• About / Contact
  • Calculators and Visualizations
  • Economic Concepts
  • Advertise
  • Disclosure

Don't Quit Your Day Job...

The Intersection of Personal Finance, Economics, and Politics.

RSS
  • Personal Finance
    • Debt
    • Retirement
    • Taxes
    • Health
  • Economics
    • Calculators
  • Politics
  • Investing
  • Offbeat
    • Weekender
    • Books
    • Music
    • Sports
  • Real Estate
    • Bay Area
  • Technology

President Obama Is a Bigger Tax Cutter Than George Bush

Posted By PK    Last updated February 29th, 2012 34 Comments

(… over his first term in office … if you don’t count inflation and population growth … if you don’t consider the whole ten year estimates … if you count the extended ‘Bush Tax Cuts’ and AMT Relief in Obama’s totals.)

See what I did there? Consider this article a ‘choose your own adventure article’. You remember those types of books, right? You read a few pages of a book, then you get to some text which says, “If you want to do Action A, turn to page X. If you want to do Action B, turn to page Y.” Well, some articles have made the claim that over his first 4 years, President Obama has been a more prolific tax cutter than President Bush. Is it the truth? It is, yes! However, this political claim (like, well, all political claims) needs to be un-spun so you can see where it comes from. I thank fellow site owner John at Married with Debt for the article idea!

The First Term Bush / Obama Tax Cutting Record

The nice thing about Javascript charts (other than this warning: click through to DQYDJ to use it!) is interactivity. The chart below is primed for you to assign your own biases to it. I have gathered data from that article from the Tax Policy Center and CBO (and included CBO estimate about the two Payroll Tax Extensions… through 2012). I probably missed some revenue raising provisions under Obama as well – the cigarette tax increase and some provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Think some categories are dubious? Click the descriptions in the legend… it will remove that tax cut from the chart, and recalculate total tax cutting. To see my thoughts? Just scroll to below the graph! (And if you don’t like my data, send me better info on the revenue on these bills).


Temporary Tax Cuts vs. Permanent Tax Cuts

In every sense of the word, every Obama tax cut has been of a temporary nature. The large stimulus tax relief packages, the two years of Payroll Tax Cuts, and the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts all have expiration dates (for the record – after the 2012 election). By a strict definition, so did the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001/2003 – they had 10 year expiration dates (even though they were extended for 2 years under Obama).

One economic argument against temporary measures is from a planning perspective – temporary measures mean that recipients might do anything they can to try to take advantage of current law, while permanent changes allow future plans to target a measure. By this argument, a permanent tax increase is more stimulative than a temporary one – people will adapt their behavior to fit the new taxes. For one example, see this series we did on the Laffer Curve. (This article also gets into dynamic vs. static scoring – basically, dynamic scoring assumes that the economy will shift in reaction to tax cuts while static scoring assumes behavior will stay similar.)

So, Are the Articles Fair?

Articles like the one I linked are accurate but somewhat misleading. One merely has to look at the estimates over a 10 year time-frame to see that the Bush Tax cuts ended up leaving more money in the private economy than the Obama provisions. It also doesn’t take federal spending into account.

There are two ways to spin this:

  • President Obama’s tax provisions left more money in the economy during his first term.
  • President Bush’s tax provisions left more money in the economy over the length the provisions were active.

Your choice… choose your own!

I sent this article back to John at Married With Debt before I posted it to get his reactions. After reading, here’s what he got out of the article:

First of all I want to thank PK for tackling this question. I’m not an economist or a “numbers guy” – my background is in politics – so my interest in this topic is purely behavioral.

Though economists often have to unspin political claims, oftentimes economists need to be unspun themselves. Harry Truman once famously said (to paraphrase) – give me an economist with one arm so he can’t tell me “well, on the other hand…” Or as PK likes to say, ask 5 economists for their opinion and you’ll get 6 answers!

Let’s sum up in layman’s terms what PK concluded: President Obama is a bigger tax cutter than George W. Bush.

