The Effects of the Bush Tax Cut

By Jacqueline I. Heffner

This paper examins the truth about the Bush economic policies.

When George Bush took office, the federal government had a 10 year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion (McKenna, 2003). Three years later this surplus has disappeared, replaced by a 10 year projected deficit of over $2.8 trillion.

Unemployment is rising and we have lost over three million jobs in the last three years. The states are experiencing severe budget shortfalls.

Americans are facing higher medical costs, lower wages, and pension systems that are in bankruptcy. Governments on each level are reducing services.

In this time of increasing need, Bush proposes cutbacks in federal programs including job training. In order to offset budget shortfalls many states are seeking to raise taxes.

To address this faltering economy, President Bush proposed accelerating and making permanent his 2001 tax cut. In addition, Bush has added additional elements to his initial plan which will bring the cost of his proposal to over $700 billion.

Over the next ten years this plan will decrease federal revenues, increase deficits and require the federal government to cut back almost all of its entitlement programs.

It must also be noted that the costs cited for this plan grow exponentially in the ensuing years, creating a federal deficit of an unparalleled amount.

What are the specifics of the Bush plan? Will this plan stimulate the economy? Who benefits the most from this plan?

Will the federal government be able to continue to provide much needed services to the citizens of this country if this plan is enacted? What programs will have to be reduced?

Will this plan create for Americans economic equality or inequality?

The answers to these questions show a disturbing trend for the future of this country. The White House contends that "fiscal discipline" is needed in order to implement the proposed $674 billion tax plan.

To maintain this "discipline," according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 cuts $10 billion from funding levels the Senate Appropriations Committee previously approved.

Further, these cuts "would adversely affect workers hard hit by the economic downturn, significant numbers of low-income elderly and disabled individuals and low-income children, and state governments that are in the midst of their most serious fiscal crises in 50 years" (Greenstein & Kogan, 2003).

The impact of this tax stimulus plan also affects state budgets, pension plans, savings accounts, housing and more. "It is important to bear in mind that states are taking actions that can offset or cancel much of the contemplated federal stimulus" (Lav, 2003).

In addition, the current budget the White House has submitted to congress includes no monies for the possible war with Iraq. Also, funding for job training programs and more must be cut in order to attempt to balance the budget in light of this tax plan.

This tax proposal makes no allowances for repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, a tax which will, by 2010, effect 36 million, "mostly middle-class taxpayers" (Burman, et al., 2002).

Supply-Side Economics

The argument for this tax plan assumes a "supply-side" economic theory. In this theory, the more money that is freed at the top, the more it "trickles" down to those below.

Former Presidents Reagan and Kennedy both implemented tax cuts. "But most economists doubt that those tax cuts, or others in postwar history, actually paid for themselves with higher revenues" (Hage & Black, 1995).

In addition, Reagan's "economic team predicted that the impact [of his tax cut] would be so large that the economy could easily steam ahead at an average annual rate of 6% (Bernasek, 2001).

This supply-side tax cut did result in some growth, 3% to be exact, however the growth was not enough to "offset lost tax revenue, and the federal budget deficit ballooned. The upshot was rising interest rates, low national savings and ever-increasing foreign debt" (Bernasek, 2001).

Two tax increases in 1990 and 1993 "helped put the nation on the road to fiscal and economic recovery" (Kosterlitz, 2001). When Bob Dole ran for President in 1996 he argued that a 15 percent rate cut in taxes would "raise the economic growth in America, which has gotten much too slow in recent years" (Kosterlitz, 2001).

For the rest of the decade, without benefit of Dole's 15 percent tax cut, the economy grew at a rate of 4.4 percent (Kosterlitz, 2001). In 1998 Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan "agreed with the Clinton Administration that a dollar in debt reduction could do more for the economy than a dollar in tax cuts" (Kosterlitz, 2001).

N. Gregory Mankiw, whom "Bush (has) nominated to lead his Council of Economic Advisers, wrote a popular economics textbook in which he ridiculed the supply-side tax cuts of President Ronald Reagan as 'fad economics' conceived by 'charlatans and cranks'" (Andrews, 2003).

