It's not new. I just edited last night to improve the formatting. No content change.

Do you think posting all this crap makes a compelling argument?   It doesn't.  Because to be compelling you have to get your readers to actually READ the material.  I have not nor will I given the volume. 

Ya' know, GR, being familiar with the consistent hyperpartisan nature of your comments and apparent mindset, I have a hunch that if my diary consisted of a whole bunch of prominent left-of-center economists stating that the Bush tax cuts were the greatest thing since sliced bread, you'd read quite a bit of it, even if not all of it, and probably praise it and refer many of those "liberals" to it, rather than just taking a quick look at the length, throwing up your hands and saying "Whoa, that's really long. Better stay away from that. And I better call it 'crap' and say it does not constitute a compelling argument due to its volume (even though it's clear even at first glance that the content is in discrete, independent, small segments, each standing on its own)." Ya' see, GR, that's part of the whole hyperpartisan dynamic that your comments (like those of other hyperpartisans of right and left, respectively) generally reflect: a strong disinclination to read/listen to information that conflicts with and presents a significant threat to your core partisan premises, arguments and positions. Yes, at least you are here on SC and you are engaging with me (whether or not you are doing so with an open mind or just, in effect, asking rhetorical questions while covering your ears -- we'll see), but it seems you have an aversion to reading the information that you would probably consider more threatening to your preferred belief: prominent experts, most on your "side" of the partisan divide and none on the other "side", all clearly rejecting that belief. You'd rather (at best) engage some fellow blog participant whose information, arguments and conclusions you can more easily discount. That's much safer emotionally. (Now try to resist the defensiveness reflex, and really think about the above, if possible.)

My suggestion, in addition to engaging with me, is that you just pretend that my diary is shorter, and read however much of it you can bear, either starting at the top or scanning for economists whom you consider credible and reading those quotes. Better than nothing, right?

I'll leave aside your comments regarding supposed arguments by supposed "liberals" that are irrelevant to my diary. My diary is not a commentary on the overall desirability of the Bush tax cuts or of tax cuts (or increases) in general, but is rather simply a correction of a false premise, a debunking of a myth on which many unfortunately base their policy preferences. If you want to make a case for the Bush tax cuts on some grounds other than net impact on revenues, I suggest you write a diary. Certainly many (probably most) of the economists and others I quote in my diary were advocates of the Bush tax cuts and now advocate extending them despite their net negative revenue impact, so such a case can be made, whether or not I am persuaded by that case.

As to your overall misunderstanding on this matter (and I assure you, nothing is "rotten in Denmark", but something is clearly lacking in your logic and analysis, to use those terms loosely), let me point out and explain a couple of your fundamental errors:

1) If you wish to establish a significant correlation (let alone causation), you have to consider all relevant data points, not just those that confirm your hypothesis (or desired conclusion, as the case seems to be). So we cannot just look at whether or not revenues go up after a tax cut. We must also look at whether or not revenues go up without a tax cut, or even after tax increases. For example, look at this chart http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html  and take note of the strong upward revenue trend (in real terms) following the 1993 tax increase. And look at the general upward trend since 1965 (again, in real terms, meaning dollars adjusted for inflation). You see, the economy is more often in expansion than in recession, and revenues have generally grown, regardless of whether taxes have been raised or lowered (and by the way, which is happening to what extent is not even as clear as you might think, as the tax increases during the Reagan Administration illustrate).

An illustration of your error. Suppose I told you that, over the past decade or so, whenever I've moved to and spent a couple of years living in a large city, I've gotten more wrinkles on my face, and that I therefore conclude that something about large cities are causing those wrinkles. What's wrong with my "analysis" (for lack of a better word)? Answer coming up, so stop reading for a moment if you want to think about it and guess the answer......................ok, the answer is that I haven't considered whether or not I've gotten more wrinkles on my face when I have NOT been living in a large city. It could be that I've been getting more wrinkles regardless of where I've lived and at the same rate, in which case there is probably some other factor driving this phenomenon. Perhaps it's that...I'm getting older (and related biological dynamics are occurring).

2) You are incorrect in implying that  one must identify the cause(s) of some occurrence in order to legitimately rule out or discount the probability of some particular variable as the cause. Although there are variables one could point to as potential drivers of the revenue increases, most notably aggressive Fed rate-cutting*, but that largely misses the point. To illustrate, even if I don't know what did cause those revenue increases, I think I can rule out the vacations I took over the last few years as significant drivers (and I do mean literally "my" vacations and mine alone). I can reasonably conclude that the magnitude of any impact of my vacation spending is insufficient to have had a significant impact on total federal revenues.

