Oh, really? Bush speaks so poorly I get a daily update with his impressive command of the language:

Bush Quote Generator [www.marsupialmusic.net]

Nope, he just stopped cutting taxes, and started raising them, after 1981. So it's not exactly surprising that revenues collected began to increase thereafter.

Umm, no. It shows roughly a 10% drop in revenues from 1981'a figures to 1983's.

Right, and if you click the Next arrow on the right, it shows how government spending growth varied with tax growth for the administrations from LBJ to the current Bush. Surprisingly--or not--under Democratic administrations, revenue growth was greater than spending growth. Not so for Republican administrations. As that graph says, "Spending growth typically increases faster than revenue growth, as seen in five of the last eight Administrations." Typically, that is, if the administration is Republican, as those five are.

He's obviously not talking about George Bush, President of the United States of America.

There must be some other President Bush in some other country being referenced here.

Umm, no. It shows roughly a 10% drop in revenues from 1981'a figures to 1983's. And remember, Reagan signed tax increases virtually every year following the 1981 tax cuts.

Steve Benen and Josh Marshall think that Hinderacker is crazy here. Au contraire. He’s outlining the GOP’s best chance at regaining the White House in 2012.

And these are mutually exclusive because? (Unless of course the "au contraire" part is a piece of drollery.)

Ah, I see Dan got there first. However, we must always keep in mind that Hindraker penned this mash note to W:

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

Mancrush, thou art revealed.

Here's a graph from the Heritage Foundation that shows that tax revenue rose substantially after the Reagan tax cuts, and that the story after the Bush tax cuts is a lot more complicated. To ignore the hits the economy took due to the dot com bubble and 9/11 attack is to argue disingenuously. You cannot just ignore these significant factors that did more to depress tax revenue than the tax cuts did.

Anyway, the important thing from that graph is that tax revenue growth or decline isn't the real story. The real story is the compounded annual rate of growth in government spending that is not sustainable if we are to remain a free people. But I digress.

As to your question, there seems to be clear evidence that cutting tax rates does increase tax revenue, though it is more complicated than that and you have to consider the relative freedom of the market to begin with as well as other initial conditions. There's also some theory to support that hypothesis, as there is some theory to contradict it.

Actually, in practice things are muddier.

In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly.

Lesson #1 from the "Bush School of Public Speaking"

(you've done it now, Grewgills, you've created a monster)

Obama Should Talk Like Bush

Bush needs to start acting like Bush.

His whole "hosting" Obama at the White House yesterday was disgusting. Hopefully Bush will come to his senses and order Cheney not to order the electoral certificates to Congress in January.

Obama shouldn't be allowed to get away with a stolen election.

As to your question, there seems to be clear evidence that cutting tax rates does increase tax revenue, though it is more complicated than that and you have to consider the relative freedom of the market to begin with as well as other initial conditions. There's also some theory to support that hypothesis, as there is some theory to contradict it.

My favorite econ theory story is the heralded multiplier effect that Keynesians of all stripes love to promote to support more government control. As a freshman in college I asked my professor about the divisor effect, since that money had to be taken from somewhere to be sprinkled like magic fairy dust on other more worthy recipients, and what I got back was a blank stare. Actually, I'm grateful for that experience since it got me into something much more rewarding than the dismal science.

I'm all for reason and informed decision making, but how many times does illiberal statism have to fail before a majority of intellectuals stop trying to shove it down our throats?