alpha charlie bravo also presents:

False assumptions from the Heritage Foundation.

There's been a lot of discussion about Paul Ryan's reckless boondoggle of a budget proposal and that it apparently relies on magical projections from the Heritage Foundation. (Who don't exactly have the best track record when it comes to economic predictions. Q.E.D.)

So my interest was piqued when I stumbled upon some of the easy-to-read and accessible graphs on their website. This graph in particular caught my eye:
Federal Spending Increased Faster Than Median Income

The graph clearly shows what it claims to show. I'll assume the figures are correct. But what about the assumption made in the explanatory paragraph?

"When federal spending grows faster than people’s paychecks, the government’s burden on taxpayers becomes greater."

Oh, Heritage Foundation.
Didn't you forget something? You see that spike in government spending around 2002? That same year the now infamous Bush tax cuts went into effect. Which means that no one bore the burden of increased government spending through taxes. Which is why the deficit ballooned shortly thereafter. Let's look at another one of their graphs:

Current Tax Receipts Below Historical Average

If we had increased tax rates to make up for the decline in receipts and increases in spending between 2002 and 2010, then the assumptions of the first graph would be correct. But, we didn't. So, it appears to me that government spending has had no direct impact on the individual's tax burden. Am I incorrect?