Back in the Reagan administration, Bruce Bartlett was one of the architects of the theory that if we cut taxes (especially for rich people), that would force a shrinkage in government spending. He is now writing pieces like this one saying how that idea has never worked.
I was especially impressed with this line which I came across in Bartlett's comment section. Couldn't have put it better myself…
Republicans depend on this message (or think they do) because it is essential to the coalition Reagan built, which enabled them to pass off a fundamentally corporate-friendly worldview as a populist appeal to the average American (who hates taxes).
Someday, the average American will wake up to the revelation that their taxes would be a lot lower if the wealthiest Americans paid some. One of the things I find amazing in our national debate about taxes is that discussions of raising or cutting them are usually only about raising or cutting them for rich people. Even folks who are maniacal about slashing taxes give Obama very little credit for lowering them on the lower and middle class. It's like a tax cut isn't a tax cut unless the folks who own Walmart get it. And you can still be hailed as a great cutter-of-taxes, as per George W. Bush, if you raise them on those who work at Walmart and/or drive up the debt, which of course will lead to higher taxes on someone at some point.