
When the public is told, "This will cost 100," when you know it will cost 200, that's bad. But the public knows it will cost something, and can do some sort of cost-benefit to weigh their support for the good you're offering.
But (knowingly false, silly) supply-side promises are not "this will cost less than you think," but "This will be FREE! In fact, it will CREATE MONEY!"
When a plumber comes to my house (as he did this week) and says, "I estimate about $100-200 to unclog that drain," and then he does it and charges me $250, that's bad, but I wasn't surprised or too upset.
If he had come and said, "I can unclog your drain for FREE! Or maybe I'll even pay YOU $10!", and then charges me $250, that's much, much worse.
Morally.
brooksfoe wrote: To make the point clearer: that the government can give EVERYONE money for free.
Hold the phone, who is arguing that? The government isn't giving everyone money for free when it cuts taxes; it's taking less of everyone's money in the first place.
Now, in a reasonably fiscally-sane policy prescription, that should result in a reduction of government services. Since states cannot run deficits, we here in Colorado got a nice taste of that during the tech recession, due to short-sighted voters enacting TABOR during the good times and then discovering later that if the state cannot squirrel away money for a rainy day, the rainy day can get awfully cold and dark.
At the federal level, of course, the government can run a deficit in order to continue spending in excess of revenues...but that strikes me as a somewhat different strain of argument than "free money".
JWR: What if the plumber said, "Yeah, it'll cost $250 to unclog the drain, but when you think about how much you'll save because you took this action, it's a no-brainer! Heck, I'm practically paying YOU to unclog the drain!"
Would your brain have a system failure?
Oh, and are we going to hear from all the Democrats who will admit that they don't really believe people won't be turned down for important operations under single-payer health care?
Hold the phone, who is arguing that?
That's what this whole discussion has been about! The supply-side tax cut promises are: We'll cut taxes, and as a result the government will have MORE money. (Ta-daa!)
So, implicitly, it won't cost you anything all of the services and entitlements that you all hold so dear. That is to say, we'll cut taxes and it will be FREE! Won't cost you a dime of your social security check! Or farm subsidy! Or federal school dollars!
I'm sorry, Megan, but there is no rhetorical gesture in the liberal arsenal which approaches the mendacity of literally arguing that the government can simply give people money for free.
What about literally claiming that the goverment can give people services for free?
I have to be suspicious of people who claim that their sides lies are morally superior to their enemies lies.
Admittedly, that makes me suspicious of almost everyone...
Person:
What if the plumber said, "Yeah, it'll cost $250 to unclog the drain, but when you think about how much you'll save because you took this action, it's a no-brainer! Heck, I'm practically paying YOU to unclog the drain!"
I have no idea what this has to do with the supply-side debate, but here's my reply:
I would have pretty much agreed with the first sentence. It WAS a no-brainer even at $250. I mean, I really wanted a clear drain, and I'd done everything I could do to get it clear. And the last time another plumber charged $350, so $250 was a reasonably good deal. I just wish he would have been upfront with me about the cost (would have been more moral on his part).
For the life of me I can't imagine what the closing single-payer comment has to do with all this.
JWR wrote: That's what this whole discussion has been about! The supply-side tax cut promises are: We'll cut taxes, and as a result the government will have MORE money. (Ta-daa!)
Brooksfoe's claim was about giving everyone more money. I don't see how that fits into the above. Person's tongue-in-cheek recast of the plumber's campaign promise strikes me as closer to what's actually happening here.
Wow, this is rather brutal. Megan has thoroughly gotten her ass kicked on this issue and she doesn't know when to quit. Why is she bothering? She considers herself more a member of the Libertarian Party than the Republicans and has regretted her 2004 vote for Bush. She isn't in a position to shovel coal for the Republicans into future party jobs. None of the evidence is on her side. It's actually rather sad.
