A Taxing Presidency: A Critique of the George W. Bush Tax Policy

By Chelsey E. Hay
2010, Vol. 2 No. 05 | pg. 1/1

Now that President George W. Bush has completed his two terms in office, it is only natural that political scientists and historians are in the process of completing retrospective analyses of the last eight years of leadership under the Republican president. From the start, Bush made his intentions very clear by outlining his goal to lower taxes for every American citizen. Bush made this policy central in his campaign for the presidency and then sought to get tax cuts through Congress immediately upon assuming office. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 (hereafter Tax Policy) was the first tax reform policy that President Bush pushed through Congress and was followed by more tax cuts in 2003. The tax policies of President Bush did more to enhance the pockets of wealthy Americans instead of the lower to middle class families on the United States.

President Bush toured the country upon assuming office in 2001 in order to gain American public support for his tax cut initiatives. The White House promoted the Tax Policy as a sweeping change for the lower to middle class families of America: “In terms of who will have their life changed the most by a tax cut, it’s clearly the people at the low and middle end of the income scale, because this represents a huge surge in their income.”1 Although President Bush advertised the Tax Policy as an across the board cut of taxes for all Americans, the reality is that the Tax Policy, and subsequent tax cut initiatives, pushed by President Bush and enacted by Congress gave the greatest amount of benefits to the top tax bracket, which houses the wealthiest Americans. In addition to the income tax, President Bush imposed other tax cuts that were aimed to help big businesses and wealthy Americans keep more of their money.

This essay will look at how President Bush gained support for his tax policies, how he was able to push them through Congress, what the tax policies did exactly, and what the long term effects of his tax policies are. Despite the fact that the media demonized the tax policies of the Bush administration, most people do not know the exact nature of the tax policies, how they came to be law, or what their actual effects were. In an effort to clear up the confusion, this essay will approach the tax policies of the Bush administration step by step, with no detail left uncovered.

Mustering Support for the Tax Policy

During the campaign for the presidency, Bush relied heavily upon his promise to reduce taxes to get him elected; Bush believed that tax cuts were the answer to all economic issues, whether they would stimulate a recession by encouraging Americans to spend more or reward citizens for a booming economy.2 Bush spent an amazing amount of time demonizing the budget surplus that had been created by the tax policy of the Clinton Administration in order to lay the groundwork for the tax cuts he so desperately wanted to enact during his presidency. Still, Bush had a considerable amount of work ahead of him in order to convince the country and Congress to enact his tax cuts. Correlating with his goal to reward the American public, Bush advocated “supply-side” economics which dictates that lower income taxes supply Americans with larger discretionary spending budgets, which eventually facilitates a consumer driven economy. This doctrine was denounced as “voodoo economics” by George H. W. Bush while he was in office and has had a long history of controversy.3

Onc, in retaliation e he had taken office, President Bush hired Karl Rove and Karen Hughes as “strategic thinkers” to ensure that public knowledge and support of Bush initiatives was prevalent.4 In an effort to pass his Tax Policy, President Bush toured the country, gave speeches in key states and did his best to rally the support of the public. President Bush personally attacked members of Congress and purposefully withheld support from Republicans if they did not support the Tax Policy.5 Although this political strategy seemed appropriate, the methods Bush implemented to pressure Congressmen into voting for his bill, or punishing them for not voting for it, actually alienated many members of Congress. The strategy became so forceful that Senator James Jeffords of Vermont resigned from the Republican Party and became an Independent. The Bush administration’s efforts to eliminate a dairy program that was vital to the state of Vermont, in retaliation for his vote in favor of a smaller version of the Tax Policy, became too much for the senator to stomach.6 The methods used by Bush and his administration to acquire votes worked primarily along party lines and almost always alienated Democrats.

