stands to pay $1,000 more in taxes in 2012. there seems to be bipartisan support for extending it but as usual, no agreement on how to pay for it. candy crowley is cnn's chief political correspondent and anchor of "state of the union." political theater aside, you think congress will eventually get this done? >> i absolutely think congress will eventually get this done. particularly because we have seen republicans now saying we even the senate republican leader mitch mcconnell said even if you don't believe that this actually helps the economy, it certainly will help the people that get the break from their payroll taxes. this is just not -- you don't want to go home at christmas and having raised everybody's taxes. >> especially when it is your point of view that you are never going to raise taxes on anyone for any reason. that's a little hard to square that. also with us this morning, former "new york times" columnist, distinguished senior fellow. stephen moore, editorial writer at "the wall street journal." candy dealt with, you know, whether congress will extend the payroll tax holiday and it will be ugly. she thinks it will get done. what about the idea of whether they should? does a payroll tax holiday -- does it make sense when there is a growing concern about the solvency of social security and medicare? >> political point of view which i agree with candy it will get done. i don't think that it makes a great deal of sense in terms of what's going on fiscally in the country. i think it is potentially harmful to social security, poe ten. >> i why? >> very powerful because you don't have guarantees that this money going to be made up. i mean, when you look at your fica taxes, that money is supposed to go into a social security trust fund, obviously, that money gets shifted around. but -- what's going to happen here is that you are going to get a gross decline in the amount of money. i think that the conservatives will look at it a year from now, two years from now and say -- oh, my goodness. there is an even bigger hole in social security than we thought. we need to do some cut. >> explain to me, isn't that why it costs $200 billion? because isn't basically the taxpayer stepping in for those fica taxes. >> well, that's right. by the way, i think, candy, as usual, got it exactly right, christine, this is going to get extended. there's of this -- last-minute gymnastics that always goes on capitol hill. >> gymnastics is something that's fun to watch. >> exact reply. >> this is not gymnastics. >> maybe mud fight or something like that. it is going to happen. real question is should it happen. and you know, believe it or not, i agree with bob. i'm not so sure this should happen. i think that -- if you look at the results of this, over the last year, it is really hard to point to the evidence that this actually created jobs. we had some job growth. we had a pretty gri number last week. but it's still not the kind of robust job growth we expect. what republicans are saying, by the way, is i think their message over the next year will be look, let's stop tinkering ask blow up the tax system and start over. >> you would think they could agree on $200 billion on tax holiday, you think they can agree on how to blow it up and start over? >> first they have to decide on a candidate. >> you talk about thekerring around the edges and payroll tax holiday and economic impact would be. you are right. there is a lot of division about just how important -- some say that it is men a thousand -- hundreds of thousands of jobs. others say maybe it is hard to measure a negative what would have happened without it. we do know people would feel it, bob. people would feel it in their paychecks if they didn't have this money. >> people would feel it. it is more important to extend unemployment benefits than the fica tax cut. because the unemployment benefits would go directly to assist people. i don't think that tax cuts do much in terms of job creation. i don't think that it does a great deal to stimulate the economy and maybe, you know, maybe very modestly. but given the deficits we have and given the investment deficits we have in this country, i just don't think it is a wise move. i actual will you think we need to be raising taxes on people and not just on the rich. and then making investments that would, in fact, help develop a self-sustaining economy. >> now you have disagreement between the two of us. let's go to the issue whether we should cut the payroll tax or raise unemployment benefits. here is the reason i think bob is absolutely wrong on this. when you raise unemployment benefits you are actually giving someone a payment for not working. at least with the payroll tax cut, bob, you are giving a tax cut for people who do work. the incentive under the one system is not to work and at least under a payroll tax cut you are giving people more -- >> i don't think it is much of an incentive not to work. >> you might be surprised. >> might be very mild incentive but the people out work are in deep, deep trouble economically. many are facing destitution. the point of giving them exte extendexten extended unemployment benefits it is -- >> candy, just -- >> this agreement you see here is -- polar opposites just like the body of congress. >> let me tell you something. they are going to pass an extension of the unemployment benefits. you know, it is crumb. it is an election year. what more do you need? both those things are going to pass. >> washington is always santa claus. >> isn't that what led us to this in the first place? every time you turn around it is like you candace appointment your constituencies and you can't -- i mean, this is where -- that's why we are where we are today because no one can give a temporary tax break and then take it back. no one can give expanded unemployment benefits and take it back because people rely on. >> it after a while it doesn't make any sense at all to talk about deficits because if you are not going to raise taxes and 23 you are going to take people who are really hurting on safety net issues and that sort of thing, there's no way to reasonably bring down the deficits in any sustained way. >> we can't cut spending? look, we have a $4 trillion budget grown by leaps and