From the New York Times.

The assumptions in the article, of course, are the long-discredited "static" assumptions, i.e. a tax cut of $550 billion over ten years will result in a reduction of revenues over that time of exactly $550 billion.

In point of fact, every large tax cut has resulted in increased general revenues. Whether they will outstrip the current spending sprees on the part of both parties is another question.

The "sunset" clauses are interesting. Those in favor of lower taxes may be able to use the same weapon Democrats have been using for years with social spending programs:

A social spending program is created to meet a need, real or invented. After about ten years, suddenly this program, which somehow the U.S. survived without for years, becomes so absolutely necessary that the very thought of even decreasing its rate of growth is treated like a suggestion for mass murder.

Now, a tax cut with a "sunset" clause might end up working the same way for Republicans. After a few years of the lower rate, there may then be enormous public pressure to keep the rates down, and scrap the "sunset" provision.

I guess we'll see.

People argue over whether or not tax cuts will help the economy. You can argue details and economics all day long, but there is other peripheral evidence that tax cuts are good for the economy. Keep this in mind:

1) The Democrats would cheerfully saw their own arms off with a dull jackknife to have the U.S. economy be in the crapper in the fall of 2004.

2) The Democrats are fighting like demons to keep a tax cut from occurring.

Connect the dots.