The statement “it’s a revenue problem” is simplistic and misleading.
Sorry for the length. I'm an Independent but I used to describe myself as fiscally conservative. But all I ever really meant by that was I believe in a balanced budget. Dealing w/economics we can't take numbers in a vacuum but we can take numbers and look at a reasonable approach to governance.
What we know is that the focus on "increasing incomes" and effective 'growth by tax cut' will bring in about 18% of GDP (Federal revenues) maximum. Since FY1983 and the Reagan tax cuts, we hit 18% a whole three times with a GOP President. That's 17 years of Reagan, HWBush and WBush, 14 of which were below 18%. But that is the proven 'ceiling' here for supply-side and naturally the number GOP politicians always use - '18%'.
While EVERY year from 1995-2001 brought above 18%. Only hitting 20% once in 2000. You have to go back to 1952 to find it hitting 20% again. And during those balanced budgets (surplus), it was 19%. This argument is relative to tax cuts paying for themselves and there were no tax cuts in the 90's, so while the GOP ran congress under Clinton, that is irrelevant to the point.
We simply cannot HOPE to balance the budget at 18%. And probably not even at 19%. 20% might be what is needed. But 18% is objectively too low. Heading further into the 21st century, everyone is living longer, entitlements are not going to disappear because everyone wants them. Republicans want them because they NEVER have and NEVER will cut them. The one MILD adjustment in the 90's was to welfare. But when it's all GOP (see: 8 years of Dubya, they do nothing). Why? Because they want to stay in office too. And a group of fringe "Tea Party" folk that don't understand what they're railing against (in certain situations) aren't going to change any of that.
It's simply not enough revenue to fund the government EVERYBODY wants. And not only the government everybody wants, the government that (relatively speaking) is not going away. Those federal pensions are pesky but they aren't evaporating any time soon. And the defense budget has been trimmed about as far as it will be trimmed.
It might be too simplistic to say that it's a revenue problem, because that might imply spending isn't its own issue. But it is MUCH more of a revenue problem than a spending problem. That is virtually inarguable. The math is the math. Regardless of how GOP politicians sell this farce to the public.
The last time we had a balanced budget we had spending reforms + higher taxes and a BOOMING economy. Right now we're at about 16% which is way way too low. It hasn't been that low since 1976. But 2010 dipped below 15% and we're projected to be back at 18% by 2015. So we're going in the right direction. After all 18% is the vaunted GOP number. Federal spending is currently too high at 22% of GDP. Here are some other years where fed spending was 22% of GDP - 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1991.
And everyone can remember all those conservatives talking about the Bush admin spending too much, to show how balanced they were and that is wasn't about pure politics? Well, spending never topped 20% under W. It was Saint Reagan and Daddy that spent like a madman. Of course, they also had a Democratic-controlled congress. But once again, once in control of both houses, they didn't cut anything in the way of so-called entitlements. All that is - is a political tactic. To scare people into voting against Democrats.
But yes, 22% is high but austerity shrinks growth. And the one thing economists genuinely all do agree with is - we need growth. Growth alone will shrink spending relative to GDP.
And even the one BIG argument the GOP used to make about job creation (all essentially in a two-year window under Reagan) fell apart when W Bush put up a goose egg in 8 years. Effectively no jobs created.
Republican economics via Supply Side has thoroughly failed. This isn't an endorsement of the alternative but only to say, it's clearly a better option. And as long as that is the case and as long as someone like Bill Clinton is alive that can make this "math" argument much better than I can, (although maybe just as long winded!) the Reps will not take back the WH.