Bill Clinton's 1992 Presidential campaign won over public opinion with one simple line; "It's the economy, stupid." The Berlin wall had come down in 1989, and the Soviet Union was no more. The Cold War was over - there were no more threats to the US homeland. Meanwhile, the US was experiencing a short & mild recession. Clinton labeled it the worst economy since the Great Depression and blamed 12-years of supply-side economics combined with excessive military and foreign intelligence spending. Who could argue

this theory, as the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations did focus on foreign policy . . . while facilitating the end of the cold war through victory. For this achievement Bush 41 was booted from office. I would compare that with coaching the Super Bowl champions, and then getting fired for ruining your teams draft position. Needless to say, "It's the economy, stupid." Resonated with voters, and vaulted President Clinton into office.

Today we face a serious recession, not the short blip of 1991. Arguments revolve around income tax rates. Did the Bush tax cuts cause the recession? Did tax cuts increase federal revenues? Will allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire increase or decrease federal revenues? Are the rich paying enough? Are the rich paying too much? As the arguments persist, both political parties are ignoring the elephant in the room. It's the spending, stupid!

As a conservative, I have always been convinced that lowering income taxes will raise federal revenues. I have seen the numbers - revenue nearly doubling during Reagan's administration. Still, Democrats insist to claim tax cuts 'cost' the federal government money. (A statement that can only come from the perspective that all money belongs to Washington) Both cannot be true. So which is it? Do tax cuts raise or lower government revenue? You certainly cannot count on the modern "He said, She said" irresponsible journalism today to actually include factual research related to the argument at hand. Most are capable of little more than amplifying the argument. So I took it upon myself to do the research. During my truth-seeking mission I learned things that even surprised myself.

Analyzing the numbers from 1956 to 2008, there is no clear relationship between federal revenue and income tax rates. (Table T1) (Graph T1) Over this 52-year period, the federal revenue increased at an average of 7% per year - but fluctuates greatly. (Graph T2) Yes, tax cuts do increase federal revenue - but raising taxes does as well. The numbers point to a seldom-mentioned truth, government revenues continue to grow over time despite changing federal income tax policy, not because of it. Economic recession seems to be the only element that causes a reduction of revenue.