Actually, most of the decline occurred after the tax cuts were in effect. The first tax cut was passed early in 2001 with the rebates being sent out in summer 2001. And after the 2002 tax cuts were passed, the employment rate continued to decline for another year. In other words, the employment rate declined for the first 30 months of the Bush administration with tax cuts passed six months into the administration, and then about 20 months into the administration, and then a third time within the 30 months of decline.

The rate declined for the first year of Clinton's administration but then started rising without tax cuts, but instead with a budget that moved toward balance and then surplus.

It seems to me that the increase in employment rate is better assumed to be part of a natural cycle with the Bush tax cuts having no real impact or Clinton's move toward a budget surplus. And that would mean that the economy rose as part of a normal business cycle and not because of the tax cuts.