[remember]

"The increases in marginal tax rates imposed by the Clinton administration and Congress are likely to raise little or no additional revenue." Martin Feldstein - 1993

Well that prediction didn't turn out too well, now did it. Thank you for the beautiful example of how wrong economists can be when they try to predict the future. (Beside the fact he doesn't seem to understand what Laffer was saying with the Laffer Curve. He said raising the tax rate could raise or lower revenues depending on where you are on the curve.)

You're right, that prediction didn't turn out too well. It can be most quickly illustrated in the following graph:

Note the sharp rise in revenues from 1993 to 2000. Then compare that to the even steeper drop in revenues from 2000 to 2004. You can also see that, as a percent of GDP, revenues did drop during the eighties. The actual numbers can be seen at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/def05.html.

[ancient_geezer]

Note the sharp rise in revenues from 1993 to 2000.

Note the sharp rise in tax burden as a percentage of GDP, due to climbing tax rates, removal of business deductions and falling outlays acting as an extreme drag on a vibrant economy that ultimately collapsed it into recession by 2000.

Your chart does not provide any insight whatever on what real GDP growth or resulting tax revenues would have been without the dual hit of climbing federal burdens on the economy.

Judging from that chart, I would say the Clinton administration did everything possible to kill the Regean legacy of economic growth.