If you think the author is wrong you should post your comments on his blog and see what he says. While these figures appear to be somewhat inaccurate the result is roughly the same, a net revenue loss.

The rest of your argument is based on the same fallacy you posted last time, that there is only one way to stimulate an economy, one way to cut taxes, one way to raise them in a recession, etc.

By removing all the shades of greys you are arguing from a logical fallacy because your axioms are incorrect. If there was only one way to do all these things then you would be correct, but there is a virtually infinite different number of combinations of all these things in varying amounts. Different taxes can be cut to different people, different spending can be done, and different taxes can be raised in a recession.

So your question is unanswerable until you agree to give up the logical fallacy. When you do that though your argument is lost. If there are differing ways to cut taxes, etc then Bush is open to the charge that he could have tweaked these taxes and spending to stimulate the economy better.

So the argument is quite stark. Under your analysis there is no other way than the Bush way because there is no other possible way to do it except exactly and precisely the way Bush did it.

If there are alternative ways then you must argue that all of those would have come up with the same result, which is another logical absurdity.

So after those two false excluded middle argument is the real issue, could Bush have structured them better, and if so why didn't he?

And that leads to a dangerous argument for Bush partisans because the science of economics is virtually united in everything I can find on the subject, that Bush did indeed structure these things in a bad way, and that this is primarily to blame for a lot of the recession and the deficit. I don't know what is the answer, but I have yet to see serious experts in economics dispute that.

So in a choice between your argument which seems to be compose of logical fallacies and what seems to be a consensus among economists I tend to go with the experts and against you.

If your figures are correct you should be congratulated for working it out. I should point out though that economists generally charge Bush with messing up the figures, so you should be equally harsh on him (or be blatantly partisan).