The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 was passed by the United States Congress on May 23, 2003 and signed by President Bush five days later.

Among other provisions, the act accelerated certain tax changes passed in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, increased the exemption amount for the individual Alternative Minimum Tax, and lowered taxes of income from dividends and capital gains.

While Bush's supporters and proponents of lower taxes claim that the tax cuts increase the pace of economic recovery and job creation, his opponents charge they favor the wealthy and special interests. Supporters argue that the economy was already slowing down when Bush took office and that little of the economic downturn of 2002 was due to Bush's agendas when considering lag time in the effects of policy changes on the economy. Critics note that the tax cuts have disproportionately benefited the wealthy. (One argument often heard is that this is necessary because in a progressive tax system the largest share of is paid by the wealthiest, and that by definition, almost any tax cut must reduce the most the dollar amount of taxes that the wealthy pay. However, this does not take into account the fact that the middle classes and the poor also pay payroll taxes and sales taxes, and these have not been reduced under the current administration.)

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the tax cuts would increase budget deficits by $60 billion in 2003 and by $340 billion by 2008. Supporters of the president argue that this analysis ignores the potential growth that the act could encourage. (It is worth noting that the Bush administration has used "dynamic scoring"--taking potential behavior changes caused by the act into account in estimating the act's consequences--to forecast lower deficits than independent economists do; every year, the administration has forecast lower deficits, and it has been wrong every year, as the actual deficits far outpaced the administration's forecasts.) Supporters also argue that this would be further supported by analyzing the effect of the economic shock of the terrorist events of September 11, 2001. The terrorist fears, resulting reduction in travel and consumer expenditure, and increased security expenditures, they say, are a prime example of an economic cost shock, and they suggest that the recession of 2001 and 2002 would have been drastically worse had no attempts at promoting economic growth by reducing taxes been made, though there is no empirical evidence to support this claim (nor could there be). The lag between policy making and economic impact suggests the possibility to be remote.

See also

• Taxation in the United States

External links

• Marriage Penalty (http://marriage.about.com/od/finances/a/marriagepenalty.htm)
• Summary of the Act(pdf file) (http://www.natptax.com/taxact2003.pdf)
• The President's Agenda for Tax Relief (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html)
• The Bush Tax Cuts Are Sapping America's Strength (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845029_mz007.htm)
• Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014 (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746)