In order to directly persuade the public, President Bush held numerous press conferences and question and answer forums. The audiences at the forums could only enter the venue if they were supporters of Bush and were required to look like ordinary citizens, usually dressed in business casual attire. They were also required to ask specific questions that Bush was prepared to answer.7 This setting allowed for a positively skewed perception of the Tax Policy to reach Americans through the mass media. Through the “public” forums, press conferences, and media coverage, President Bush and his administration informed the public that they would receive a tax cut of $1,100 if the Tax Policy was enacted.8 This number proved to be inaccurate since many Americans did not receive any tax cut, since the 15 percent tax bracket remained intact, and most families only received a tax cut of about $100 per year. In reality, the reduction of the top tax bracket accounted for the inflated average that was reported to the American public. The Tax Policy that the Bush administration put forth was promoted as a way to repay the American public for all of the taxes the Clinton administration had taken from them. Since a surplus in the budget existed when George W. Bush took office, he believed it was only natural that the citizens of the United States received this money in the form of tax cuts, tax exemptions, and tax credits.9

The Tax Policy of 2001 and the Tax Cuts of 2003

Despite his relentless campaigning, President Bush did not receive much public support for his tax policies and therefore could not expect the Democrats to vote for his bill. In order to get the votes he needed to pass the Tax Policy bill, President Bush was forced to alter his proposed tax plan and accept smaller tax cuts that equaled $320 billion, allow for the cuts to be temporary, and have the tax cuts slowly phased in through 2006. President Bush had hoped for a tax cut that would equal $726 billion, eliminate stock dividend taxes, and be permanent.10 President Bush was forced to compromise on his Tax Policy because otherwise he would have suffered a strategic loss in Congress on his first major initiative as President. In order to portray a united Republican Party and a victory in Congress, President Bush pushed the Tax Policy through with the major revisions.11

The $320 billion tax cut the American public received was projected, after Congress had enacted the Tax Policy, to cost the United States approximately $1 trillion over a ten year span.12 President Bush and his administration did not consider the true cost of his tax cut policies, but instead pushed the measures through Congress as quickly as possible to capture a victory for the new President. Therefore, Congress enacted the Tax Policy, and subsequent tax cuts, without considering an accurate cost-benefit analysis.13 Although most members of Congress realized the Tax Policy would drain the budget surplus that was left by the Clinton tax policy, it would have been helpful for a true cost-benefit analysis in order to determine whether tax cuts were worth the budget deficit they would create. The perception at the time, a view that President Bush had worked hard to create, was that the budget surplus was large enough to sustain the proposed Tax Policy.14

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was enacted on June 7, 2001 during the first year of the first term of the George W. Bush presidency. The Tax Policy of 2001 drastically lowered taxes on income (mostly in the top tax brackets), altered taxes paid on gifts, created eventual exemptions for estate taxes upon death, altered tax guidelines for retirement plans and created tax credits for citizens that had filed their taxes on time in 2000. 15 The first tax cut of the Bush administration eliminated $320 billion in taxes on the American people that would be phased in over time, scheduled to begin in 2002 and end in 2010. A brand new tax bracket of 10 percent was created to ease some of the tax burden on low income individuals and families, the 15 percent bracket largely remained the same despite expanded income qualifications, the previous 28 percent bracket was gradually reduced to 25 percent, the 31 percent bracket gradually replaced the previous 28 percent bracket, the 36 percent bracket was reduced to 33 percent, and the 39.6 percent bracket was gradually reduced to 35 percent, with all of the changes set to reach their maximum in 2006.16 The gradual reductions of the tax brackets, which were set to reach maturity in 2006, were accelerated by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (hereafter “Tax Cuts of 2003”), an additional tax cut that was enacted into law on May 23, 2003.17

As shown in the previous charts, it appears as if the poor, or lowest brackets on the list, received the biggest tax cuts of all the tax brackets. In reality, the wealthiest individuals in the top bracket received the largest tax cuts; lower-income citizens did receive tax cuts, but the reduction in income tax did not markedly expand the incomes of individuals, married couples or families in the lower tax brackets.18 Although the Tax Policy had been publicized by President Bush as a way to repay the citizens of the United States, many within the Bush administration understood the tax policies to reward the wealthy business owners of America.19 Many criticisms have been geared towards the obvious inequalities within the tax policies of the Bush administration and the fact that wealthy Americans received more substantial tax cuts than the lower and middle classes.20

