Tax Cuts for the Wealthy!

When I was an undergrad, many years ago, my friends and I would watch The Simpsons before going to dinner.  This being during the 2004 election, we were subjected to scores of political ads.  In every Democrat ad, the candidate would complain about the "Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy."  Typical of undergrads, we turned this often repeated claim into a subject of mockery.

Now that the tax cuts are set to expire, it can only be those that help the wealthy that expire, not the ones that benefit the non-wealthy.  Now, that I'm older and more knowledgeable, I know that less than 25% of the tax cuts went to the wealthy, and it would be too painful to let them expire for the overwhelming majority of the country. 

There are so many ways to look at who benefited the most from the tax cuts, and Democrats have switched descriptions from then until now, and both times they've succeeded.  This is one quality I do not have, which suggests I can never be a politician.  Of course, if I were a politician, I would try to point this out, how Democrats used to be opposed to these tax cuts, but now they support most of them.

With all this in mind, I read David Henderson's post on the subject, and I decided to find some documentation, so here is what Krugman used to say versus what he says now.

"The Bush tax cuts have, of course, heavily favored the very, very well off." --Bush's Own Goal (08-13-2004)

"Budget office numbers show that most of Mr. Bush's tax cuts went to the best-off 10 percent of families, and more than a third went to the top 1 percent."  --Checking the Facts, In Advance (10-12-2004)

"While the central thrust of both the 2001 and the 2003 tax cuts was to cut taxes on the wealthy, the bills also included provisions that provided fairly large tax cuts to some--but only some--middle-income families." --The Sweet Spot (10-17-2003)

"Or consider the 2003 tax cut.  It was also heavily tilted toward the affluent."  Flags versus Dollars (11-7-2003)

And in this video (around the 7 minute mark), Krugman says most of the tax cuts can survive, "Just a small piece is going to be taken away."  Of course he isn't saying it directly, but the implication is that only a "small piece" of the tax cuts went to the very wealthy.

Addendum: It occurs to me another explanation for the switch could be a different definition of rich.  Clearly, Obama's definition is $200-250K or more.  Maybe Democrats had a lower threshold a decade ago.