It shows precisely the opposite. Revenue increased. For your claim to be true, revenue would have to be lower this year than last year.
How many times does this simple fact have to be hammered into your thick skull?
Actually this is false. For his claim to be true all that would need to happen is that the revenue growth is slower than last year. Which has been the case after every tax cut.
For example...
The 5 years prior to the first Reagan tax cut the percent of change for tax revenue was +16%, +11%, +14%, +10% and +14% for an average increase of 13%. The 5 years after his first cut the percent of change was +3%, -3%, +10%, +9%, +8%, for an average change of 5%. Then Reagan cut taxes again and the next 5 years were +7%, +6%, +8%, +4%, +2%, which once again comes out to an average change of 5%.
Which seems better to you, an average increase of 13% or 5% increase?