Now there are a lot of arguments to be made about permanent vs. temporary, and the total value of Bush’s tax cuts over a ten year period, and who did what in how many terms. But to be fair to the original query, which was a Yes or No question, we must simply say yes, Obama cut more taxes than George W. Bush.

I mentioned that I had a behavioral interest in this question. I like to see cognitive biases in action and call them out when they find their way into arguments.

The conclusion of PK’s analysis will cause some of you to suffer from confirmation bias. This is the tendency of people to reject facts that are contrary to their opinions or beliefs.

For those who think that President Obama is the biggest tax and spend liberal in history, finding out that he is a prolific tax cutter (the biggest in history?) can be hard to swallow.

An avowed Obama hater once asked me: “Name one thing Obama did to make your life better?” When I said “he cut my taxes,” the hater was speechless. To watch him fumble around for a retort was priceless. I think he is still muttering to himself in a dark room somewhere.

Please don’t take my remarks as an endorsement of any of Obama’s tax cuts, “stimulus,”or any other policies for that matter. I am simply interested in the truth within a simple question.

And before you crucify me as an Obama campaign worker, let me say this: I voted for him in 2008 but will likely not vote for him this time around. He has been a disappointment to me and his health care law forcing people to buy a product from a private company as a citizenship requirement is an unprecedented power grab and an example of how the Commerce Clause can be used to justify almost any government action or regulation.

So, readers, what do you think? Is there something to dynamic vs. static scoring? Do you see why many economists prefer permanent measures to temporary ones? Do you agree that President Obama is the greater first term tax cutter?

Editor: John has posted a response at Married With Debt. After you leave a comment, head over there and do the same.


If you enjoyed this post, let others know!


Filed Under: Economics Tagged With: bush, obama, Permanent Tax Cuts, Revenues, Static Scoring, tax cuts, Temporary Tax Cuts

DQYDJ Email Newsletter

Like what you see on this post?

Get the new stuff before everyone else. Sign-up below.


Follow @twitterapi


  • Pingback: Barack Obama: The Silent Tax Cutter - Married (with Debt)

  • http://www.thegeezergadgetguy.com/ Thad Puckett

    What a way to start a conversation!  Temporary vs permanent.  One focuses on the short term (political?) gain, kicking the can down the road (i.e. massive government spending and debt), while the other?  Well, we Americans don’t do well with delayed gratification.  Unfortunately delayed misery is like compound interest–it grows over time.

    • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

      Haha, hence the Permanent Income Hypothesis link? Keynesian Consumption vs. Permanent Income is an interesting discussion.

      It’s an important point – debt always gets paid off. Whether it’s through increased revenues, inflation, or even a default (with social cost, and a decreased ability to borrow)…

  • http://www.moneyspruce.com/ Jeffrey Trull

    I’m not sure I want to debate which is really more meaningful, but nonetheless I think it’s important to just be aware of what the numbers say. To me, you can’t simply say that Bush has cut more taxes than Obama because that’s not an unconditionally true statement according to these numbers.

    • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

      Nope, and that’s an important point to make! I’m sure the rhetoric will get pretty heated as we approach the general elections, and I’ll be here to steal search traffic and try to sort things out (heh).

  • http://moneymamba.com/ JT

    Sigh…this is the problem with a complicated tax code and simpleton voting public.  Yeah – I’ll say it, simpleton.

    It’s ridiculous how effective welfare is considered a tax cut so long as it is distributed via tax refund checks through the US Treasury.  Making Work Pay, for example, is a freebie – refundable money that you get whether or not you have a real tax burden.  Getting rid of MWP is not a tax hike.  Adding MWP is not a tax cut.  

    AMT relief is just a patch over a problem that politicians love.  Rather than make real adjustments to AMT to fix it for life, it is politically popular to instead let the AMT remain a hot button issue every few years so one or the other party can claim a tax cut.  Silly, really, since it was never going to be left to expire anyway.

    • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

      Median Voter Theorem – as I tell Cameron we only need a few educated voters to swing the elections (as long as there are sheep on both sides). Politics is a game played between the 45 yard lines, pretty much.