Another aspect of the Tax Policy was the tax credits issued to citizens of the United States that had filed their taxes on time in 2000 or those that had filed for an extension and had sent their returns to the Internal Revenue Service in a timely manner. Single filers without dependents were eligible for a $300 tax rebate, single parents were eligible for a $500 rebate and married couples were eligible for a $600 rebate. Also, the Tax Policy introduced an expansion of the child credit to $1000 which was previous capped at $500 for qualifying Americans; this credit was phased in over a period of 10 years. The Tax Policy also doubled the amount of standard deduction for married couples (which had been called the “Marriage Penalty Relief”), increased the Individual Retirement Account (IRA), 401(k), and other contribution limits, allowed for a “catch up” provision for individuals 50 or older on pensions, increased the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) exemption amount for four years, gradually reduced and eventually eliminated the “death tax” in 2010, created incentives to invest in education savings accounts, and created an adoption tax credit. 21 The elimination of the “death tax” benefitted a few very wealthy families in the United States and made it easier for them to inherit large fortunes from generation to generation without being taxed at a reasonable rate. The “death tax” had been advertised as a tax against all Americans which would cause modest families to lose their family-owned businesses. In reality, only the top one percent of families in the United States were subject to the “death tax,” but President Bush skillfully found a way to remove this tax in order to help the wealthy Republicans that had gotten him into office.

The Tax Policy of 2001 was a huge success for the Bush presidential legacy since he was able to accomplish one of his campaign goals, appeal to the general public for drastically lowered taxes, and facilitate the upper class, mainly the wealthy business owners whom Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney relied on for campaign finance. This policy initiative was very close to the heart of the new President since it was a major campaign promise he had used while running for the presidency against Al Gore. Since President Bush had promised the American public he would lower taxes during his campaign, it was necessary for Bush to achieve his tax cuts in order to prove his relevance, due to the messy election against Gore, and influence as the president.22 If Bush had been unable to enact his Tax Policy it would have been a huge embarrassment for the President, especially since he spent so much time and energy campaigning around the United States after his inauguration to muster support for the measure. This tactic of campaigning may have backfired on the President since he was forced to compromise because of all the attention he had brought upon himself and his Tax Policy; if the measure had failed, the American mass media would have reported the failure of the Tax Policy and the public would have viewed the adminstration as weak and incapable.

Also, the success of a large tax cut in his first term signaled to the American public that the Democrats no longer controlled Congress, therefore they were not entitled to use the surplus money for social welfare programs, and that the Republican Party was unified behind the president.23 The unity of the Republican Party was an important message to convey to the American public because of the fact that the previous Clinton administration had been plagued with controversy, disunity within the Democratic Party, a sex scandal culminating in an impeachment, and had trouble pushing measures through Congress. Since President Bush was able to prove that the Republican Party was united behind his every measure, the American public felt more secure with the government.24

Although President Bush was unable to secure his entire tax policy, his proposals offer an eye opening look into what he was actually trying to accomplish. Bush proposed an elimination of taxes on stock dividends and capital gains in order to bolster big businesses. The Bush administration claimed that, since investors would have more money to spend, they would more readily invest in innovative projects and create more jobs for the country through their businesses. This option would have allowed for wealthy Americans to invest in portfolios that were tax free while the tax burden would shift primarily to wage earners or, in other words, to lower- to middle class families whose incomes came mostly from wage paying jobs.25 The elimination of these taxes played directly highlighted the reality that Bush and his administration worked for the big businesses and wealthy individuals of the United States. Fortunately, Congress passed into law reductions on the taxes of capital gains and stock dividends for a temporary amount of time instead of permanently eliminating them.26 This aspect of the Tax Policy that Bush had proposed revealed the stark truth that the lower- and middle classes of the United States were not considered in the drafting of the bill.

