I read the whole thing, and I read Scale's link to the normally reliable Sowell, as well. It's probably time for the author, and Scales, to do their own actual research versus cutting and pasting, be it from TS columns or long ago term papers.
Below are the tables for federal government receipts for the years in question. If one examines the columns for "constant dollars" and "percentage of GDP" one may easily ascertain that revenues received in constant dollars declined for the five years following the Bush tax cuts and only reached their pre-tax cut levels in 2007, just before the crash.
More relevantly, and more accurately in terms of the wealth of the nation, one may look at revenues as a percentage of GDP, and one will note that they've never, in any year since the Bush tax cuts approached what they were before the tax cuts.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
They're even studying these things over at Milton Friedman's old stomping grounds:
http://www.nber.org/digest/jul05/w11000.html#navDiv=6
Tax cuts, scored dynamically, don't pay for themselves at the rate their proponents contend, while using static scoring.
It wasn't a bad term paper at all; well done up until it presumed the same growth in revenues had occurred under Bush as had Kennedy and Reagan, when tax rates were, indeed, much higher. But, it's probably not the paper that should be cited in support of reduced spending and balanced budgets, because the idea of starving the beast of tax dollars has gone down in flames faster than the lie that all tax cuts increase revenue. The problem is spending, first and last. Advocating for lower taxes, with the knowledge that they'll have no effect on rising spending is not only dishonest...it's morally reprehensible.
The same amount of effort might have better served in detailing how Social Security and Medicare might be re-organized towards reducing spending, instead of referencing the Laffer curve, which has never effected spending. Which may be why Republicans continue to lose national elections; they're selling snake oil?
A far better prescription for the future:
https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/333455/beyond-tax-cuts?pg=1
I'm in favor of the same solution as Scales and the author; balancing the budget by reduced spending. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that the economy won't achieve any lasting or significant growth until those spending cuts are made. Business cannot compete with government in the lending markets. But, the path to spending cuts is not to be found in the repetition of bromides from the past, whose applicability remains in the past...when tax rates were significantly higher...and then pretending one is making a serious argument for the real problem; the need to reduce spending, although I may be presuming upon their intelligence.
Parent