bounds over the last couple of years. and, you know, christine, i think you made the key point that what has been happening over the last stop, three, four years, democrats and republicans, we keep providing these short-term pieces of candy that taxpayers, we never have way to pay for it even -- whether talking about now, one-year tax cut, paid for in the future and we never -- never do any of the stuff in the future. why can't we cut the deficit now? >> candy, it is interesting. talk about that piece of candy. some worry that having a piece of candy tied in any way, shape or form to social security is dangerous. that's what some progressives worry about. they want the -- they want the -- extension of the unemployment benefits and certainly want the payroll tax holiday to continue but they -- they are nervous about tying it to social security. >> well, they are worried about long-term solvency of social security saying look, not that we don't spend social security funds anyway on other things. but this is just something that sort of adds to it and social security, what's inning to me about democrats, some democrats saying i don't know, i'm uneasy with taking out some of the revenue or -- giving back revenue, payroll tax, is that the democrats have really been the one saying, you know, social security right now isn't adding to the deficit. this isn't what we should be looking at right now. i think more and more you are seeing social security is cominging into play. i think that when you are talking about the sorts of things we have been talking about, this really ends up being small stuff. i know $10 15 00 over the course is big but in order -- anybody i have talked to and including both these guys know it is going to take something big. it is the structure, not these little things we keep doing. >> i hope it is not something big that hurts, that's bad. >> bring the troops home from afghanistan. >> there you go. >> that would be something big. >> get rid of the department of edge zblags geez, here we go. >> do you remember how many -- candy, bob, stephen, stay right where you are. president obama and potential opponent say they are committed to helping the middle clasp. why are both talking about class warfare. [ woman on cellphone speaks foreign language ] [ male announcer ] in here, everyone speaks the same language. ♪ in here, forklifts drive themselves. no, we didn't pass it. yeah, we'll look at a map. okay. [ male announcer ] in here, friends leave you messages written in the air. that's it right there. [ male announcer ] it's the at&t network. and what's possible in here is almost impossible to say. at&t. nyquil tylenol: we are?ylenol. you know we're kinda like twins. nyquil (stuffy): yeah, we both relieve coughs, sneezing, aches, fevers. tylenol: and i relieve nasal congestion. nyquil (stuffy): overachiever. anncr vo: tylenol cold multi-symptom nighttime relieves nasal congestion... nyquil cold & flu doesn't. luck? i don't trade on luck. i trade on fundamentals. analysis. information. i trade on tradearchitect. this is web-based trading, re-visualized. streaming, real-time quotes. earnings analysis. probability analysis: that's what opportunity looks like. it's all visual. intuitive. and it's available free, wherever the web is. this is how trade strategies are built. tradearchitect. only from td ameritrade. welcome to better trade commission free for 60 days when you open an account. falling home prices, stagnant wages, high sky levels of unemployment. they all dealt a brutal blow to the middle class. should wealthy americans do more to prop up everyone else? it is an issue that promises to be central to a presidential election now less an year away. >> this isn't about class warfare. this is about the nation's welfare. it is about making choices that benefit not just the people who have done fantastically well over the last few decades but that benefits the middle class. and those fighting to get into the middle class. and the economy as a whole. >> you know, this was an important speech for this president. a lot of these at the same time policies, same sort of, you know, we can't wait policies, we have seen before, candy. the materials s not new but the way it is framed is new. it is almost like a reset and a definition of what this election is going to be about for him. is that correct? >> yes. it is almost like campaign speech. yeah. absolutely. i mean, listen, the -- i think that -- let me say the one big fallacy driving me crazy about this is this idea that somehow the election is going to settle these questions. you know. like how much more should the wealthy give? what exactly is wealthy? and do you believe in what -- republicans see as a redistribution of wealth to a certain extent. i mean, the idea that somehow that's what this election is going to be about and it is p that's true. anybody who thinks that come -- you know, the end of next november, this will all be settled and american people have spoken, are -- are smoking something. because it is not going to be settled. it is never settled. ongoing struggle about the rise of the government and the role of the electorate. >> what's the fair share? the rich people don't pay their fair share. there is a lot of discussion this week after that speech, bob, that -- not paying their fair share. people say is it not fair if you are 58-year-old person who made a lot of money over the course of your career, you are putting your money in muni bonds and parking them there and getting tax breaks of because of 40u you are investing your money or putting money to charity because you are trying to lower your tax bill and that starts to become a question of -- class warfare question that people in the middle start to struggle with because success, is, after all, what the american dream is about. >> i disagree with the president in the sense i think this is about class warfare. i think there has been a class warfare for the past 30 years or so. and it has been a war against the working classes and the poor. i don't think that the wealthy have paid their fair share. i think that clearly it is documented there has been a sustained war, successful war, against labor unions. workers have not been paid for an increase they haven't shared in the