Despite the grand claim that lower taxes would allow for more money in the pockets of all American citizens, the tax cuts of the Tax Policy were aimed primarily at the top tax bracket of the tax code. The lowest two tax brackets, the 10 and 15 percent, either received no tax cuts at all or were dropped into the brand new 10 percent tax bracket which insignificantly decreased their income taxes. On the other hand, the top tax bracket of 39.6 percent was drastically lowered to 35 percent by the Tax Policy. The original Tax Policy would have allowed for the 39.6 percent bracket to slowly drop to 35 percent, but the Tax Cuts of 2003 accelerated this process so that the bracket was altered to 35 percent almost immediately. The drop in almost 5 percent in taxes for the wealthy was an enormous tax cut, especially when compared to the almost nonexistent drop in taxes on the top two brackets. Although it would appear as if a 5 percent reduction occurred in taxes for both ends of the spectrum, the reality is that most individuals remained in the 15 percent tax bracket and very few individuals were able to have their entire income covered by the new 10 percent bracket. Since the numbers appear to be almost identical, at least on paper, President Bush and his administration were able to trick the American public into believing that the Tax Policy would equally benefit all citizens of the United States when it fact it disproportionately benefitted the wealthy.

The Aftermath of the Bush Tax Policies

Many Americans did not support the Bush Tax Policy of 2001 or the Tax Cuts of 2003 after the relentless campaigning of President Bush or after the two policies were enacted by Congress. In fact, in 2003, after both policies had gone into effect, a poll revealed that most Americans felt their taxes had not been cut enough, stayed the same, or believed they had risen. A similar poll conducted before the Tax Policy went into effect, in 2001, revealed that 67 percent of Americans favored domestic spending over tax cuts.27 Neither of the polls affected President Bush, or his administration, and his decision to move forward with his tax policies. After President Bush had been reelected, he stated: “…I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now intend to spend it. It is my style… I’ve earned capital in this election- and I’m going to spend it for what I told the people I’d spend it on, which is…tax reform…”28 In response to this remarkable claim, a survey was conducted in December of 2004 that asked whether President Bush had won a mandate to alter the tax structure: only 38 percent of responders agreed that Bush had earned political capital to follow through with his tax proposals.29

This bit of information reveals that the tax policies of President Bush were not needed, or wanted, especially when more than two thirds of the United States viewed governmental programs as more important than a little more money in their paycheck. Despite the fact that the American public made it clear the tax cuts were unnecessary, President Bush pushed forward with his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Although this appears as a discrepancy, the Bush tax policies benefitted wealthy Americans and big businesses the most.30 Social welfare programs, not including Social Security, do not usually go towards the wealthiest individuals in America; instead, the most money in governmental programs is geared towards the middle class of the United States. Since the tax policies of the Bush administration were not meant to help the lower to middle class families of America, any poll that suggested governmental programs should receive money from the surplus was cast aside in favor of the big business friends of President Bush.

Still, in order to pay for the Tax Policy of 2001 and the Tax Cuts of 2003, the federal government had to cut spending, or borrow money, in order offset the lost income. Although this fact is well known, especially to those high up in the government, the Bush administration chose to go with a different route: the GOP plan was: “tax cuts come first; spending cuts only later, when their link to tax cuts will be much less clear.”31 This plan worked for the most part, but almost immediately the whole of the budget surplus was used to cover the revenue losses of the Tax Policy of 2001. Then, after the Tax Policy had been enacted, the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred and the United States was suddenly thrown head first into the “war on terror.”

In the past, presidents that have advocated for tax cuts have ended their insistence during times of economic stagnation, large budget deficits, and war. Unfortunately, after the Tax Policy of 2001, Bush refused to eliminate, or even reduce, the tax cuts after it became apparent that the budget deficit was increasing beyond control, due in large part to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; instead, President Bush stuck firm to his belief that lower taxes would allow for a robust economy to exist and that the budget deficit would eventually decrease.32 Somehow, President Bush actually convinced himself that “the deficit would have been bigger without the tax relief package,” which has been demonstrated mathematically to be incorrect.33 In addition to rising deficits, overall public support of the Tax Policy had dropped to 49 percent at the end of his first two years and continued to drop into his second term.34 Despite an obvious reduction in support for tax cuts and a mounting budget deficit, President Bush continued to push for quick and drastic cuts to taxes.

