Just to amplify this point.  Tell you what .. YOU do the research.  Take a look at tax cuts under Kennedy, under Reagan and under Bush (before the economic collapse).  You will see that in all of these instances the tax cuts resulted in increased tax revenue.  Why is that?  Because a tax cut means you are increasing the reward to a person for economic effort.  People have this curious little tendency to engage in rewarding behavior and to avoid behavior which is punished. 

I've tried to put this point across on the air several times ... don't know how much success I've had.  Let's try again:

Members of congress get their numbers on the effects of tax cuts and tax increases from the Congressional Budget Office.  By law - or by regulation - the CBO is not allowed to consider the idea that a tax cut or increase might affect the behavior of the taxpayer.  The CBO must assume that the taxpayer will continue to work at the same level and earn the same income no matter what the level of taxation.  This means that a person earning $1,000,000 a year will not change their work effort in any way no matter how much of that money is seized by the government.   Because of this static view of our economy .. a wholly unrealistic view ... the Democrats can say that not increasing taxes will cost our economy $700 billion over a set number of years.  The fact is that if history is a guide it will actually result in increased revenues.  Right now high-achievers are holding their cards ... waiting to see where this is all going to go.  It is folly to assume that if their taxes are raised they aren't going to react negatively.