* The Fed very aggressively lowered interest rates throughout 2001 (from 6.00% in January, 2001 to 3.50% in August and 1.75% in December, and then down to 1.00% in June, 2002) and rates remained very low into 2004 (2.25% in December, 2003, 2.75% in March, 2004). There is, of course, a lag effect of these changes on the economy (estimates vary; some say lag effect can be from 6 months to 2 years). I offer these data just as a relevant FYI. I'm not suggesting that Fed policy alone is responsible for the increases in tax revenues over the past few years. The Bush tax cuts, on the other hand, are highly UNLIKELY to have caused, or even contributed to, these revenue increases. On the contrary, the revenue increases are despite the negative impact of the Bush tax cuts.

Note regarding your #4: I posted my diary last year. Up to that point, total revenues were up in both nominal and real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) terms. I believe CBO is projecting revenues to be down even in nominal terms in 2008 vs. 2007 (thus more so in real terms).

I hope my comment isn't so long that you just glance at it and feel overwhelmed, but if so, I'm sure you'll just reply by informing me of that fact, calling it all "crap" (without having read it, of course) and telling me it is not compelling because no one will read something of such immense length.

Oh, but I do realize that my diary is hard on the eye (it was worse before I re-formatted last night). I will see if I can separate the sections graphically somehow, ideally with different background colors.

Based on that, I DON'T CARE if revenues don't reach their pre-tax levels because I don't value that revenue in the hands of politicians in the first place. It's not greed but rather healthy skepticism about the good it will do.

Of course, that's not to say that government doesn't need some money to perform its stated tasks but that's another matter and that total is nowhere near as high as the revenue it brings in. It's wasteful, corrupt and harmful to have so much money in public hands. But that's MY OPINION.

That's a reasonable position to have, and I respect it.  However, I think you'd agree that having an extra dollar for infrastructure or defense or anything else is better than throwing it away on interest.

Unless you're willing to default on the debt, every dollar we don't have today is another two we won't have tomorrow.  Wouldn't you agree that the most wasteful government expenditure is interest on the debt?

BR, you musn't let this topic consume you. :)

Not that I've devoted a great deal of time to this matter since researching and compiling the quotes contained in my diary last year, but I think it is entirely appropriate to devote substantial time to this topic, given the severe adverse impact our long-term fiscal imbalance will have on our economy and standard of living if we continue for long on our current course, and given the degree to which this pervasive myth of "tax cuts increase revenues" impedes progress toward fiscally responsible policies that can mitigate the ultimate pain of addressing our fiscal imbalance.

First of all, "positive impact" is subjective.

You see, to me, if the government cut tax rates on whatever taxes had a feedback of, say, 50-60%, I'd say that's marginally positive. But that's MY OPINION. You or others may say that's a disaster.

First of all, there's a good chance I would not call that a disaster or even undesirable policy, and my diary gives no indication that I would. Even my other diaries that emphasize reducing our long-term fiscal imbalance (and starting sooner rather than later) defines this fiscal imbalance in terms of projected debt-to-GDP, and presumably 50-60% revenue feedback would mean very substantial GDP growth and hence reduction of that denominator in addition to less increase in the numerator.

But secondly and more importantly, you are misunderstanding my point and you are (no offense) sloppily quoting me in a way that fundamentally changes the meaning of what I wrote. I was very clearly referring to positive net impact on revenues, and that is an objective matter, not a matter of opinion.

I DON'T CARE if revenues don't reach their pre-tax levels because I don't value that revenue in the hands of politicians in the first place.

It's unclear to me if you are making essentially the "starve the beast" argument (which is far from a prudent, responsible hope on which to pin fiscal policy decisions today, in light of empirical observations/analysis -- and I'll be glad to provide more on that subject if you wish), or if you are saying something that is irrational or at least something that contains premises, implications, etc., that I'm missing. I assume we can agree that we cannot let debt-to-GDP spiral out of control, as is currently projected under current policies (due mainly to projected growth in Medicare and Social Security costs, driven by both demographics and medical inflation). In other words, unless your argument is that lower taxes and lower revenues will either grow GDP sufficiently and/or cause sufficiently lower spending (vs. projections) to keep our debt-to-GDP to a sustainable and healthy level, the only thing that lower revenues mean today is higher taxes tomorrow, with interest.

Besides, the biggest parts of the budget are non-discretionary entitlements and those are paid (supposedly) with their own specific taxes. I prefer to hold those program's feet to the fire and demand they pay for themselves (as intended) with the revenues they bring in.

Ya' lost me, my friend. First, Medicare is not financed entirely through dedicated tax revenues, and it's gonna get a whole lot worse http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html . Social Security is currently running surpluses (which are spent to cover expenses elsewhere in the budget), but its projected dedicated revenues are not projected to provide full, long-term solvency. Medicaid is obviously not financed by current or future recipients. Secondly, the distinction between dedicated tax revenue (parrticularly for Social Security) vs. general fund revenue is not as meaningful as many seem to think -- See http://swordscrossed.org/node/1720  and http://theforvm.org/diary/brooks-and-b-rational/social-security-solvency-and-irrational-partisan-rhetoric