From Jack Kemp's latest column:

"The evidence indicates that this is precisely what happened when President Bush convinced Congress to cut the tax rate on dividends and capital gains and to allow small businesses to recover their capital investments quicker by writing them off in a shorter period of time.
Revenues continue to pour into the U.S. Treasury so fast the Congressional Budget Office projects that if the tax cuts are left in place permanently, the budget will be balanced within a few years, and revenues as a share of Gross Domestic Product will remain pretty much where they have stayed since the end of World War II, right about 18.5 percent of GDP."

The deficit does worry me, but this also makes sense. Lower taxes, and people will invest more, expand their businesses, hire more people, and, eventually, pay more taxes. The rate would be lower, but since the taxpayers have a lot more money, the total will be higher. We've tried the tax 'em to death theory, and it contributed mightily to the recession we had in 2000 or so, along with the tech bubble bursting. Raising taxes also made a mess of Jimmy Carter's economy, and it kept getting worse until Reagan stepped in and lowered taxes. For now I'd like to continue trying the low tax thing, see how it turns out. It certainly makes more sense than Paul Krugman, the New York Times economist, who feels that raising the tax rate will net us that exact amoutn of extra money. A little common sense tells you that raising taxes will lower revenue for most businesses, which means less taxes being paid.

Of course we could come up with a simpler, more efficient means of taxation... Oh wait, they already have that idea, it's called the FairTax, and left-wingers everywhere decry it because it would take away their chance to fleece the rich and control the poor. It would be fair and make sense, and that would really suck.