There's no way to argue that W could manage Congress the way Reagan did. The tax cuts passed with Reagan there to sign them haven't been repeated. W's shell game tax cut will amount to diddly in the end, as everyone who got a refund from the IRS will find out. That $600 check comes right off the top of a refund. W will be history before any of it that amounts to much will come due and Congress will scrap it all as soon as he's back in Crawford pretending to be a rancher again.
There is no way to make a valid comparison between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush when it comes to tax cuts. Reagan was dealing with income tax rates that were very high, which meant that the government would easily generate additional revenue by cutting the top rates. When the rates are low (relatively speaking), the positive impact of cutting them (in terms of generating higher revenue) isn't so certain. It should also be noted that cutting tax rates is NOT the same as cutting taxes. The 1986 tax reform reduced the income tax rates and simplified the tax brackets, but it also included the elimination of many tax deductions. Ironically, overall personal Federal taxes (per capita, including all taxes) were probably higher when Reagan left office in 1988 than they were in 1981.
Because tax rates in the U.S. are probably close to the ideal tax rates (again, in terms of generating the maximum amount of revenue), the only real tax "reform" you will find these days amounts to nothing more than encouraging certain types of personal behavior or encouraging certain financial transactions. What do you think has driven the growth of IRAs and 401(k) plans over the last decade?