Every progressive politician beats the drum of more taxes, more money for healthcare (and other stuff) and things magically improve. When was the last time a major politician said something a long the lines of: "let's think how to make doctor visits cheaper so people don't avoid them, maybe you know, lower requirements, allow nurses and other healthcare workers to carry simple checkups or minor treatments".
Making stuff cheaper if what worked historically to improve the economic situation of poor/lower economic classes. It should be the main focus but it somehow isn't.
> When was the last time a major politician said something a long the lines of
I can only answer considering Brazil, my home country. Despite the mess that we're currently in, even we have these points in the public debate. Fixing the income tax progression to rebalance the tax burden, reducing tax on goods and compensating on services, prioritizing investments on public services essential but currently too expensive for the poor (e.g. infant day care). More often we discuss that taxes are not following the "principle of contributive capacity" than we discuss increasing taxes (except for stock dividends and other super-rich stuff, which are also always mentioned).
I won't say that we're having significant progress, as there are always some profiting from the current state of affairs to block the road, but if you pay attention to the right politicians, those topics pop up constantly.
> The trickle-down theory is all but dead, but there is more to the supply side of the economy than taxes. Thousands of government decisions affect real output and economic productivity. A new supply-side economics would recognize that productivity growth is the right target, but it would reject tax policy as the primary means of stimulating productivity. Instead, it would examine how everything government does — from permitting to procurement — could be improved to increase productivity.
Which is basically saying that lowering taxes is not the only way to achieve trickle-down.
The rest of the article is stating the obvious fact that the poor spend a higher proportion of their income on things that are essential - and it's possible to make those cheaper.
But the criticism of tickle-down was never that it targeted the wrong services (e.g. entertainment instead of housing). The main criticism is that it increases inequality.