PAD 510 WEEK 10 ASSIGNMENT 4 POWER POINT Using Assignments 1, 2, and 3, create a 6–8-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you: Provide a historical perspective of the policy from Assignment 1. Describe the official and unofficial actors of the policy from Assignment 2. Present both of the positions of the policy from Assignment 3. Persuade the audience that the position you have chosen is worthy of the policy being implemented. Include at least four peer-reviewed references (no more than five years old) from material outside the textbook. Note: Appropriate peer-reviewed references include scholarly articles and governmental websites. Wikipedia, other wikis, and any other websites ending in anything other than “.gov” do not qualify as peer-reviewed. Use Basic Search: Strayer University Online Library to identify references. Your assignment must include: Title slide with the name of the policy, your name, and date. Reference slide with at least four peer-reviewed references, formatted according to the Strayer Writing Standards. 6–8 slides (the title slide and reference slide are not included in this number). Icampus.strater.edu Login: LC9468652853 Password: [email protected] If Need Be! Running Head: BUSH TAX CUTS 1 BUSH TAX CUTS 6 Bush Tax Cuts Delores Blango Strayer University Dr. Timothy Smith PAD 510 May 29, 2020 Bush Tax Cuts Position in favor of the Policy: The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts policy was meant to reduce marginal income tax rates and capital gains and dividends. All taxpayers got a reduction in their tax rates depending on their income thresholds. Additionally, the estate tax was completely phased out until 2010. These changes provided significant benefits to the middle class, who got their tax rates reduced by a margin of 3 to 5 percent. This fact means that people in the middle class got to keep a larger share of their salaries and improve their livelihoods. Additionally, all American citizens benefit from a child credit tax rising from $500 to $1000 per child. This change made it easier for low-income families to support their children adequately by providing for their basic needs. Further, there was a marriage penalty relief provision that resulted in the doubling of the basic standard deduction for couples that jointly owned property. The stated changes lessened the financial burden placed on American citizens. Before the policy, low-income households had to pay a 15 percent tax rate to the government. This condition left a majority of low-income families struggling to meet their financial needs. The Bush tax cuts lowered their tax returns to 10 percent, allowing these families to comfortably budget their overall income (Hungerford, 2010). Additionally, the child credit tax made it easier for parents to meet the basic needs of their children. In the American commun.

1. PAD 510 WEEK 10 ASSIGNMENT 4 POWER POINT
Using Assignments 1, 2, and 3, create a 6–8-slide PowerPoint
presentation in which you:
Provide a historical perspective of the policy from Assignment
1.
Describe the official and unofficial actors of the policy from
Assignment 2.
Present both of the positions of the policy from Assignment 3.
Persuade the audience that the position you have chosen is
worthy of the policy being implemented.
Include at least four peer-reviewed references (no more than
five years old) from material outside the textbook. Note:
Appropriate peer-reviewed references include scholarly articles
and governmental websites. Wikipedia, other wikis, and any
other websites ending in anything other than “.gov” do not
qualify as peer-reviewed. Use Basic Search: Strayer University
Online Library to identify references.
Your assignment must include:
Title slide with the name of the policy, your name, and date.
Reference slide with at least four peer-reviewed references,
formatted according to the Strayer Writing Standards.
6–8 slides (the title slide and reference slide are not included in
this number).
Icampus.strater.edu
Login: LC9468652853
Password: [email protected]
If Need Be!
Running Head: BUSH TAX CUTS
1
BUSH TAX CUTS
6

2. Bush Tax Cuts
Delores Blango
Strayer University
Dr. Timothy Smith
PAD 510
May 29, 2020
Bush Tax Cuts
Position in favor of the Policy:
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts policy was meant to reduce
marginal income tax rates and capital gains and dividends. All
taxpayers got a reduction in their tax rates depending on their
income thresholds. Additionally, the estate tax was completely
phased out until 2010. These changes provided significant
benefits to the middle class, who got their tax rates reduced by a
margin of 3 to 5 percent. This fact means that people in the
middle class got to keep a larger share of their salaries and
improve their livelihoods. Additionally, all American citizens
benefit from a child credit tax rising from $500 to $1000 per
child. This change made it easier for low-income families to
support their children adequately by providing for their basic
needs. Further, there was a marriage penalty relief provision