      A note on AMT relief (and the Doc fix) – it gets more dangerous every year since it is cumulative, and our buddy inflation drives forward. More and more people start to be affected by the legislation yearly (and the dollar amounts start to move to ludicrous levels) so lobbying starts to care more and more.

      And I suppose that’s a pretty good description of how ‘temporary fixes’ lead to lobbying! (Another good example is FHA conforming loan limits).

  • http://marriedwithdebt.com/ John @ MarriedWithDebt

    Thanks for tackling my question. Great analysis. I do see that some commenters are quick to call out middle and low income tax relief as welfare, but would probably not apply the same standard to corporate tax relief.

    All I know for certain is that we need a wholesale tax code reform/rewrite effort like we saw in the 80s. Despite needing it more than ever, I think we are further away from compromise than ever.

    Sad…

    • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

      I’ll have to do an article on tax incidence – the argument on corporate taxes go in the same direction. If someone is paying 15% on capital gains, it’s because the company is paying 35% (or whatever the rate is), and he is paying 15% on what is left.

      That someone may or may not be a rich person, but you can imagine that the investor class tends to be more well off than the average citizen.

      Bring Ronald Reagan back? Haha…

      Thanks for the collaboration!

  • freeby50

    I like those choose your own adventure books.

    One thing about this kind of analysis is that the actual dollar values depend on peoples income levels which is impacted by the economy.   So the actual $$ saved depends as much on the economy as not.   If the economy was booming right now then all the numbers would come out different.      I don’t know if a booming economy would help Bush or Obama more.  But its not as if the tax cuts actual dollar impact is known value or in the direct control of our politicians.

    • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

      Yeah – and it ignores dynamic feedback, which may be the biggest sin (of course, dynamic scoring it would also label Bush/Reagan/Clinton (Capital Gains)/JFK as tax raisers…).

      But you’re right, looking at the before estimates is pretty silly… but it makes for a pretty graph!

  • http://money.ramblingfever.com/ Matthew Allen

    Choose Your Own Adventure books.. Ha!  Another one of my favorite series as a kid.  Not far down the shelf from the Encyclopedia Brown books.  I’ve actually had the thought to do choose your own adventure blog posts… pick a link at the end of the post to take the story in your desired direction.  

    • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

      The thought? Matt, It’s time for the practice!

      Please do this!

  • http://money.ramblingfever.com/ Matthew Allen

    These statistics are enlightening.  I knew Obama cut some taxes, but I didn’t realize it was to this extent.  I find it curious that liberals were always loudest to complain about what they called “unfunded tax cuts” during Bush’s reign.  Now the biggest liberal is cutting taxes all the while spending like a drunken sailor.  Kind of proves the point that the conservative talking heads have been trying to make… If liberals really believe that tax cuts must somehow be funded, and their president is spending and taking on unprecedented amounts of debt.. could it be that he really is trying to deliberately destroy the country?

    • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

      I’ll give you my favorite quote on the matter, from Milton Friedman, “I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible.”

      I agree. Will we pay for it somehow? Oh boy, yeah we will… a combination of inflation, overt taxes, and benefit cuts to medicare/medicaid/social security is the most likely outcome, but you can use any benefits you get now to plan for that eventuality, at least!

  • http://www.investitwisely.com/ Invest It Wisely

    I don’t think tax cuts are so great when you have a rapidly exploding debt. ;)

    Cleaning up the tax code and making it far simpler could be better. Your tax code is more complicated than “socialist” Canada!

    • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

      Haha, tell me about it.

      Very much on topic, I just filed my taxes. It took me over 10 hours, and I used TurboTax (maybe I’m an idiot, but I tend to think I’m pretty good with software). Complexity, meet PK!

  • http://novelinvestor.com JP @ Novel Investor

    Have to say my view on politics and politicians in general have changed the past few years to the point that they are just a voice box hoping for an ear that will listen.  Outside of that, they serve no real purpose.  Unfortunately, a fact that JT is right about, there are always enough simpletons more than willing to lend an ear and a vote with the mention of tax cuts.

    • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

      You went from mad to indifferent? I hear you – and Cameron and I have something special planned for the indifferent crowd, heh (another point/counterpoint). All I’ve got to say is “median voter theorem”.

      • http://novelinvestor.com JP @ Novel Investor

        I wouldn’t say mad, more questioning to wtf to uselessness since the ’08 crash.  As with most, when everything’s going good we’re all happy, but when the sh$t hits the fan, as it did, people look for an answer.  Something that has been lacking from both sides in the past 2-4 years.  

        It has been an issue certainly, but outside of the debt debacle last August, the congressional stagnation has probably been better for the economy than anything else (plus some Fed interaction), certainly for the market and having a split Congress has been profitable.  With any lack of leadership, people will eventually do things on there own.  

        It will be interesting to see how everything plays out come November, but as long as unemployment keeps dropping and the Prez can still preach and excite the masses with great speeches, well…

        Look forward to the indifferent crowd post!

        • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

          ‘I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!‘ Not at that level yet? I can’t blame you – anger, in this case, would only lead to frustration…

          My biggest concern is that while the tax cuts are temporary, the spending increases are now encoded and permanent. That would eventually lead to a point of no return – and either lead to inflation, new taxes, or a default (and prices will rise in some sectors, so consider this an indirect tax just like inflation). Yeah, the social welfare programs will probably be amended slightly around the edges, but even discretionary spending is now running over $1 Trillion a year.

          I’m looking forward to it too!

  • http://twitter.com/smartfamfinance Shaun

    There is no such thing as fact in politics: just perspective. The big question is not, what legislation has Obama signed, but what is an honest and fair way to evaluate him?

    This is an amazingly fair depiction of Obama and taxes over his first term (short-run). However, there is also a long-term perspective. All of these tax provisions (as they are on the book) would sunset in his second term and your graph would flip on it’s head by a few trillion. Suddenly, in the long-run Obama is one of the biggest tax raisers (assuming all Bush Tax cuts sunset. Again, assuming as the CBO would, that we evaluate as the laws are on the books now. Do we give Obama credit for front-loading a tax policy?

    Looking strictly at the long-term isn’t really fair either. Especially, since Obama has long argued about extending Bush tax cuts for middle class and only sun-setting the top bracket. So, do we evaluate him on what he says and not what he does? If so, then should we not also add in his carbon tax proposals? Hints of a VAT?

    I think Obama has positioned himself like a clever politician being able to claim being one of the biggest tax cutters well telling his base that he has unwaveringly advocated higher taxes. He gets the best of both worlds a record of doing one thing while saying another.

    Republicans aren’t any better.

    • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

      Yeah, I’ve been exploring the ‘fairest’ way to look at economic indicators under various administrations. I did this article about spending, and I tried a similar exercise for Fed Chairs. I’m aiming for neutrality here – the only time a party should take blame is when it controls Congress and the Presidency. I also think that while blame is shirked (or shifted), way too much credit is taken for the business cycle on an upswing…

      And it’s true – many of the provisions actually raise revenue in the 5-10 year timeframe given by the CBO, while the Bush tax cuts continues to lower revenue. Of course, we also know from history that the Bush Tax Cuts eventually did raise more money.

      Yes, I think your analysis is correct on President Obama – he has positioned himself well for a second term. Also, Republicans aren’t any better… spending increased quite steadily under the last President, heh.

  • http://twitter.com/financiallyc Hunter

    Interesting comparison. One thing that kind of shocks me about Presidents and getting things done is microscopic focus the primary campaign puts candidates under, but when they’re in office it’s really congress that decides what gets done. A Presidents personal values can only have so much influence over policy and law. Perhaps we shoupd scrutinize congress like we do the Presidents?

    • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

      I’m hoping that microscopic focus makes people question statistics like these… from either side.

