I can see the bill raising revenue in the short run, and maybe some revenue from overseas will be brought back. But there's no guarantee, and it's unclear that the money would go for new investment or anything that would stimulate jobs in the short run.

The trade-offs involved are shifting more of the tax burden onto middle-income folks or cutting programs.

We'll try our case in court.

They've been so unabashed about making them permanent. Now that it's a visible piece of their budget, it makes it more front-and-center.

The question is whether you're going to get a clean read of the deficit out there anyway. They're going to create an artificial picture.

It's really the rate that is important to retaining a significant amount of revenues.

The households that will benefit from these two tax cuts are quite well off, and furthermore they've already benefited handsomely from the other tax cuts that have been enacted [since 2001].