Coverage

Coverage: Is your topic being addressed? Is the information basic and cursory or detailed and scholarly? Explain the major argument being made.

The topic is certainly addressed.  He uses history to explain and provides specific examples of what he is talking about.  Even though it is not a very long article, what he has said is very detailed (in my opinion) but isn't in a jargon that goes over my head, so I'm not sure if that classifies as scholarly.  Usually when I think of something that is classified as "scholarly" I can't usually understand all of the vocabulary.  

Some of the quotes that I feel really nail the argument are listed below:

"Tax cuts alone do not create jobs."

"By the time of Clinton's '93 budget, Reagan had managed to lower top marginal tax rates from around 70% down to the 20s, so not even the increases of Bush 41 and Clinton could significantly slow America's roaring economic engine.

(just to back that up, here is another source saying so:  "In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%"  Reaganomics)

"An administration that respects the rewards of individual initiative and risk-taking could well see an economic renewal like none before."

Basically what Bozeman is saying is that by creating tax cuts, it's not going to create jobs.  To give the "working class" a lower tax break, but give the "rich" (making $250,000+ a year) higher taxes is not going to create any jobs or help the economy.