The dual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan allowed for Bush to push his tax cuts through Congress despite mounting deficits and growing public opposition; many senators did not want to undermine the President during a time of war but instead wished to portray an air of unity behind the President.35 This fact is understandable, but the mobilization of the troops only increased the amount of debt the United States was suddenly responsible for. President Bush skillfully understood that he could push for hard policies during wartime due to the unprecedented popular support he enjoyed at this time. Therefore, Bush pushed to enact policies that “dispossess[ed] resources and rights from ordinary Americans on an unprecedented scale,” namely his tax policies.36 As revealed by Holly Sklar, “Never before in wartime, with Americans killed, wounded and captured in the line of duty, have the wealthy lined their pockets with tax breaks.”37 This obvious discrepancy is hard to understand and disturbing to realize.

All thirteen economists President Bush met with to discuss his proposal unanimously supported the Tax Cuts of 2003; this is understandable since all of the economists he met with had strong tied to Wall Street. In reality, 450 economists, including ten Nobel laureates, advertised against the Bush tax cuts stating: “…Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income…”38 The issue the 450 economists raised regarding the ‘inequalities in the after-tax income’ is markedly obvious upon closer inspection of the Tax Policy and the Tax Cuts 2003; if all aspects of the Bush tax policies had been implemented, the only source of income that would have been taxed was the wage earners of America.39 This would leave the wealthy people of America free to invest their money in savings accounts, stocks, bonds, or any way they saw fit and avoid any taxation except on the money they were actively making at their place of employment.

Beyond the “inequalities of after-tax income,” the tax policies of President Bush plunged the nation into debt. The budget surplus that had been left behind by President Clinton was quickly used when the Tax Policy of 2001 was enacted. The United States fell deeper into debt once the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began, and furthermore when the Tax Cuts of 2003 were implemented. Overall, the Tax Policy of 2001 cost the United States $1 trillion in income taxes over a period of ten years while the Tax Cuts of 2003 cost an additional $800 billion over ten years.40 In addition to the loss of income taxes, the tax on large inheritances was phased out, the rate on capital gains was reduced from 20 percent to 15 percent, the tax on dividends was dropped from 39.5 percent to 15 percent, and corporations were able to enter write-off loopholes that diminished their taxes to all time lows.41 The federal deficit was also impacted at this time by the rise in state aid to those that had a direct link between their tax structures and the federal personal and business income tax systems, meaning that when the tax policies were implemented in Congress, similar reductions were implemented automatically in some states.42 Despite the fact that the United States is simultaneously fighting two “wars,” the economy is suffering, and social welfare programs are expanding, the tax policies of President Bush will not be reversed until the end of 2010.

Upon evaluation of the Tax Policy of 2001 and the Tax Cuts of 2003, it becomes obvious that the tax policies of the Bush administration were short term goals implemented in order to reward the wealthy and big business friends and allies of President Bush. The tax cuts on income, the reform on the Alternative Minimum Tax, the phase out of the “death tax,” the increase in available credits, and the increased limits on IRAs and other accounts were purely designed to benefit the affluent members of society while the lower to middle class citizens of the United States were not considered. Although President Bush promoted all of his tax policies as either a reward for all American citizens or as a unique way to stimulate the economy, in the end the Bush tax policies were simply designed to pay back wealthy Americans. Sadly, the tax policies of President Bush were not thought out long enough to consider the impact on the deficit of the United States or, more likely, the creators of the policy truly did not care about the long term effects of the tax policies like the depletion of the surplus and the rise in the deficit. Thankfully, members of Congress were able to limit the impact of the Bush tax policies to a period of only ten years; if these policies had been made permanent, the United States would be headed down a road of total insolvency.

In the end, it is obvious that the Bush administration worked for the big businesses of the United States and their tax policies prove that. President Bush entered the presidency with a budget surplus but when he finally left office President Bush had enacted tax policies that had completely depleted the surplus and created a budget deficit that will take much longer to pay down. Although the economic recession is another issue altogether, it is safe to say that the all encompassing idea President Bush had had regarding his tax policies, that tax cut will help bolster the economy, was blatantly incorrect.