The proposed Bush tax cut will create inequity in our tax system by "redistribut[ing] wealth in the wrong direction, in a very big way, to the very wealthiest end of the spectrum...In terms of redistribution of income, this is probably one of the worst possible places to give money" (Powell, 2003).

To understand how this redistribution of wealth works it is important to look at the elements that make up the Bush proposal.

Who Benefits from the Bush Tax Cut

The current tax plan Bush proposes is actually an acceleration of his previous plan (which was passed by congress in 2001) with some added elements.

The tax plan passed in 2001 was to be phased in over a 10-year period. At the end of the 10 years, the plan would expire. The new tax plan proposed by the White House would implement the 2001 plan all at once, making it permanent, while also adding additional cuts to the 2001 plan.

How does this proposal break down in numbers? Who will benefit the most? According to John Miller, "The richest 1% of taxpayers, with an average income over $1million, get nearly two-fifths (37.6%) of the benefits of the tax cut, while they pay little more than one-quarter (or 26.3% to be exact) of federal taxes.

For the bottom 60% the Bush tax cut is far stinger, refunding a share of the tax cut that just about matches its 14% of the federal tax burden" (Miller, 2001). Miller also states lower-income taxpayers that pay federal payroll and excise taxes, but not personal income taxes, will not receive any tax cut.

Mr. Bush has stated that "Under this plan, 92 million Americans receive an average tax cut of $1,083. That's fair" (Washington Post, 2003).

However, according to the Washington Post, this statement is misleading, as 80 percent of taxpayers will receive less than that amount.

"For the truly typical household -- filers in the middle fifth of the income spectrum -- the average tax cut would be $256. Almost half of all taxpayers would see their taxes drop by less than $100. At the top of the income pyramid, however, the tax savings would be huge, the top 1 percent of the filers would receive an average tax cut of $24,100. The average tax cut touted by Mr. Bush is more than $1,000 only because the savings for the wealthiest Americans are so large" (Washington Post, 2003).

In addition to making his 2001 cut permanent, Bush is proposing to get rid of the double taxation on dividend taxes. According to Bush "Getting rid of the double taxation of dividends is an incredibly positive thing for the quality of life of our seniors" (Washington Post, 2003).

The reality of this statement is a majority of seniors, two-thirds to be exact, with incomes below $50,000, would save on average $325 or less.

Those at the top would reap the most benefits, as more than three-quarters of the dividend tax break would go to seniors with incomes above $75,000, 43 percent of the benefit going to the richest in that group, the 2.5 percent who have incomes greater than $200,000 (Washington Post, 2003).

According to the Brooking Institute, the effects of these new cuts would "make the federal tax system more regressive. The percentage tax increase in after-tax income is higher for those with higher incomes" (Gale & Orszag, 2003).

In 2003 one-half of tax filers would see a tax cut of $100, while those with incomes over $1 million would see a tax break of $90,222. "Middle class Americans would lose much of their share of the tax cut with resources transferred to high-income groups" (Gale & Orszag, 2003).

What these figures represent is a shifting in the tax burden from those at the higher income levels to those in the middle. This represents an inequality in our tax system, as the system becomes increasingly regressive instead of progressive.

As costs rise for medical insurance, state taxes and general living expenses, any tax relief middle income Americans do see will be sharply offset, and in actuality, not result in any additional "money in their pocket."

However, those at the top income levels, those who already have incomes over $1 million dollars, will be allowed to keep more of their money, while not suffering any ill effects from increases in other areas.

What is not so easy to see is how this tax plan will affect even further those in the middle and lower income levels in America. Because this tax cut is so large, revenues to the government will be decreased, and the services that many Americans use will be cut.

While many middle and lower income Americans will see less funding for schools, housing and other government funded programs, the wealthy will not be directly effected by these cuts.

As wealthy Americans can afford to send their children to private schools, cuts in public education will have little affect on education in private schools.

Middle and low income Americans will feel the effects of fewer federal dollars flowing to their public schools. The cuts in funding will result in larger classes, fewer monies for science equipment, books and more. Music programs will be cut.

