Of course, he's wrong.
But then, arguing with him would begin by pointing out that I like tax cuts not because they are supposed to affect government spending (which they would only do on a state and local level, where the budget must balance, at least in most states), but because they are better for the private economy. And the bigger the private economy gets, the more resilient the US will be when the disaster (long predicted) of boomer retirement occurs: it will be a bigger fiscal debacle than anything else out there.
The bigger the private economy, the more money being made in the economy, the more productive income taxes will be, up to a certain point. And the point is that to the extent we give our golden geese the incentives to invest in more businesses, we produce a bigger economy to handle the shock.
Not that Mr. Chait cares about such things. He seems unaware that piling on government debt to finance things is self-limiting and that the bond market does a reasonably good job of policing Washington DC and state governments (as California has discovered) to the extent it is needed. That private check is all we need: we don't need to worry about trying to make our representatives think about economics (most of them couldn't pass that course anyway).
So why am I supposed to care about a study that measures things I don't care about? Only Mr. Chait knows.