The politically convenient but intellectually unsupportable claim that tax cuts increase revenue will not go away. Today, Steve Forbes follows President Bush’s example in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required):

How would a flat tax do this? What so many “experts” can’t grasp is that taxes are not only a means of raising revenue for governments but also a price and a burden. The tax you pay on income is the price you pay for working; the tax on profits is the price you pay for being successful, and the levy on capital gains is the price you pay for taking risks that work out. When you lower the price of good things, such as productive work, success and risktaking, you get more of them. The flat tax does that dramatically.

Experience demonstrates time and time again — the Harding-Coolidge tax cuts of the 1920s, the Kennedy cuts of the ’60s, the Reagan cuts of the ’80s and the Bush reductions of 2003 — that lower tax rates lead to more economic activity, which leads to more government revenue.

(If you’re interested, Michael Kinsley annihilates takes some satisfying potshots at Forbes’ plan in the Washington Post.)