Did you see that little asterisk at the bottom of your chart? The reduction in the % of the tax is only part of the story. Exemption phase-outs and limits on deductions impact the tax liability of higher income earners the most.
Also, considering the reduction in rates alone only has merit if you are working from a static economic model. Tax cuts are generally stimulative. However, even if you don't buy the fact that tax cuts are stimulative, you'd have to look at the impact of the 2003 tax cuts on actual US Treasury tax receipts to see what effect the cuts actually had.
"From 2004 to 2007, f
ederal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts.
And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...deral-revenue/
Bush's increasing deficits from 2004 - 2007 were due to a president and congress who were spending money faster than it was coming in, and growing the size of government. The growth of government under Bush is typically a fact that is not in dispute on this forum. The fact that is lead to increases in deficit and debt are also not in dispute. But increasing tax revenues don't cause an increase in size and scope of the spending - side of the Federal budget, though they may fuel an increase in the appetite of the political class.