Once again, those who can afford private music lessons will not feel this cut, but those who count on the public educational system will lose yet another program.

Exactly how else does this proposal affect our country? One way to evaluate the overall effects of the proposed tax cut is to look at the budget that congress is currently considering.

The Proposed GOP Budget

Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, on March 12, 2003, released a proposed budget that would require Congressional committees to cut "mandatory" federal programs by $470 billion over the next ten years. (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2003).

Exactly what does this mean? It means, to start with, Medicare must be cut by $214 billion, $93 billion must be cut from Medicaid, $15 billion in cuts to veterans programs, and $12 billion in cuts to the food stamp program.

According to Robert Greenstein, Center director, these funding cuts are, "deep budget cuts that could harshly affect the poor, the vulnerable, and many middleclass Americans, alongside lavish tax cuts for the nation's richest individuals" (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2003).

These reductions in services are a tradeoff for the tax cut that Bush has proposed in 2003, cuts that heavily favor the wealthy.

While the wealthy will be paying less money to Uncle Sam, the poor in this country, as the GOP proposed budget reveals, would see reductions in the services they need to survive. Programs Bush is seeking to end include the HOPE VI program, a housing program which renovated tens of thousands of public housing units (Associated Press, 2003).

Along with cutting this program, there is also a proposal to turn federal housing vouchers over to states as block grants. This proposal would require states to give out the same number of vouchers while removing the requirement that "70 percent of the funding go to families at or below the poverty line" (Washington Post, 2003).

The effect of this change is that "states will inevitably give those vouchers to lower-middle-class families who can afford to get by on less of a supplement, and the poor will get squeezed out" (Washington Post, 2003).

Medicaid, currently a federal entitlement program, would, under the Bush proposal, become a block grant program. "For the first time, the federal government would stop paying for a share of the care for every patient who is enrolled.

Instead, states would get a fixed payment that would be adjusted every year based on changes in the cost of health care - - but not fluctuating, as subsidies do now, depending on the number of patients" (Goldstein & Weisman, 2003).

States will be given greater input on how the money is spent, and at the same time have far fewer dollars to spend on health care for the poor.

According to Isabel V. Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brooking Institution, "Offering state block grants in the middle of the most severe fiscal crisis we've seen in a long time.... almost guarantees that states will either fail to take up the option or that they will use the money in inappropriate ways" (Goldstein & Weisman, 2003).

Those most affected by this change would be people living just above the poverty line, as states looking to save money would likely require patients to share more of the costs by "adding co-payments or deductibles. [States] could limit the number of emergency room visits and cap enrollment in the program. They could offer a benefit in one part of the state and not the other" (Meckler, 2003).

At the same time that Bush is proposing cutbacks to Medicaid, 75 million Americans found themselves without any medical insurance at some point in 2001 or 2002 (Meckler, 2003).

Because of a faltering economy, businesses are cutting back coverage or asking workers to pay more for it, which results in the ranks of the uninsured coming mainly from the middle class (Meckler, 2003).

Middle-class Americans are finding that health care insurance is increasingly becoming a luxury item in their budgets. Even proposed deductions for long-term care insurance provides little assistance to most low-and middle-income families (Park, 2003).

This plan would primarily serve as "another tax-cut benefit disproportionately geared toward high income individuals" (Park, 2003).

Middle-class taxpayers would find that the deduction would cover no more than 10 to 15 cents of each dollar spent to purchase a long-term care insurance policy. Higher-income taxpayers would be entitled to deduct 35 percent of the cost of long-term insurance (Park, 2003).

Long-term health insurance is costly and people in the top tax brackets are those most likely to already have long-term care insurance.

In addition, a second tax cut related to long-term care would allow "families caring for a family member with long-term care needs to claim an additional personal exemption" (Park, 2003).

This deduction would benefit higher-income individuals as the value "of the additional personal exemption -- like the value of the proposed long-term care deduction -- would vary depending on a taxpayers bracket" (Park, 2003).

Those who receive the largest subsides would be in the highest tax brackets, while middle-and low-income families would receive little or no assistance.

A better and more equitable alternative would be a refundable tax credit to "help subsidize a family's long-term care expenses" (Park, 2003).