3. that resulted in the doubling of the basic standard deduction for
couples that jointly owned property.
The stated changes lessened the financial burden placed on
American citizens. Before the policy, low-income households
had to pay a 15 percent tax rate to the government. This
condition left a majority of low-income families struggling to
meet their financial needs. The Bush tax cuts lowered their tax
returns to 10 percent, allowing these families to comfortably
budget their overall income (Hungerford, 2010). Additionally,
the child credit tax made it easier for parents to meet the basic
needs of their children. In the American community, children
are a vital asset. Low income and middle-class families
benefited from this policy since they could invest the extra $500
in education and sustaining the livelihood of these children.
Conclusively, the tax cuts improved the livelihoods of American
citizens across the board through better financial planning of
their added income.
Position against the Policy:
Despite the good intentions of the policy, it did not deliver
as expected. The policy's primary aim was to ensure that
Americans were living comfortably, even in times of economic
hardships. The policy promised to create new jobs, potentially
generate new federal wealth, and allow for the creation of new
opportunities for businesses. In the first month of the policy’s
implementation, the economy recorded a boost in approximately
132 million jobs. However, in 2004, the number of available
jobs had reduced to 131 million (Hungerford, 2010).
Additionally, within the first 3 years of its implementation, no
new jobs had been added into the market. Further, organizations
were required to pay their employees a better income. Instead,
more people lost their jobs as a result of the policy. According
to research, the labour market became fragile, with the number
of people that were unemployed for more than 6 months
significantly increasing. The condition grew worse in the 2007
recession with a record 4.3 percent of the labor force being laid
off. As a result, by October 2009, the unemployment rate had

4. hit an alarming 10.2 percent. The government did little to
stimulate the economy despite the end of the recession.
The American people felt that the tax cuts had done little for
their financial position. The promises made by the government
were not met, leaving the American citizens in a more difficult
position. Loss of employment primarily affected the lower-
income homes and part of the middle class. With the loss of
income, the poverty rates in the country rose. There was a
significant impact on the livelihoods of American citizens. The
results reflected on the nation’s GDP. The federal government’s
budget got into debts that required taxpayers to give back more
in the form of taxes. However, this was impossible since the
policy was built to last until 2010.
Response Argument in Favor of the Policy:
The stability and reliability of a government are heavily
dependent on the comfort of its citizens. Despite its attempts to
allow all citizens to live in comfort, the policy benefited the
high-income taxpayers better than it did the lower-income
majority. The top 1 percent that made over $374, 000 got tax
cuts of approximately $50, 000 annually. By the end of the
feasibility of the policy, this population got cuts of
approximately $570,000. Ironically, the lower-income
households got cuts of up to 5 percent. However, since they are
low-income households, this did not accumulate to a significant
decrease in the long run. The high-income earners got a 6.7
percent increase in their income, while the middle 20 percent
got a 2.8 percent increase (Hungerford, 2012). The lower-
income class, which accounts for the larger percentage of
American citizens, only got a 1 percent increase in their
income. Conclusively, despite the good intentions of the
government, the result of the tax cuts became counterproductive
for those it was meant to benefit.
Response Argument against the Policy:
The unemployment rates came as a result of the unforeseen
consequences of the policy. The Bush administration had over-
promised without taking into account the static nature of

5. America’s economy. The tax cuts were supposed to pay
themselves through increased economic growth. However,
instead of increased economic growth, the country faced a
recession that resulted in lower tax revenues. As the
government made promises, the treasury estimated that the
policy would only make a 10 percent return to the government
at best (Ettlinger & Linden, 2013). Additionally, the idea was to
ensure that high-income households gave as much as they
benefited from the tax cuts. However, the 3 years into the
policy’s implementation, the government got into larger
economic deficits and debts. The result was an increase in
income inequality that led to the larger low-income population
losing their jobs in order to sustain businesses.
Evidence suggests that economic expansion during Bush’s
administration was less than average. Reports suggest that the
impact the policy had was mediocre on the American economy.
Literature made a comparison between tax rises of the 1990s
and Bush’s tax cuts policies. The tax increases resulted in faster
job growth and a significant boost in the economy. Lastly, the
decreased dividends rates on businesses had little impact on
business investments and employment rates. Employees'
compensation after 2003 significantly reduced, and multiple
people lost their jobs. Conclusively, the Bush tax cut policy
hurt the American citizens' financial position. While it was
expected to increase the income range of the vast majority, the
population that needed it the most only got a 1 percent raise.
Those that already had financial stability got a 6.7 percent
increase in their income.
In conclusion, the Bush administration eventually became a
liability for American citizens rather than an economic boost.
The situation got worse in 2007. The American economy
struggled to get back on track in 2009 and 2010. The
disappointment posed by this policy was a result of over-
optimism in a policy that was dependent on the economy, a
factor that is constantly changing.

