Yes, there’s more to tax revenue than rates. I think that from an economic growth (and revenue) standpoint, a reduction in regulations would be more effective. I don’t think that most people understand the regulatory cost to the economy. It’s probably trillions.
[Update a while later]
This, on the continuing and growing ignorance of the media, seems related:
The article explained that unlike Egypt or Pakistan, America doesn’t really have a powerful deep state, and to claim that it does “presents apolitical civil servants as partisan agents.”
Give me a break. “Apolitical civil servants”?
A deep state absolutely exists. Some call it “administrative state” or “regulatory state.” These are the people who crush innovation and freedom by issuing hundreds of new rules. Regulators, if they don’t pass new rules, think they’re not doing their jobs.
Even “anti-regulator” President George W. Bush hired 90,000 new regulators. Calling them “nonpartisan” doesn’t make them harmless—it just means we put up with them through multiple administrations.
Even if you exclude the military and post office, more than 20 million Americans work for the government. Because of civil service rules, it’s almost impossible to fire them.
The Times calls these 20 million people “apolitical”. Please. Most are just as partisan as you or I. Maybe more so, as leaks and signs of bureaucratic resistance to presidential edicts demonstrate.
The notion that George W. Bush was an anti-regulator is ludicrous.