Supply-side economics works:

The country was facing the largest projected deficit in history when Bush promised to halve it as a percentage of GDP by 2009. Due to high wartime spending and the residual effects of the 2000–01 recession, the White House expected the 2004 deficit to reach $521 billion, or 4.5 percent of GDP. Bush’s goal was to reduce this to 2.25 percent by 2009.

After all the beans were finally counted, the 2004 deficit came in at $413 billion—roughly 3.5 percent of GDP. The economy had begun expanding, partly in response to Bush’s tax cuts, creating jobs and boosting revenue. This trend continued into the next year, pushing the deficit down to $319 billion in 2005.

This year, the projections look even better. Through the first eight months of this budget year, the deficit is $227 billion—16.7 percent lower than this time last year. That’s largely because government revenues in these eight months have reached $1.545 trillion, up 12.9 percent from last year.

Of course, as the editorial points out, that's no excuse not to get spending under control.

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I wonder how sustainable these windfall taxes are? Personally, I think what we are seeing is people defering taxes through the high tax years, and then recording the income and paying the tax when the tax rates decline. Eventually, everyone will have paid all their back taxes - I wonder what percentage of the revenue gains are atributable to defered taxes.

That said, I think if you make the process simple enough and taxes low enough, people will stop expending so much effort to avoid taxes - definately a positive thing! (Think about how much money Bill Gates should spend to lower his tax bill by 1% - he could pretty much buy all of Congress for that!)

The White House got _slammed_ for estimating that $521 billion deficit too. I think I remember Congress' estimate being $800 billion.

I dare say that the turnaround in the deficit had more to do with the rebound of the silicon valley tech sector than any of Bush's tax cuts.

That said, I think if you make the process simple enough and taxes low enough, people will stop expending so much effort to avoid taxes - definately a positive thing! (Think about how much money Bill Gates should spend to lower his tax bill by 1% - he could pretty much buy all of Congress for that!)

Bill just moved all his investments with the highest capital gains to the foundation. His thinking is that it's probably better that starving African kids get the money than have it blown on useless missile defence.

It would be nice if he did buy congress though, might get it running a bit more efficiently.

It would be nice if he did buy congress though, might get it running a bit more efficiently.

The vote-counting machine would crash halfway through the voting, preventing any bills from being passed. Thus my dream amendment of "Congress shall make no law ... PERIOD" would be in effect despite never having been proposed or ratified.

Cool.

HE is making the big assumption here that tax cuts caused a significant portion of the recent boost in the economy and increased overall tax revenue. Neither follows from the limited evidence he provides.