I think you're right on the money, Megan, but it's maybe not an argument worth having. What is the most influential argument in favor of tax cuts? What argument do Republicans push the most? It's hard to say. You can produce a list of quotes, which look damning all laid out on one page, but in the context of a long campaign to produce legislation, it's not as clear cut. You'd have to have sat through the whole debate, see how the press covers it, see which arguments get pushed more than others, and even then, different people would come away with a different sense of what argument was pushed the most.
I don't remember "these tax cuts will pay for themselves" being a very large part of the 2003 tax debate, but maybe I tuned out those arguments because I thought they were silly. Others may have honed in on them because they thought they were a dangerous lie.
I'm with you:
I hear Republicans mouth the words of supply-side economics, but it all seems a little half-hearted, and I'm not sure that any voters really gets convinced by them. It's like a car salesman going through the routine of mentioning how great the protective clear-coat is. No one cares and it doesn't change anyone's mind, and if we already know we want the car, we just nod along with him and say, "yeah, whatever".
Reality Man wrote: Wow, this is rather brutal. Megan has thoroughly gotten her ass kicked on this issue and she doesn't know when to quit.
Yeah, but getting that treatment from a swarm of mosquitoes mostly tends to provoke more swatting, hence the continued posting.
Or perhaps you have something interesting to offer your fellow man, besides "She's wrong, and everybody knows it", a form of argument which is as transparent as an open window?
Okay, this strikes me as a basic misunderstanding of what's going on. The supply-side pitch is not, "We'll have to cut $250 in government spending to give you a $250 tax cut, but think of all the economic growth you'll get from that $250 in your pocket, so it's worth the cost in the end." (I think this is the most plausible way of equating this with the Plumber example.)
Instead, the supply-side pitch is, "We'll give you a $250 tax cut, but we won't have to cut government programs AT ALL! Because government revenue will not DECREASE by $250 (or even $200, or $150)--it won't decrease AT ALL!"
Person's plumber example starts with "Yeah, it'll cost $250 . . .," and that's where it breaks down as an analogy. The (most) pernicious part of the supply-side promise is that IT WON'T COST ANYTHING, not that the costs will be outweighed by the benefits.
This isn't true, for the simple reason that Reagan just didn't lower taxes all that much.
5% 1st year.
10% 2nd year.
10% 3rd year.
The yawning chasm of deficits opened up and the 1986 tax reform allowed The Gipper to save face.
If you want to send me ridiculous supply-side quotes from Republicans, please do. I will be happy to make fun of them. But I am not willing to spend time seeking them out.
My quarrel is with the notion that supply-side theories have enormous influence on Republican policy.
Shorter Megan: I don't have time to find out if some empirical facts contradict what I am saying, but I have quarrel with the notion that what I am saying is wrong.
Dear God. Just Google the phrase "Reagan cut taxes and revenue went up!" The exclamation point is optional. It's precisely the Reagan experience that informs the supply siders that they were right. They ignore the cyclical recovery from recession and the fact that the Reagan tax cuts were significantly unwound. Watch C-Span any time a tax bill is debated. The supply side stuff will be cited as orthodoxy by any Republican (except maybe John McCain, for which he's never been forgiven).
Also, it was Bush who understated the cost of his biggest new spending program, the Medicare program. But then, since tax cuts actually raise revenue, the extra spending will be easy to pay for!
brooksfoe, Don't you mean give the people their money back?
If "money for free" is the pinnacle of mendacity for the right-wingers, "it's not your money" is the pinnacle for the left-wingers.
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
-- Dick Cheney, the most powerful man in the U.S., November 2002
There seem to be quite a few people posting here who haven't studied a lot of economics. Cheney's remark (as quoted by Paul O'Neil) is a statement of Ricardian Equivalence, not supply-side economics. I do not myself believe Ricardian Equivalence holds--I just wanted to point out that Ricardian Equivalence is distinct from supply-side economics. One can accept one without accepting the other.
