With his qualification he makes in the last sentence, I would pretty much agree with that, other than the tax cuts. Since revenues did not decline as a result of the tax cuts, that analysis requires the assumption that revenues would have been X amount higher had they not made the tax cuts. I think that's erroneous on two fronts. In general, to make the above assumption you would have to assume that tax payer behavior would have been static with or without the tax cuts. Intuitively I think that's a very unrealistic assumtion. People make many decisions based upon tax consequences. Secondly you also have to make the assumption that we would have recovered from the post dot com bust/post 9/11 recession at the same volume and pace even if the tax cuts had not been enacted. Again, intuitively that seems to be a faulty assumption. I don't see how anyone can make an accurate guess at what the tax cuts in 2001-2003 "cost", if anything at all.