Overall, the federal deficit of the United States cannot be controlled until the Tax Policy of 2001 and the Tax Cuts of 2003 have ended in 2010. Until that time, the United States must borrow money from other countries in order to run the governmental programs that are needed, especially now during the economic recession. Unfortunately, the national deficit of the United States has continued to grow unabated due to the tremendous effects of the Tax Policy of 2001 and the Tax Cuts of 2003 as well as the current global recession. In order to stimulate the economy, which the tax policies of President Bush failed to do, the federal government must pump money into social welfare programs and aid for all the citizens of the United States that are currently out of work. In 2010, the tax policies of the Bush administration will finally expire. At that time, the United States will be able to tax the wealthy and give actual tax breaks to the members of the lower to middle classes.


Committee on Ways and Means, “Summary of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001,” (June 6, 2001). http://www.house.gov/ryan/hottopicarchive/2001Tax_Chart.pdf

Edwards, George C. Governing by Campaigning: The Politics of the Bush Presidency. New York: Pearson Education, 2008.

Friedman, Joel. “The Decline of Corporate Income Tax Revenues,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. October 24, 2003.

Gore, Al. The Assault on Reason. New York: The Penguin Press, 2007.

Greenstein, Fred I., ed. The George W. Bush Presidency: An Early Assessment. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2003.

Greenstein, Robert and Isaac Shapiro. “ Taking Down the Toll Booth to the Middle Class?” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 6, 2001.

Hacker, Jacob S. and Paul Pierson. Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005.

Krugman, Paul. The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the Twentieth Century. New York: Norton, 2003.

Krugman, Paul. “Looting the Future,” The New York Times. December 5, 2003.

Maranto, Robert, Tom Lansford and Jeremy Johnson, eds. Judging Bush. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009.

Opel, Richard A., Jr. “Budget Office Predicts Deficit Over 10 Years: $2.75 trillion,” New York Times. February 28, 2004.

Piven, Frances Fox. The War at Home: The Domestic Costs of Bush’s Militarism. New York: The New Press, 2004.

Sklar, Holly. “Upper-Class Tax Cuts: Working-Class Soldiers,” Alternet, April 11, 2003. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15616.

Waxman, Henry. The Waxman Report: How Congress Really Works. New York: Twelve Publishing, 2009.

1.) Robert Greenstein and Isaac Shapiro, “ Taking Down the Toll Booth to the Middle Class?” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 6, 2001.

2.) George C. Edwards III, Governing by Campaigning: The Politics of the Bush Presidency (New York: Pearson Education, 2008), 3, 46, and 94.

3.) Fred I. Greenstein, “The Leadership Style of George W. Bush,” in The George W. Bush Presidency: An Early Assessment, ed. Fred I. Greenstein, (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2003), 12.

4.) Governing by Campaigning, 31.

5.) Ibid, 97-8.

6.) “The Leadership Style of George W. Bush,” 9.

7.) Governing by Campaigning, 43.

8.) Ibid, 64.

9.) The War at Home, 42.

10.) Governing by Campaiging, 97-8. 

11.) Governing by Campaigning , 179.

12.) The War at Home, 41.

13.) Governing by Campaigning, 199.

14.) Ibid, 314.

15.) Ibid, 95.

16.) Committee on Ways and Means, “Summary of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001,” (June 6, 2001) http://www.house.gov/ryan/hottopicarchive/2001Tax_Chart.pdf, 1.

17.) Ibid, 1

18.) Robert Maranto, Tom Lansford and Jeremy Johnson, eds., Judging Bush (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009), 186-7.

19.) Al Gore, The Assault on Reason, (New York: The Penguin Press, 2007), 62.

20.) Committee on Ways and Means, “Summary of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001,” (June 6, 2001) http://www.house.gov/ryan/hottopicarchive/2001Tax_Chart.pdf, 2-3.

21.) Ibid, 3-4.

22.) Governing by Campaigning, 97-8.

23.) Ibid, 24-5.

24.) Henry Waxman, The Waxman Report: How Congress Really Works, (New York: Twelve Publishing, 2009), 14.

25.) Governing by Campaigning, 4-5.

26.) Ibid, 4.

27.) Ibid, 93-96.

28.) Governing by Campaigning, 212.

29.) Ibid,216.

30.) Frances Fox Piven, The War at Home: The Domestic Costs of Bush’s Militarism, (New York: The New Press, 2004), 41.