As tax credits do not vary by brackets, taxpayers who most need help in subsidizing the cost of long-term insurance would be provided help in covering these costs, "rather than shutting out those most in need and providing a subsidy that grows as taxpayer's income rises" (Park, 2003).

Unfortunately, there are no action being taken by the Bush administration to make changes to their proposal. Once again, those who make the most will see the greatest benefit, while those who need help will find they are left in the cold.

The proposed budget also cuts daycare funding for the working poor. Bush, in his proposed budget asked for $4.8 billion in childcare subsides, which reflects current funding levels.

Congress took action and added $2 billion, over five years, to the president's request, still far short of the amount needed to help the working poor care for their children.

It is important to remember that while congress has increased daycare funding, it "also boosts work requirements for people coming off welfare from 25 to 40 hours a week" (Dale, 2003). The bottom line is that as states budgets shrink, there is an increased need for funds to help pay for childcare.

Gov. Gary Locke, WA, recently cut $35 million "in child care and support programs from the state's welfare-to-work program, including $8 million in child care subsidies for the working poor" (Dale, 2003).

Maryland cut $25 million from its childcare subsidies, and Pennsylvania has added 400 low-income families in 2003 to a subsidized daycare waiting list that now totals 2,527 (Dale, 2003). As more and more states are faced with dwindling resources, the money available to help low-income families pay for daycare helps fewer and fewer people.

At a time when the welfare to work program is requiring parents to work more hours, funding to care for children is being cut, from both the federal and state levels.

"Child-care spending is at least $5 billion below what is necessary to care for kids whose mothers must work under new welfare reform mandates" (Kuttner, 2003).

Other areas are suffering budget cuts as well. Last year the Forest Service spent nearly $1.5 billion fighting fires. The Forest Service, already facing a deficit of more than $300 million, was allocated only $420 to fight fires this year.

Programs affected include "watershed and habitat improvement, road repairs and restoration of areas damaged by previous fires" (Daly, 2003). In order to meet its budget, the Forest Service will transfer $612 million from funds now targeted for fire prevention and suppression (Daly, 2003).

Congress has also cut by half the federal funding states need to incarcerate illegal immigrants who commit crimes (Gehrke, 2003). In 1995, then Gov. George Bush said "if the federal government cannot do its job of enforcing the borders...then it owes the states monies to pay for its failures" (Gehrke, 2003).

In 2003 Bush is recommending eliminating the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, the very program he supported in 1995. States that share borders with Mexico increasingly have had to raise local taxes to pay the costs of ineffective federal border policies.

Bush's proposed education outlay for No Child Left Behind is $600 million below inflation adjustments and "a startling $9.4 billion below the spending that Bush's own legislation authorizes" (Kuttner, 2003).

The list of agencies and programs that are dealing with massive funding cuts from the federal government is widespread. Health services, highways, daycare subsidies, and education are only a few programs suffering budget cuts this year.

Even with these cuts the government will still be running yearly deficits of over $300 billion. Most, if not all of these cuts are being proposed to help offset the affects of the Bush tax cut proposal, a plan which will reduce the taxes of the wealthiest Americans, while cutting services to the poorest in our country.

The Savings Plan

Bush's tax proposal seeks to effect savings plans and pensions. Included is a savings incentive plan that will have adverse affects on most working Americans' pension plans.

Currently, this element has moved to the backburner by the Bush administration, but it has not been completely removed from the package. This savings proposal could very well wipe out employer funded pension plans, plans which were legislated by congress to balance the rewards paid to executives and workers alike.

The "Savings Incentives" plan unveiled by the Bush Administration contains budget gimmicks, benefits high-income individuals, erodes employer-sponsored pensions for ordinary workers and will reduce by massive amounts federal revenues over the long run (Greenstein & Friedman, 2003). This proposal contains three new savings vehicles:

It replaces existing IRA's with Retirement Savings Accounts, which would operate in much the same way Roth IRA'S work. Under a Roth IRA there is no up front deduction for a contribution, but earnings in the Roth grow tax-free and no tax is paid on funds when they are withdrawn (Greenstein & Friedman, 2003).

