I think this is a good sign. Do tax cuts pay for themselves?:
Washington Post: Mr. Giuliani and the Tax Fairy. Editorial "...It's not true..."
Time: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues, by Justin Fox ..."these claims are false..."
Now, will the press make the connection between the willingness to make these claims and character? Those who say this are either making claims they know are false, or have economic advisors who don't know what they are talking about. In any case, whether its the willingness to mislead to promote an idea, or the incompetence in choosing advisors and the unwillingness to consider evidence at odds with their preconceived notions, it's worth noting. My own view is that their economic advisors know what the evidence really says, and the candidates are choosing to ignore what they are told. But a simple question, "Have your economic advisors informed you that there's no basis for that claim, and if so, why are you making it anyway" or something like that, would tell us the answer. It's not as though this is unimportant, the difference between the claim that the most recent tax cuts are self-financing and the actual evidence is hundreds of billions of dollars and it would seem that with so much at stake, we would hear more about those who mislead us about the true cost of the policies they advocate.
Update: I take back praise of Justin Fox and Time, it's undeserved. Justin introduces his article on his blog by saying "Some tax cuts do raise revenues, of course."
Update: Here's the Boston Globe on John McCain:
Straight shooter, wacky tax idea "Alluring as such a theory may be, it's not true."
That's more like it.
Update: Quite a bit more from Brad DeLong here on the Time and Washington Post pieces - his take is more generous than mine in some ways (see the update at the end), less so in others (comments on Washington Post).