31.) Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005.), 103.

32.) Governing by Campaigning, 4 and 46.

33.) Ibid, 66.

34.) Ibid, 145 and 161.

35.) The War at Home, 41-2.

36.) Paul Krugman, “Looting the Future,” The New York Times, December 5, 2003.

37.) Holly Sklar, “Upper-Class Tax Cuts: Working-Class Soldiers,” Alternet, April 11, 2003, http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15616.

38.) The War at Home, 42-6.

39.) Paul Krugman, The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the Twentieth Century, (New York: Norton, 2003), 9.

40.) The War at Home, 41.

41.) Joel Friedman, “The Decline of Corporate Income Tax Revenues,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 24, 2003.

42.) Richard A Opel, Jr., “Budget Office Predicts Deficit Over 10 Years: $2.75 trillion,” New York Times, February 28, 2004.

Suggested Reading from Inquiries Journal

"And I'm the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent now says he'll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into. My opponent, my opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them,‘Read... MORE»
In this chapter, we will be observing the extent to which our 43rd President upheld his 2000 campaign promise to be a compassionate conservative. When observing George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” I will be constraining most of my focus on the compassionate aspect. In order to evaluate Bush’s performance in this campaign platform, a definition is needed. Compassionate conservatism: political... MORE»
On January 20, 2001, George W. Bush was sworn into office as America’s 43rd President. Bush stood out amongst his 42 predecessors as the country’s first President to hold a Masters Degree in Business Administration.[1] This degree was granted by the Harvard Business School, an institution criticized by many in the Labor Movement as a place that has produced some of the uglier faces in modern business management.[2] Bush was called the... MORE»
President George Bush came into office in 2001 after both a campaign and outcome that shook the nation. Following the controversial Presidential election results, George W. Bush promised the American people that he was the right person to do this challenging job, acting as the next President of the United States. He wholeheartedly believed that his fierce agenda and revamped outlook on conservatism would create benefits to all across the United States... MORE»
Submit to Inquiries Journal, Get a Decision in 10-Days

Inquiries Journal provides undergraduate and graduate students around the world a platform for the wide dissemination of academic work over a range of core disciplines.

Representing the work of students from hundreds of institutions around the globe, Inquiries Journal's large database of academic articles is completely free. Learn more | Blog | Submit

Follow IJ

Latest in Political Science

2022, Vol. 14 No. 09
This interdisciplinary paper investigates the shortfalls and obstacles to success currently facing the climate movement, examining issues represented by the disconnect between policy and electoral politics, the hypocrisy and blatant indifference... Read Article »
2022, Vol. 14 No. 06
Two of the most prevalent protest movements in recent history were the Black Lives Matter and the #StopTheSteal movements. While there are many differences between the two, one of the most prevalent is their use of violence. Whereas the BLM movement... Read Article »
2022, Vol. 14 No. 05
Strong linkages between autocrats and the military are often seen as a necessary condition for authoritarian regime survival in the face of uprising. The Arab Spring of 2011 supports this contention: the armed forces in Libya and Syria suppressed... Read Article »
2022, Vol. 14 No. 04
During the summer of 2020, two fatal shootings occurred following Black Lives Matter protests. The first event involved Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and the second Michael Reinoehl in Portland, Oregon. Two shootings, each committed by... Read Article »
2022, Vol. 14 No. 02
In popular international relations (IR) theory, knowledge production is often dismissed as an objective process between the researcher and the empirical world. This article rejects this notion and contends that the process of knowledge production... Read Article »
2022, Vol. 14 No. 01
This article explores the political relationship between nation-building, ethnicity, and democracy in the context of Ethiopia. It traces Ethiopia's poltical history, explores the consequential role ethnicity has played in the formation of the modern... Read Article »
2022, Vol. 14 No. 01
The study examines the degree to which Xi Jinping has brought about a strategic shift to the Chinese outward investment pattern and how this may present significant political leverage and military advantages for China in the Indian Ocean Region (... Read Article »

What are you looking for?


Writing a Graduate School Personal Statement
Presentation Tips 101 (Video)
What is the Secret to Success?