      Did you see my article on spending? I tried to make it fair from a “two branches of Government” perspective, for what it’s worth. The point has to be made, however, that unless a veto is overridden, it is still the President that signs bills into law (and they also can use the bully pulpit to push priorities through Congress – “the first 100 days” often spoken of). That means that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum can take some credit for welfare reform (for example…), but so can Bill Clinton.

      You win some, you lose some, heh.

  • freeby50

    Personally I don’t like temporary tax cuts unless they are really for a specific temporary purpose such as the recent recession.   I don’t think they should be changing the federal tax brackets for 10 years periods.   Thats not really a temporary need and there isn’t a good reason to have it expire in 10 years.   All that does is then kick the can down the road so that in 10 years some other set of politicians have to debate it over again.   I particularly dislike how they keep making short term changes to the AMT.   They need to fix that long term instead of making short term changes every year or two.     Maybe the point is allowwing every session of congress to brag about how they saved us all from the AMT bogey man?   Cause if they just fixed it for good 10 years ago like they should have then neither Bush or Obama would be taking credit for slapping another year long bandaid on it.

    • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

      Yeah, and now there are special interests wrapper around the ‘temporary’ AMT fix. It’s stupid – the CBO, every year, counts a normal AMT. Every year, the number gets larger and larger, so more lobbying happens. Every year, the AMT has a temporary fix.

      Ridiculous stuff, but funny from an efficiency standpoint. How can you look at government and not laugh, sometimes?

  • http://www.mastertheartofsaving.com/ Jen @ Master the Art of Saving

    That’s a ton of tax cuts compared to Bush, I never realized there were so many.

    • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

      Haha, yeah the President is winning the sprint… but in a second term the leader will flip, unless President Obama introduces a few new programs.

  • Pingback: Sunday Morning Fish Wrap | 101 Centavos

  • http://myuniversitymoney.com/ My University Money

    Very interesting to say the least.  Temporary tax cuts usually end up distorting the economy in some fashion.  The more consistent and stable that we can keep a business environment, the better off everyone will be in the long run.  This is especially true if the temporary cuts come at the price of a deficit and reduced infrastructure spending!

    • http://www.dqydj.net/ PK

      There’s a lot to be said about forecasting – if a company has a clear picture of how tax rates will look for the next few years, it frees them up to make other decisions. Research and Development is easier to plan for if tax credits are known!

  • Pingback: Carnival of Personal Finance #351: Women’s Personal Finance Edition

  • Pingback: Carnival of Personal Finance #351

RSS Twitter Facebook Email

Connect

Subscribe to DQYDJ's RSS or Email feed:

Newest on DQYDJ

  • Canadian Real Estate: A Rapidly Inflating Bubble
  • Don’t Look Now – Rapidly Changing Mortgage and Predicted Inflation Rates!
  • The DQYDJ Weekender 6/15/2013
  • The Government, The Internet, and The Surveillance State – Graphed
  • Want to Be a Better Investor? Ask Your Wife!

DQYDJ’s Greatest Hits

  • S&P 500 Return Calculator
  • Should Art and Psychology Majors Pay Higher Student Loan Rates?
  • Is Social Security a Good Investment?
  • The Fundamental Problem With Financial Models
  • Supply and Demand (And Other Economic Arguments Against the Minimum Wage)
  • Uncle Sam the CEO: Visualization of IRS Revenues Collected 1960-2010
  • Ranking the Fed Chairmen: Why Paul Volcker Was The Best (And Bernanke Isn’t Bad…)
  • Occupy Wall Street: How Much Do Republicans and Democrats Invest in Wall Street Firms?
  • Should You Get a Degree or Drive a Truck?
  • Is Dave Ramsey’s Investment Advice Misguided?

Links

  • 101 Centavos
  • Money Mamba
  • Financial Uproar
  • I Am One Percent
  • The Free Financial Advisor
  • Political Calculations
  • Makin' Sense Babe
  • So Over This
  • Stacking Benjamins
  • The Millionaire Nurse Blog

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2013 Don't Quit Your Day Job...

Some links on this page are tied to affiliate programs. See our disclosure page for more information.