Mr. Boskin has something to say

By contrast, the last two major tax cuts—President Reagan's in 1981-83 and President George W. Bush's in 2003—boosted growth. They lowered marginal tax rates and were longer lasting, both keys to success. In a survey of fiscal policy changes in the OECD over the past four decades, Harvard's Albert Alesina and Silvia Ardagna conclude that tax cuts have been far more likely to increase growth than has more spending.WSJ

We keep going over this and showing the charts. The Clinton tax hike moved the federal share of the economy straight down.  Reagan's share of the budget went up after the tax hikes, and only started down when he corrected.   Bush, the father,  couldn't do it.  Clinton got federal share down to 19%.   The evidence seems to point to the rational;  people get the government they pay for.   Little Bush didn't get growth from tax cuts, he got two wars, paid for with debt. This is a common problem, rich people declaring war with other peoples money.  When the wealthy pay for limited government, they get it. 

The wealthy are lazy, they prefer to hire Tea Party dupes behind the scenes. But when they are actually asked to pay for their goodies, they actually get involved with making efficient government.