U.S. Sen. Rob Portman and many of his Republican colleagues in Congress applauded President Trump for outlining a framework for large tax cuts. The Cincinnati Republican described the unveiling this week as “a big day for our country, our economy and our efforts to create jobs and provide better wages for all Americans.” All that’s missing is evidence showing such claims are true.

Writing in the Washington Post the day after the president spoke, Bruce Bartlett punched holes in the reasoning. Bartlett packs credibility. He served as a leading economist in the Reagan White House. He defends the tax cuts of his boss, noting the stagflation and the 70 percent top individual income tax rate of the era.

Today, the economy continues to expand with the unemployment rate relatively low and the top individual tax rate at 39.6 percent.

Bartlett reminds that most economists agree tax cuts played a limited role in the 1980s recovery, Reagan later raising taxes. The landmark tax reform of 1986 made the code more efficient and productive. The numbers indicate the achievement did not unleash significant economic growth.

Bill Clinton increased taxes, and the economy of the 1990s grew at a faster clip.

President Trump talks about championing those who have been forgotten, the victims of the “carnage” he cites. Yet, the striking thing about his tax framework is how it details benefits for the wealthy while those with lower and middle incomes are promised specifics coming later.

As Chuck Marr of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, the top 1 percent (incomes about $700,000) would receive roughly half of the net tax cuts, an average reduction of $150,000 per year. Thirty percent of the tax cuts would go to the top 0.1 percent (above $3.8 million in income), annual relief averaging about $800,000.

This windfall would result from several changes. The top individual tax rate would drop to 35 percent. The estate tax would be repealed, even though the first $11 million for a couple currently is exempt, the levy applying to just the wealthiest 0.2 percent of estates. The problematic alternative minimum tax would be eliminated. Unfortunately, the president’s framework offers little to meet its purpose, ensuring that high-income people with many deductions at least pay some taxes.

The framework calls for a federal version of the notoriously ineffective tax break for “pass through” income, earnings from businesses claimed on individual returns. The top rate would be 25 percent, amounting to a boon for the likes of hedge fund operators, real estate developers and law firm partners. The Tax Policy Center calculates that four-fifths of the relief would go to those with incomes above $1 million a year.

If the corporate income tax needs repair, trading a lower rate for erasing loopholes, that, too, would benefit investors and chief executives. So the president’s claim that the wealthy “will not be gaining at all” isn’t true.

Neither is it credible that he wouldn’t do well. Though he refuses to release his tax returns, let alone his business holdings, enough is known to see his likely windfall, from the “pass through” relief and the end of the estate and alternative minimum taxes.

Factor into the equation the ballooning of the federal budget deficit, plus aggravating income inequality, and the framework hardly represents something better for the country. Such tax cuts just haven’t delivered as pledged.