6. References
Hungerford, T. L. (2010). The Bush Tax Cuts and the Economy.
DIANE Publishing. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41393.pdf
Hungerford, T. L. (2012). The 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts
and Deficit Reduction. Congressional Research Service.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42020.pdf
Horton, E. (2017). The Legacy of the 2001 and 2003 ‘Bush’Tax
Cuts. Washington: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/3-31-
17tax.pdf
Linden, M., & Ettlinger, M. (2013, July 1). Three good reasons
to let the high-end Bush tax cuts disappear this year. Center for
American Progress.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2010/0
7/29/8166/three-good-reasons-to-let-the-high-end-bush-tax-
cuts-disappear-this-year/
Running head: BUSH TAX CUTS 1
BUSH TAX CUTS 6

7. Bush Tax Cuts
Delores Blango
Strayer University
Dr. Timothy Smith
PAD 510
May 15, 2020
Bush Tax Cuts
Policy Summary
Tax cut policies discussed in George W. Bush and Obama’s
presidency are some of the biggest changes in tax policy to
occur in the history of the United States. The initial policies
were the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2003(JGTRRA) enacted during President
Bush’s administration (Horton, 2017). These were later
followed by the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance
Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 and the
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed under Obama’s
leadership.
The reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cut was to effectively
utilize the budget surplus that came about during the
presidential term of Bill Clinton. Additionally, the Americans
had a large tax burden that needed to be relieved. More so, the
low income earners had to pay a large tax percentage for their
low wages. The tax cut were also meant to increase economic
growth by ensuring that Americans had a large disposable
income that could be used in investment. However, Horton
(2017) argues that the tax cuts see to have been more beneficial
to the top 1% whose income after tax increased by over 5% per
annum.
The tax cut discussions continued into President Obama’s era
due to the sunset provisions in the Bush Tax Cut. After year
2010, the country was supposed to go back to using the old
system but this would place more burdens on the low income

8. households (Wamhoff & Gardner, 2018). The policies passed by
Obama tries to create income equality by lowering tax for low
income households and increasing taxes for the top 1%. Obama
not only concentrated on lower taxes but also on increasing
wage rate and productivity through the Tax Relief,
Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation
Act.
Stakeholder
The Presidents involved in the development of the tax policies
are some of the primary stakeholders. President George W.
Bush in his campaign had promised the Americans to relief
them on the tax burden and, therefore had to fulfill his promise.
Additionally, the country, at the time, was experiencing a
slower economic growth, which he attributed to the lack of a
disposable income among Americans that could be used in
investments. Bush’s argument was that the strategy would help
release more of the income for the Americans so they would
have a little more to save and invest in various sectors of the
economy.
The U.S Congressional leaders also make up part of the
stakeholders in the development of these policies. President
Obama felt that the policies should be made through the
combined efforts of the Democrats and the Republicans. While
the Republicans felt that the Bush Tax Cuts should be extended,
the Republicans felt that the tax cuts were creating more
problems than solution for the American economy. The
Republican brought to light the negative effect of the tax costs
such as the increased debt of the country. Furthermore, they
took note of the increased income inequality between the low
and high income families, requiring that a solution be sought for
the matter.
The combined efforts between the Republicans and the
Democrats led to the success in making of the policies during
Obama’s era. President Obama as a key stakeholder opted to
increase the tax rates for high income earners, while ensuring
that it remains low for the low income families. Additionally,

9. Obama’s role was to ensure that the Americans did not suffer
due to the difference in thoughts between the Republicans and
Democrats. The acts he enacted would also serve in ensuring
that the country did not slip into a recession. President Obama
successfully managed to solve the problems with the initial tax
cuts enacted in Bush’s administration.
The American citizens also have a primary interest in the
matter. They are the main group impacted by the tax cut,
whereby it would ease the tax burden. As indicated by Ballard-
Rosa, Martin, and Scheve (2017), Americans were concerned
that the taxes favored the rich, while the poor still hard a large
tax burden. There should be difference between the tax rates for
the poor and those for the rich. Most people are in agreement
with the policies by President Obama, whereby there is a
difference in the tax bracket depending on an individual’s
income group (Ballard-Rosa, Martin, & Scheve. 2017).
Economic groups in America are some of the interest groups
lobbying for tax cuts. These groups are interested in ensuring
that the economic well-being of the citizens is maintained and
that economic development is achieved. While these groups felt
that lowering taxes would do well for the citizens, they also
worried that the economy would experience a number of
setbacks such as increased debts. They also felt that cutting tax
by itself would not increase economic development and urged
the government to utilize other measures that would encourage
investment in American economic sectors.
Political Influence of the Players
The American citizens have a political influence in the
formulation of laws in the United States. Many of the political
decisions made within a country have to be acceptable to the
citizens as they people determine which leaders they would like
in the government (Dermont, Ingold, Kammermann, &
Stadelmann-Steffen, 2017). Therefore, in formulating their
policies, both presidents had to consider the reactions of the
citizens towards the intended policies. The motive of the people
is to ensure that the policy favors their well-being and

