Yes, and I also read the title and first few lines, which suggest a different conclusion than the article itself. This is a very common practice in science journalism -- the title and first few sentences lead the reader to one conclusion, and the body of the article is full of perfectly appropriate qualifiers that most readers never see or appreciate.
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
Seems to match the title pretty well.
Except for an uneducated or insufficiently skeptical reader -- and the title ought to be "Tax Cuts Don't Necessarily Lead to Economic Growth". To say that tax cuts don't lead to economic growth is to make an unsupported, absolute claim and tell a half-truth.
My problem is with the superficial impression created by the first few lines and the graph. Remember that most readers don't read beyond the abstract. This is a fact that, instead of being accommodated by science writers, is exploited.
Not to broaden the topic unduly, but I often see articles that say some cause A is "linked" to some effect B. "Linked" is a tricky word because, strictly speaking, it doesn't mean A and B are really linked in the cause-effect sense, but many people understand it that way.
A recent article said, in effect, "Marijuana use linked to IQ decrease". It's obvious what typical parents will make of that. But the actual study didn't "link" the two in the way the title and introduction did.
"Does this story prove that raising taxes helps GDP? No. Does it prove that cutting taxes hurts GDP? No.
But it does suggest that there is a lot more to an economy than taxes, and that slashing taxes is not a guaranteed way to accelerate economic growth."