President Obama has now expanded his résumé to include economics instruction, reports the Washington Post:

Obama delivered a searing indictment of Republican economic theory, setting the stage for the coming presidential campaign. Summoning the image of a populist Theodore Roosevelt— in the same town (Osawatomie) where Roosevelt delivered a famous speech on economic fairness in 1910 — Obama deployed the language of right and wrong, fairness and unfairness, in a lengthy address that aides said he largely wrote himself.

The theory of “trickle down economics,” which holds that greater wealth at the top generates jobs and income for the masses below, drew some of Obama’s harshest criticism.

“It’s a simple theory — one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. It fits well on a bumper sticker. Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work,” Obama said of supply-side economics, drawing extended applause. “It’s never worked.”

The Post does not report Obama’s explanation for the 92-month economic expansion from 1982 to 1990, third longest  in U.S. history, spurred by the 1981 and 1986 tax cuts. Obama did not explain how the tax cuts spurred dramatic increases in tax revenues. Of course, had he done that, he probably would have thrown in a jibe about the deficits of the 1980s. Had he done that, though, he would have had to admit how much larger the deficit as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product is under his presidency than under Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

Nor did Obama explain his support for extending the George W. Bush tax cuts to the end of 2012, and his continued support for payroll tax cuts. If “it’s never worked,” then why did Obama support extending those supply-side tax cuts?

This paragraph is amusing:

Although the unemployment rate has been a constant shadow hanging over Obama’s presidency, the mechanics of job growth had only a small part in the speech, which dwelled as much on the need for infrastructure investments, better education and a tax code that Obama said “must reflect our values.”

That would refer back to the 2009 stimulus, featuring infrastructure investments and more money for education, which resulted in deficits of record size regardless of how you measure them, but failed to reduce unemployment to Obama’s promised 8 percent. (Recent improvement in the unemployment rate is the result of more than 300,000 people stopping looking for work. Admitting that would be as embarrassing as admitting that the unemployment rate during the Obama presidency is much higher than it was under the Reagan presidency.) That takes some nerve to double-down on the stimulus that was tremendously unpopular with independent voters, who the experts claim will decide the 2012 election, and who polls say are not impressed with Obama’s work to this point.

It is unlikely that, regardless of who their presidential nominee is, Republicans won’t be highly motivated to head to the polls in November 2012. But Obama’s big rhetorical middle finger to approximately one-third of the country who identify themselves as Republicans will certainly help.