10. contributes towards the growth of their economy.
Furthermore, conflicts in the tax policy development between
the people and the government can be seen whereby the tax
increases the income inequality. The politicians make up part of
the top 1% in the American economy, whereby it seemed as if
this group was favoring itself. The reach already benefited from
other economic policies, which help them increase their income
levels, which means that they were not overburdened by the
taxes (Wamhoff & Gardner, 2018). However, during Obama’s
administration, a consensus was reached, in which income
inequality was reduced. In addition, this administration also
made reforms that sort to increase job opportunities for the
unemployed and increase the wage rates for the working class,
thus ensuring equal wealth distribution.
The U.S congress makes the policies alongside the president.
The congress members during Obama’s administration argued
that the changes to the tax after 2000 resulted to increased debts
and unequal distribution of wealth (Wamhoff & Gardner, 2018).
The congress is composed of Republicans and Democrats. The
two groups were engaged in opposite sides of a political warfare
surrounding the sunset provision of the Bush Tax Cuts. Despite
their differences in thoughts, they understood that they had to
come to an agreement that would ensure that the poor enjoyed
more tax breaks as compared to those enjoyed by the rich. Their
impact on policy making was to enact the economic recovery
legislation, which would minimize the negative effects caused
by the Bush Tax Cuts (Wamhoff & Gardner, 2018). The two
groups put aside their differences and works towards a better
economy, thus gaining the trust of the citizens during this
period.
References
Ballard-Rosa, C., Martin, L., & Scheve, K. (2017). The
structure of American income tax policy preferences. The
Journal of Politics, 79(1), 1-16.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/687324
Dermont, C., Ingold, K., Kammermann, L., & Stadelmann-

11. Steffen, I. (2017). Bringing the policy making perspective in: A
political science approach to social acceptance. Energy policy,
108, 359-368.
www.academia.edu/download/55611137/Dermont_etal_2017_En
ergyPolicy.pdf
Horton, E. (2017). The Legacy of the 2001 and 2003 ‘Bush’Tax
Cuts. Washington: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/3-31-
17tax.pdf
Wamhoff, S., & Gardner, M. (2018). Federal tax cuts in the
Bush, Obama, and Trump years. Institute on Taxation and
Economic Policy, 11.
https://prosperitynow.org/sites/default/files/event/2018-
10/ITEP-
Federal_Tax_Cuts_in_the_Bush_Obama_and_Trump_Years-
2018.pdf
Running head: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 1
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 5
Bush Tax Cuts
Delores Blango
Strayer University
Dr. Timothy Smith
PAD 510
April 25, 2020

12. Bush Tax Cuts
Policy Overview
Tax cut policies were discussed over George W. Bush and
Obama’s administrations. They were changes to the tax code,
initially passed during President George W. Bush’s presidency
and extended to Barack Obama’s presidency (Zidar, 2019).
Commonly referred to as the Bush tax cuts, they were a serried
of tax acts enacted by the congress to American families. The
Bush tax cuts included the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) (Zidar, 2019).
Due to the sunset provision in this tax cuts, there was an
extended debate which was resolved by President Barack Obama
through the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance
Reauthorization, and Job Creation At of 2010 and the American
Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (Vianna, 2017).
Historical Perspective and Urgency
The tax cuts came about from Bush’s campaign policies, in
which he had promised Americans that he would lower taxes if
elected. Upon taking office, Bush felt that the best way to use
the budget surplus that was develop in Bill Clinton’s
Administration was through lowering taxes (Gale et al., 2019).
Furthermore, Bush argued that the tax cuts would help minimize
the tax burden for the low income earners and increase the rate
of economic growth. That is, the tax burden became higher for
the rich, while the poor shoulders fewer burdens (Gale et al.,
2019). However, there were arguments that the tax cuts would
increase the national debt, which the President Bush refuted.
The Bush Tax cuts had a sunset provision, whereby the country
would revert back to the old tax system in by the end of the year
2010. There was urgency in the development of other
public policies as a way of dealing with the previous provisions.
The laws passed by President Obama’s administration helped to

