In a more direct answer to your question, while you are right that company paid taxes which may have indirectly gone to the university, they are in effect bribing a public official to get “special access” to a restricted access public facility. Sort of like me trying to sleep in the governors mansion because my taxes help pay for it. If I slip a security guard a few extra bucks to let me in I am pretty sure their is a law violation going on.

What are the corporate taxes that these private companies are paying? It’s easy to make any point if one hides one side of the ledger, now, isn’t it?

Especially with higher ed I would argue that a lot of the cost increases can be attributed to people getting loans to attend school. If you are borrowing money for some reason it is easier to spend more of it, so people don’t notice how expensive college has become; and don’t seem to question what they are getting for their money.

It would also seem that a bigger drain on the “welfare” of most people would be crushing student debt and the costs of health care. Rather than worrying taxes it might make sense to find ways to provide health care for everyone and reduce the cost of education so everyone can go to college without getting loans to pay for it.

Conservatism is a bad idea, it leads to failed foreign policy and economic depression. Bush was a great conservative and only about 20% of the country likes what he did over the last 8 years, maybe it is time to end the Goldwater experiment.

The link you sent me sounds more like psychology than economics, here for example:

citeNotice what it does not say: “Tax cuts will pay for themselves before the next election.” (More on that later.) It also does not say: “Tax cuts will always generate more federal revenue, no matter how low the new rate.” It merely says that tax rate cuts increase the private sector players’ incentives to work harder and innovate—i.e., to grow their own incomes, and thereby the whole economy.

Not only is the fundamental supply-side idea simple and intuitive, it’s also impossible for anyone to dismiss it as “false”—and still maintain their credibility. (Try thinking of a way to falsify the underlying hypothesis: “People respond to incentives.” If you can think of a way, please go immediately to the comments section and tell me what it is.)

This part is my respense for some reason I canot get it to format right .
This seems to be saying that people are going to work harder for more money, if anything I would think for most people lowering the taxes someone pays might encourage them to work less.
For example if someone makes $10 per hour and pays 20% in taxes(I know the numbers are not realistic but they are easy to work with) in one month the person would gross $1600 and take home $1280(1600-(1600*.20). If you lowered the person tax rate to 10% they could take home the same amount of money by working approximately 142 hours per month. I didn’t have a calculator handy but if you worked 142 hours at $10 per hour that would be $1420 times a tax rate of 10% would mean a take home of $1278 and you could work 18 less hours.
I am not sure that working less is a bad thing or that it would always happen that way but the article you linked to seems to assume everyone would have incentive to act in a certain way and that is not the case.

Here is why federal revenues have been up so much:
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/04/the_curse_of_th.html

In sum, people respond to incentives (i.e. they want to make more money, and get stuff cheaper). Also, economic growth fuels revenue better than raising rates, as the former enjoys compound growth.