I downloaded down the data and created the following graph (click here for larger picutre), where the dashed lines mark off each presidency:
This graph is not what I expected. I will let it speak for itself. Mabye Paul Krugman will have a word to say on it.
To be clear, and repeating what I stated when I discussed cyclically-adjusted budget balances, I still find the nuanced Laffer curve view--if I can call it that--of Justin Fox, Brad DeLong, and Greg Mankiw a reasonable position to hold.
My above post did not make clear why it is important to correct for cyclical influences on tax revenues. Both the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts occurred during economic downturns. This timing means that even if there had been no tax cuts tax revenues probably still would have declined during the recessions. Similarly, even if Clinton had not increased taxes there probably still would been higher tax revenues given the booming economy of the mid-to-late 1990s. Consequently, one needs to also account for these business cycle influences when assessing the tax revenue evidence. The data I use above makes this adjustment.