13. ensure that fewer households experienced tax increases. The
biggest worry at the time was the increasing national debt,
whereby some members of the congress felt that the tax cuts
would have more adverse effects on the economy (Yuhn &
Bennett, 2016). Therefore, Obama developed a bill that not only
maintained low tax for single people and married people with
yearly incomes of not more than $400,000 and $450,000
respectively, but also provided other economic incentives that
would offset the debt.
Social, Economic, and Political Environments
The United States economy was experiencing a slow economic
growth at the time when George W. Bush became the president.
According to Yuhn and Bennett (2016) changes in tax policy
has an impact on the investment spending within a country.
Therefore, Bush’s idea was to lower the taxes for households,
which in return would increase personal disposable income.
Consequently people would have more disposable income to use
in investment, successfully driving economic growth.
Furthermore, the tax cuts were put in place when there was a
need to increase employment opportunities for Americans
(Zidar, 2019).
There was considerable political controversy surrounding the
incorporation of the tax cuts. The Democratic Party
congressional opponents criticized the cuts, arguing that it
would increase the income inequality gap (Yuhn & Bennett,
2016). On the other hand, in Obama’s presidency there was a
debate as to whether the country would revert back to the
previous legislation or the Bush tax cuts would be continued.
Republican senators argued that filibustering would be a good
strategy to prevent the development of a new legislation.
Furthermore, there were speculation that President Obama was
engaging a political triangulation at the time of these debates
before deciding to extend the tax cuts of two years.
The United States has always had social relationship networks,
in which the Americans interact with one another and give their
opinions concerning different factors affecting their country.

14. The Bush tax cuts were publicized, whereby the people debated
on whether these public policies would benefit all people or just
a portion of the society (Yuhn, & Bennett, 2016). The people
felt that the wealthy were more likely to benefit from the tax
cuts, especially because they benefited from other economic
policies. During Obama’s administration, the policy debate
came at a time when many people were using social media.
Therefore, the extension of the tax cuts was widely discussed
online, with citizens providing varying opinions.
Policy Critique
Although the Bush tax cuts did decrease the income tax for most
households, the benefits were mostly ripped by the high income
families. The tax cuts contributed to 4.1% tax rates fall for to
1% in the U.S. economy while for the rest of the Americans it
only reduced by 2%. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
Bush tax cuts were not an effective strategy as the poor still had
to deal with a high tax burden when they are receiving a low
income. However, the amendments made by the Obama’s
administration seem to yield more benefits to the country
(Vianna, 2019). They had tax cut remain low for the low income
earners, while the rest of the households continue to pay high
taxes. Additionally, the policy signed by Obama included jobs
legislation. This policy has led to an increase in capital stock,
productivity, and higher wage rates (Gale, Gelfond, Krupkin,
Mazur, & Toder, 2019).
References
Gale, W. G., Gelfond, H., Krupkin, A., Mazur, M. J., & Toder,
E. J. (2019). Effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: A
preliminary analysis. National Tax Journal, 71(4), 589-612.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/1
55349/2018.06.08_tcja_summary_paper_final.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andre_Vianna4/publicatio
n/318079731_Effects_of_Bush_Tax_Cut_and_Obama_Tax_Incr

15. ease_on_corporate_payout_policy_and_stock_returns/links/5a2f
6a464585155b617a3285/Effects-of-Bush-Tax-Cut-and-Obama-
Tax-Increase-on-corporate-payout-policy-and-stock-returns.pdf
Vianna, A. C. (2017). Effects of Bush Tax Cut and Obama Tax
Increase on corporate payout policy and stock returns. Journal
of Economics and Finance, 41(3), 441-462.
Yuhn, K. H., & Bennett, C. S. (2016). A Note On The Bush Tax
Cuts: Did They Succeed In Stimulating Business Investment?.
Macroeconomic Dynamics, 20(6), 1623-1639.
Zidar, O. (2019). Tax cuts for whom? Heterogeneous effects of
income tax changes on growth and employment. Journal of
Political Economy, 127(3), 1437-1472.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/zidar/files/tax_c
uts_for_whom_oct2017.pdf