Which is an entirely different thing. In Krugman's figures, there's a drop in revenue growth in the eighties compared to the decade before that, and it picks up again in the next decade - but revenue growth is still positive and significant enough in the eighties. Despite the tax cuts (that's assuming Krugman's figures are accurate and relevant, of course). Since revenue was still growing, that means spending must have been growing faster to cause the expanding deficit (which is hardly a shock, what with Reagan's Star Wars and whatnot). There's nothing in Krugman's figures that disproves trzaska's point, on the contrary. I for one find it remarkable that he ends up with such a high average revenue growth rate for the Reagan years, considering those tax cuts - even if it's still lower than those before and after.