The creation of new "Lifetime Savings Accounts." These LSAs would operate much like the RSAs with the exception that the funds could be withdrawn at any time and used for any purpose (Greenstein & Friedman, 2003).

Creation of Employer Retirement Savings Accounts. These ERSAs would work in "essentially the same way as existing 401(k) accounts, although the proposal includes certain changes that would weaken protections for low- and moderate-income workers" (Greenstein & Friedman, 2003).

"Under current law, taxpayers may not make deposits in Roth IRA's if their incomes exceeds $160,000 for married couples [and $110,000 for singles]" (Greenstein & Friedman, 2003). These limits were written into the law as economic research showed that deposits made by high-income individuals generally are a shifting of savings from taxable investments to tax-free accounts. This new Roth proposal would provide those at high-income levels with yet another tax break (Greenstein & Friedman, 2003).

This new plan would allow wealthy couples (incomes over $160,000), who currently are prohibited from investing in Roth IRA's, to place up to $15,000 a year in an RSA. All income from the investment, no matter what the source, would be permanently tax- free.

For instance, an investment by a wealthy couple of $30,000 a year, with a seven- percent rate of return, would in 20 years be able to earn $716,000 in tax-free investment income, under current law that income would be taxable. The loss of revenues to the federal government will place a huge strain in coming decades (Greenstein & Friedman, 2003).

LSA's would provide another vehicle for tax-free investment. Up to $7,500 per household member could be deposited into these accounts, in addition to deposits made into RSA's. Once again, no matter how high the income, the savings plan would be available, and any interest earned would be tax-free.

Unlike the RSA's the LSA's would allow individuals to withdraw money at any time, for any reason. Combining the LSA and RSA investment, a family of four could deposit up to $45,000 a year and permanently earn tax-free income.

As noted, the income initially used to start these accounts would be subject to taxes, the ensuing interest income would be permanently tax-free. The result of this is a shift of revenue losses into the future, when revenues are withdrawn tax-free.

Basically, this is a budget gimmick that appears to have no cost, but in reality has grave consequences for future generations. This proposal, coupled with the Administration's proposal to repeal the estate tax, "would allow wealthy individuals to secure large amounts of investment income tax free and then pass it on to their heirs tax free" (Greenstein & Friedman, 2003).

Under current law executives and owners who put more than $6,000 a year into retirement or savings accounts must offer a pension plan to employees. By using the new RSA's and LSA's, executives and business owners would not have to offer a retirement plan through their firm.

This weakens federal laws which were designed to "prevent owners and executives from concentrating an overwhelming share of business' retirement contributions on themselves and shortchanging their workers" (Greenstein & Friedman, 2003).

The new employer-base retirement plan proposal would also repeal a rule that requires small business' to set up retirement plans for low-paid workers if they "set up a plan that directs most of its retirement contributions to top officials" (Greenstein & Friedman, 2003). Even more importantly, over time, fewer employer-sponsored retirement plans will be offered to middle- and low-paid workers.

Owners and highly compensated executives would be able to "place huge sums in tax-sheltered retirement and saving accounts" (Greenstein & Friedman, 2003) while avoiding a company sponsored plan for rank and file workers.

"Federal pension law essentially establishes a social contract. Generous tax breaks are allowed for contributions to employer-sponsored retirement plans, including very large contributions on behalf of owners and executives" (Greenstein & Friedman, 2003).

Firms who take advantage of these tax breaks must also follow federal rules which have been designed to make sure that some contributions, even modest, are made on behalf of ordinary workers (Greenstein & Friedman, 2003).

The savings proposals outlined above not only creates a way for the wealthiest in this country to invest their money tax-free; this plan breaks the social contract with those who are middle- to low-income workers.

Ordinary Americans would "be harmed in multiple ways: from the federal budget deficits that the plan would enlarge and the slower economic growth, higher long-term interest rates and/or budget cuts in programs that benefit them that would ultimately ensue: from the state budget cuts and/or tax increases that many states would have to institute to make up for the revenue losses they would incur; and from the reductions in pension coverage for some workers" (Greenstein & Friedman, 2003).

