Is there really only a 'tenuous' link between tax cuts and economic growth?

The Wall Street Journal's news pages might as well just regurgitate left-wing think-tanks' propaganda.  This article says the link between economic growth and tax cuts is tenuous. 

President Reagan inherited a disastrous economy.  He cut taxes across the board, including the top rate from 70% to 28%, and we got substantial and almost continuous economic growth, job growth, and government revenue growth for eighteen years from 1982 to 2001.  That does not look tenuous to me. 

President Bush inherited a recession in 2001, a collapsed stock market, and declining tax revenue from 2001 to 2003.  He turned the economy around with significant tax cuts, and we got jobs and economic growth for four years along with rapidly growing federal revenue. 

President Obama inherited a recession, and instead of cutting taxes, he increased them and massively increased government spending.  The Federal Reserve also tried to goose the economy with almost zero interest rates.  Even with zero interest rates, the debt almost doubled from over $10 trillion to around $20 trillion.  The result of all this government largess was the slowest economic recovery in seventy years.

It is clear from the last almost forty years that allowing individuals and businesses to keep more of the  money they earn is much more stimulating to the economy than increasing taxes and regulations.  The private sector should be allowed more freedom to spend, save, and invest.  It is a shame that the WSJ is blind to the actual results.