Also, to clarify something, supply-side economics was little more than a popularization of certain very respectable ideas from classical, monetarist and new classical economics. That it became so intertwined with the silly idea that cutting tax rates usually increases revenues is a shame. Because the original idea--that Keynesians had focused too much on the demand side of the economy and not enough on the supply side--was a good one. Now even "New Keynesians" like Greg Mankiw and Larry Summers worry at least as much about the long run effects of their policies on incentives and on aggregate aupply as they do about their short-run effects on aggregate demand.
In a sense, then, one could say that "we're all supply-siders now."
DWR: I just wish he would have been upfront with me about the cost (would have been more moral on his part).
He was upfront about the cost. He was just too optimistic about the future benefits.
For the life of me I can't imagine what the closing single-payer comment has to do with all this.
Well, that doesn't surprise me.
It's like this:
Conservative side:
-Republicans support tax cuts.
-They present argument in favor of them.
-That argument is dubious.
-Republicans don't publicly denounce that argument.
Liberal side:
-Democrats support single payer.
-They present argument in favor of them. (Look at how these people were denied an operation by teh greedy insurance companies!!!OMG!)
-That argument is dubious. (Government won't pay for every operation either and probably would have refused such a speculative treatment as well.)
-Democrats don't publicly denounce that argument.
I've always struggled with understanding how the Laffer curve silliness meshes with the "Starve the Beast" agenda, unless "Tax Cuts for Free!" is what they peddle to moderates and the media and "Repeal the New Deal!" is what they peddle to the base. Cognitive dissonance abounds.
underestimating the revenue cost of a program is underestimating the revenue cost of a program whether that program is a tax cut or a health care plan. Morally, my liberal friends seem to feel that the two are very different, which is the source of a lot of this outrage.
Both liberals and conservatives feel that morally, the two are different, because they feel that morally, the underlying actions are different. Conservatives believe that it is more moral to allow people to keep more money from the government, while liberals believe that it is immoral to do so. Liberals believe that it is moral to take money from the poor-and-healthy to pay for treating the rich-but-unhealthy, while conservatives believe it's immoral to wreck our system of private health care.
My recollection is that one of the complaints about the Bush administration's tax cut campaign was that what had originally been envisioned as a "good times" rebate was now being sold as an anti-recession measure. Liberals frothed at the hypocrisy of keeping the exact same program but changing the rationale. Unfortunately, the changing rationales undercut today's liberal argument that it was Laffer curve arguments alone that animated the tax cut program, because in that case there wouldn't have been any need to shift rationales. (The Laffer curve isn't particular sensitive to cyclical considerations.)
In fact, I think that the Bush tax cuts were maybe the only well-timed tax cuts in modern American history. Coming just as the economy was tilting into recession, they served to moderate its severity considerably. But I'm still pretty much of a Keynesian, although unlike most Keynesians, I don't suffer from B.D.S., which makes it hard for me to fit in at Keynesian cocktail parties.
"Democrats support single payer", according to Person.
What Democrat (apart from Kucinich) would that be?
It's lost in the mists of time that Bush came up with a tax cut plan because Steve Forbes -- who used to run for President before the supply side effects of spending money on futile campaigns failed to materialise -- had one. So Bush's proposal, designed to compete with a made-man supply side, was inherently supply side.
Cheney's remark (as quoted by Paul O'Neil) is a statement of Ricardian Equivalence, not supply-side economics.
Please. Dick Cheney doesn't have the slightest idea what Ricardian Eqiuvalence is.
The truth of the matter is that on balance the U.S. government has been running "real" budget surpluses as opposed to "nominal" budget deficits since WWII via devaluing the National Debt.
One could make a good case for any type of tax cut. Including randomly dropping cash from helicopters. Instead of the traditional route of creating more bank reserves, a more efficient method to arrive at the same destination.
Come to think of it. It's a great idea! Only, I don't think the tax account, lobbiest and other assorted special interest would agree.
