He thinks he can get away with just making stuff up:

[Bush's] reduction of the American tax burden probably saved the world from a devastating depression.

Sigh. C'mon Andy. This is garbage.

Look, I'm pro-taxes at the moment. I want to raise them and I'm tired of being afraid to say so. Someone needs to lay the groundwork, or else we'll see more depressing articles like this one, only this time announcing the home=schooled Grove Norquist's final triumph over reason, mathematics, and the federal government. I think we need to raise them to meet our security needs and out of concern for intergenerational equity. Not to mention that big deficits like the one we have need end up being a drag on the economy in their own right.

Back to Andy, while some tax reduction might have been necessary, it's only because the Democrats linked up with moderate Republicans in order to shift the focus somewhat away from future upper bracket cuts toward immediate cuts aimed at those with a higher marginal propensity to consume that they had any stimulatory effect. Even so, the economy probably would have rebounded pretty rapidly anyway. But geez, a devasting worldwide depression for an event that cost $89 billion? Oops, but Andy gets confused in the next paragraph:

There are huge trade and budget deficits that he has no convincing plan to reduce. By massive increases in government spending he has ensured that the current tax cuts will eventually be turned into big tax rises.

Good thing we cut all of those taxes and launched a big fat $4 billion a month war, as you advocated so vigorously and demagogically!

Sigh.

I don't even want to deal with the other stuff, which basically is of a piece with Sullivan's inability to reconcile with the fact that George Bush is actually not doing a good job by the criteria he outlines, despite the fact that Bush is executing the policies he supported. There's no pony in there. It's your fault too, Andy. For God's sake, own up to it.

Why is this guy a famous columnist again?