The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 ("JGTRRA", Pub.L. 108-27, 117 Stat. 752), was passed by the United States Congress on May 23, 2003 and signed by President Bush on May 28, 2003.
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.
There was and is considerable controversy over who benefited from the tax cuts and whether or not they have been effective in spurring sufficient growth. Bush's supporters and proponents of lower taxes claimed that the tax cuts increased the pace of economic recovery and job creation. Critics state that the tax cuts have failed to spur growth, while increasing the budget deficit, shifting the tax burden from the rich to the middle and working classes and further increasing already high levels of inequality.[1][2][3][4][5] Before the tax cuts were signed President Bush was urged by 450 economists, including 10 Nobel Prize Laureates, in the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts not to implement his tax cuts[6]. Economists Peter Orzsag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."[7]
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. 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.
So my taxes went down about 12 dollars a paycheck. Not a lot, but every bit helps 