Durf, it's not ALL your money. Thanks to the largesse of successive GOP administrations, bigger government is a part of our lives. How best to pay for GOP screw-ups?
Here's how it works: Highways ship your goods. Law enforcement makes our homes, schools, and airports safe. The military secures the oil that powers your car (and, uh, prevents Saddam from crashing more planes into the WTC. Wooooo! USA!).
Hell, even a losing gambler knows it's good form to tip the dealer. Or do you stiff on tips?
I don't understand this debate.
Taxes are too high. They need to be cut. Only until the government shrinks to about 5-10% of GDP would I say that taxes should not be cut further. Until that point, "I have never met a tax cut I don't like."
Therefore, in good times, cut taxes. In bad times, cut taxes. What's the problem?
Republican policy since 1/20/2001 is to cut taxes wherever they can. Now if the folks in this White House are about to reverse course early next year and propose a tax increase - that'd be welcomed news. But I don't see this coming from the White House until 1/20/2009 and it certainly will not come from any of the clowns leading the GOP race for the Presidential nomination. Fiscal responsibility being GOP policy? You must be talking about the current mayor of NYC - certainly not that former mayor.
Sorry, PGL but GOP policy is not to "cut taxes wherever they can". The policy is to cut taxes for the wealthy. GOP policy is to NOT cut taxes on the poor and middle class and in fact to shift the distribution of taxes from the wealthy to the less wealthy. Reagan stimulated "taxes are too high" feelings by raising payroll taxes.
It is all about the wealthy taking more from the economy than their fair share in their zero sum game. Unfortunately, we would all do better by expanding the pie than their zero sum ideology.
Anony-mouse and Isocrates: if you argue that cutting taxes will lead to an increase in government revenue, then you are not arguing for a reduction in government services. You are arguing that we can cut taxes and increase government services without raising the deficit.
That is magic money falling from the sky. It is the kind of supernatural political rhetoric that one sees in doomsday cults. And it is embraced by all of the leading Republican presidential candidates.
The fact that this rhetoric overwhelmingly serves the interests of the staggeringly rich simply compounds the maliciousness of the lie. As does the way that this con job has set the tone for neo-conservative up-is-down rhetoric for the last 40 years. The minimum wage hurts the poor! Unions hurt the working class! Legal abortion hurts women! Affirmative action hurts minorities! Self-defense means attacking other countries! Freedom means obeying authority! The founding fathers wanted America to be a Christian country! Evolution and global warming have been scientifically disproven! And on and on.
Megan doesn't like redistribution. However, no economic rules are perfect. No matter what the rules are there will be people that get too much benefit and people who get screwed. Redistribution is a necessary corrective because of flaws in the rules.
Libertarianism is a stupid idea that would get zero traction in an undeveloped economy. Libertarianism can be a check against too much government, but as a governing strategy, it is bankrupt. There is no such thing as an economy with no rules. Libertarianism is a denies the reality that rules are necessary and have real effects on the lives of real people.
I. Anony-mouse and Isocrates: if you argue that cutting taxes will lead to an increase in government revenue, then you are not arguing for a reduction in government services. You are arguing that we can cut taxes and increase government services without raising the deficit.-brooksfoe
Look, brooksfoe, I do not believe that tax cuts lead to increased revenues, not usually at any rate. Above I described that extreme supply-side argument as "silly."
II. "Freedom means obeying authority! The founding fathers wanted America to be a Christian country! Evolution and global warming have been scientifically disproven! And on and on."
I don't believe any of these things you ascribe to me. Nor, as best I can recall, have I ever espoused any such thing. Maybe you are confused and think you are debating with Pat Robertson.
gaudily effluency trivirgate capreolar epochism moneran naphthalization duodenojejunostomy
http://www.ansonconcise.co.uk/ >Anson Concise Ltd.
http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/longbow2.zip