The Future

Nobel economists, wealthy investors, business groups and members of congress are warning that this proposed tax cut plan needs to be abandoned and replaced with "a long-term budget-balancing drive that should include tax increases" (Fram, 2003).

The nonpartisan policy organization, the Committee for Economic Development, has stated, "Deficits matter -- they lead to less investment, less productivity and a lower future stand of living" (Fram, 2003).

The tax cut proposal Bush is pushing is losing more and more support as time goes on, not for political reasons, but because his plan is fundamentally flawed, weakens our already shaky economy and disproportionately benefits the wealthiest income earners in this nation.

Warren E. Buffett, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, has stated that this tax proposal would unfairly benefit wealthy individuals. According to Buffet, the proposed tax plan would reduce his tax bill by $300 million a year, "meaning he would pay proportionately less in taxes than his secretary" (Bloomberg News, 2003).

Nobel economist George Akerlof has stated, "there is wide agreement that [the Bush plan's] purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near term...Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation's projected chronic deficits" (Powell, 2003).

In response to President Bush's most recent State of the Union Message, New York Times writer Bob Herbert states, "Despite rising unemployment, the president's plan for the economy (is) ...a continuation of his tax-cut mania" (Herbert, 2003).

Herbert also points out that the tax cut proposal by Bush does nothing to help create jobs or economic stimulus, there is no help to states and local governments who are now struggling with the worst fiscal crisis faced since 1946 and curtails health services to the elderly.

The Bush tax proposal also does not address the alternative minimum tax, a tax that will effect 85 percent of taxpayers with two or more children. The AMT, originally designed to make sure that the rich would pay at least a minimum in taxes, was never indexed for inflation, and currently it only applies to 1.8 million taxpayers.

In 2010, 36 million taxpayers making between $75,000 and $100,000, with two or more children will be forced to pay the AMT tax. The AMT tax will not allow parents to claim exemptions for their children and also disallows deductions for state taxes. The tax rate under the AMT is 26 to 35 percent, resulting in almost a complete loss of the proposed tax cuts under the Bush tax proposal (Burman, et al., 2002).

Further, "this shift in who pays the alternative tax explains why those making $75,000 to $200,000 will pay a larger share of all income taxes in 2010, while those making $1 million or more will pay less" (Burman, et al., 2002). To "fix" this tax will cost as much as "$951 billion over the next decade" (Burman, et al., 2002).

If the Bush tax proposal becomes law, adjusting the AMT will result in even more decreases to federal revenues. If the AMT is not adjusted, most middle- and upper-class taxpayers will find they will be paying tax rates higher than those with incomes over $1 million.

At a time when unemployment is rising and workers wages are shrinking, the Bush administration is doing little if anything to help those Americans in the middle- or low-income levels. "The rising costs of benefits, especially health insurance and retirement plans, (continue) to outpace any increases in wages and salaries (Strope, 2003).

As layoff announcements from American companies rise, those who do have jobs find the Bush administration revamping labor regulations which will result in workers losing overtime pay, a change in labor law which does not require Congressional action. Additionally, Bush is proposing to cut $144 million earmarked for employment and training programs (Associated Press, 2003).

The Bush tax cut proposal is at best a giveaway to those at the very highest income levels in America. Those Americans who are in the middle- to low-income levels will see little if any federal tax relief, rather, most will see their state and local taxes go up which will result in a higher tax rate.

Henry J. Aaron, Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution, when testifying before The Joint Economic Committee in Congress stated "the Administration's program will reduce growth of national income by ever larger amounts" (Aaron, 2002).

Aaron also stated, "To call attention to such distributional patterns is sometimes labeled 'class warfare.' But if class warfare is present, it is initiated by those who insist on cutting taxes disproportionately for the wealthy while pleading poverty when asked to provide aid to states now forced to cut poor children and elderly from the Medicaid rolls, suspend social services and curtail public library services.

Those of us who call attention to who gains and who loses are not engaging in class warfare; we are merely reporting news from the front of the actions of those who have initiated hostilities" (Aaron, 2002).

