History, politics and economic theory are all on the side of a tax cut now -- preferably a 15 percent across-the-board cut. So contends National Center for Policy Analysis economist Bruce Bartlett, who put forth the idea barely one month ago.

Since then, Republican presidential contender Bob Dole and his campaign aides have taken the proposal into serious consideration, recognizing that it is justified on a number of grounds.

• Economically, it is justified because it would bring the government's share of the nation's gross domestic product back to about what it was in 1992, before President Clinton took office.

• In the first three years of the Clinton administration, Americans have paid $151.1 billion more in taxes than if federal receipts had remained at their 1992 level as a share of GDP.

• According to Commerce Department figures, federal, state and local governments last year consumed 31.3 percent of all national output -- higher than at the close of World War II and in fact the highest ever.

• Since the current administration came to office, personal income taxes have increased 1.6 times faster than the country's economic growth as measured by GDP, and corporate taxes have increased 3.5 times faster.

Because personal and corporate income taxes are graduated, the tax burden increases as the economy grows. So periodic tax cuts are necessary to hold the tax burden steady. Further, reducing marginal tax rates provides an incentive to earn more money, freeing up more dollars for saving and investment and stimulating economic growth.

There is historical justification for a tax cut now.

• The increasing government share of output caused by bracket creep during the high inflation of the 1970s led to the Reagan tax cut.
• The high percentage of state output that was commandeered by taxes in California prompted that state's Proposition 13 in 1978 and led to a nationwide revolt against high state and local taxes.

Politically, tax cuts are inevitably a winning issue for Republicans. Proposing a tax cut is the proper philosophical underpinning for their agenda of less regulation, smaller government and increased personal responsibility. And history suggests it works.

• Candidate Reagan's proposal for an across-the-board 30 percent cut in rates during the 1980 presidential campaign helped him defeat President Carter.

• In New Jersey, Christie Whitman came from behind to win election as governor in 1993 after she pledged a 30 percent tax cut.

A successful fiscal policy must include two vital elements.

• The growth in government spending must be slowed.

• But encouraging economic growth is an even higher priority, since growth increases jobs and take-home pay, as well as reducing the deficit through greater tax receipts.

And as for those who think the deficit is the number one problem facing the country: tax cut proponents contend that there aren't many problems that a 15 percent tax cut can cause or that a 3.5 percent growth rate can't solve -- if our leaders keep a lid on spending.

Source: Former Governor Pete du Pont (National Center for Policy Analysis), "Picking Up Tax Cut Support," Washington Times, June 7, 1996.