Higher deficits, reduced health care services, decreased funding for education, roads and childcare services are being offered as the sacrifices that low- and middle-income Americans will bear, while the wealthiest of this country will burden decreased tax liability, higher incomes and future tax free investments.

There is no doubt that the tax proposal being presented by Bush creates inequity in our country, now and for decades to come.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Works Cited

Aaron, Henry. Testimony to The Joint Economic Committee. 26 Feb. 2002

Andrews, Edmund L. "A salesman for Bush's tax plan who has belittled similar ideas." The New York Times 28 Feb. 2003

Bernasek, Anna. "Bushonomics: The Reagan tax cuts offer clues to what's in store for us." Fortune 19 Feb. 2001: p126

"Buffett tells democrats tax cut favors rich." Bloomberg News 14 March 2003

Burman, Leonard, et al. "Tax Sideshow Threatens to Become One Ring Circus." Tax Policy Center 18 September 2002. Click Here

"Bush administration revamps labor regulations." The Associated Press 1 Feb. 2003 Dale, Maryclaire.

"Child care costs strain working poor." The Associated Press 5 March 2003

Daly, Mathew. "Forest service could face huge deficit." The Associated Press 5 March 2003

Fram, Alan. "Business group urges deficit control." The Associated Press 5 March 2003

Gale, William G. and Peter R. Orszag. "The President's Tax Proposal: Second Thoughts." Tax Policy Center: Tax Analysts: Tax Notes 27 Jan. 2003. Click Here

Gehrke, Robert. "Congress cuts aid for jailing aliens." The Associate Press 15 Feb. 2003

Goldstein, Amy and Jonathan Weisman. "Bush seeks to recast Federal Ties to the poor." Washington Post 9 Feb. 2003: pA1

Greenstein, Robert and Joel Friedman. "Proposed 'Savings Incentives' Would Cause Revenue Hemorrhage in Future Decades: Proposal Would Heavily Benefit Wealthy Taxpayers, While Weakening Pension Coverage for Workers and Shirting Costs to Future Generations." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 5 Feb. 2003. 8 Feb. 2003 Click Here

Greenstein, Robert and Richard Kogan. "Cutting $10 Billion in Appropriations for Poverty and Other Programs While Promoting a $670 Billion Tax Cut: Does this Represent Fiscal Discipline and Balanced Policy? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 17 Jan. 2003 Click Here

Hage, David and Robert F. Black. "A hardheaded budget play." U.S. News & World Report 23 Jan. 1995: p50

Herbert, Bob. "Bait and switch." The New York Times 30 Jan. 2003

"House Republican budget contains large cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and other domestic programs." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 13 March 2003 Click Here

Kosterlitz, Julie. "Taxing questions about life after debt." National Journal 3 Feb. 2001:p330

Kuttner, Robert. "The compassionate conservative's bait-and-switch budget." Business Week 10 March 2003

"Law of Averages" Washington Post 21 Feb. 2003: pA26

Lav, Iris J. "The state fiscal crisis is impeding economic growth; federal aid to states would Be most effective stimulus." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 18 Feb. 2003 Click Here

McKenna, Barrie. "Bush budget calls for record deficits." Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. 4 Feb. 2003: B9 Click Here

Meckler, Laura. "75 million uninsured in 2001-02." The Associated Press 5 March 2003

Meckler, Laura. "Medicaid plan comes under Democratic fire." The Associated Press 12 Feb. 2003

Miller, John. "Getting back more than they give." Dollars & Sense Sept. 2001: p60

Park, Edwin. "Administration proposes long-term care insurance deduction and other health tax cuts that are likely to be ineffective and primarily benefit higher income individuals." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 5 March 2003

Powell, Bonnie Azab. "Horrendous: Nobel economist George Akerlof criticizes Bush administration's economic stimulus package." UC Berkeley News 12 Feb 2003

"Squeezing the poor." Washington Post 16 Feb. 2003: pB6

Strope, Leigh. "New jobless claims rise for 2nd week." The Associated Press 8 Feb. 2003

"White House wants to end housing program." The Associated Press 6 Feb. 2003