benefits of increased productivity and the tax system is out of whack. that being said, i think we are in such a state now that taxes probably do have to go up across the board, not just for the wealthy. >> has the president helped or hurt that situation that just laid out? that's what he will be judged on. >> i think he's helping but i agree with candy, i don't think that the president with the policies is really going to follow through with the rhetoric that was in that kansas speech and i don't expect however the presidential election goes in 2012, i don't expect to get a real change in the class dynamics in this country over the next couple of years. >> i want to you listen for second. gop presidential contender mitt romney says when the going gets tough that president obama, watch out for class warfare. >> many think that because of the staggering failures, president obama will be easily defeated. but as you know, incumbent is rarely turned out of the white house and he will resort to anything. as you know, class warfare and demagoguery are powerful political weapons. >> did president obama make valid points this week? or do you also see this as straight from the class warfare playbook? >> i thought that speech the president gave on tuesday was a very important speech. i doubt it was one of the pessimistic speeches since jimmy carter's saying the middle class can't get ahead any longer. and he did -- it was -- bob is right. it was class warfare. it was a call to arms for liberal democrat kratz saying look, we are going to pit the middle class versus the rich. we will see whether that campaign theme works. throughout history it hasn't worked very well and it is a real question of whether americans go for the theme of envy or the theme of aspiration. i'm a big believer that americans don't hate rich people. they want to become rich. they don't hate people like steve jobs and bill gates but we will see about that. i will disagree with candy about something. candy, this election is going to be a rough run and on exactly what barack obama talked about on tuesday. and whichever party wins there is a big ideological difference between if two parties. whoever wins the party will determine which direction this country goes. by the way, if you look at -- >> 60 votes in the senate, i would agree with you. >> you know, look, candy, look, we have h a big election in 2008. barack obama moved the country dramatically to the left. we had a massive increase in government spending and government takeover the health care system. that was because of what happened in the election. elections do have consequence. >> i think it is important, though, to take issue with the word "envy." i do not believe the poor and middle classes are envious of the rich. i would substitute for the word envy the word fairness. i think that this is going to be an issue about fairness going forward. >> marine mind us how that speech turned out again. >> look, here we had this whole discussion for the last ten minutes or so about the deficit. nobody in washington, even republicans, are talking about cutting spending. the thing that's so amazing to me is we just had an election a year ago. remember that? the electorate said overwhelmingly stop the spending and stop the bailouts and get the department under control. all we are talking about now is raising taxes before a dime of spending has been cut. >> many people say nothing has been done, nothing has been done since america lost the aaa credit rating. nothing. >> in the real world taxes are not being raised. people may be talking about raising taxes. we are talking about extending tax cuts. >> we have to leave it there. nice to see all of you. >> good to see you. >> 30 day ace go polls thoed the republicans had a candidate defeating president obama. so why is there now correct another front-runner in the race for the gop nomination? one the white house may even be rooting for. we will tell you all about it next. the employee of the month isss... the new spark card from capital one. spark miles gives me the most rewards of any small business credit card. the spark card earns double miles... so we really had to up our game. with spark, the boss earns double miles on every purchase, every day. that's setting the bar pretty high. owning my own business has never been more rewarding. coming through! [ male announcer ] introducing spark the small business credit cards from capital one. get more by choosing unlimited double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase, every day. what's in your wallet? [ electronic beeping ] [ male announcer ] still getting dandruff? neutrogena® t/gel shampoo defeats dandruff after just one use. t/gel shampoo. it works. neutrogena®. welcome back to "your money." cnn poll showed mitt romney defeating president obama for first time, one month ago. a republican with a business background beats an incumbent in bad economy. now it is newt gingrich, not romney wearing the hat. double digit margins in three of the first four states that will hold gop presidential contests next year. cnn contributor will cain is with us now as is pete dominick, host of "sirius xm's stand-up." the same poll that showed romney beating obama a month ago showed gingrich trailing the president by eight points. the romney is the candidate with the best shot to beat obama do these latest polls show republican voters now more concerned with beating mitt romney than president obama? >> yeah. it is a decent analysis. more concern with beating mitt romney than -- i would add a caveat. what they want is they want to be president obama in a debate and want to be president oba s steelisticly. the critiques you have of romney exist for gingrich. it is not about character. the reason you fled from herman cain to newt gingrich can't be an increase in character. it is about style. >> democrats want it because that style comes with distractions and -- there's this phrase, every rise of newt gingrich is followed by the fall of newt gingrich. >> reminds me of the villain in scoobie do where he's mean and scare it is heck out of scoobie but in the end he loses when they take the mask off. that happened to him. what will has talked about, what is that style? something mitt romney is missing p i'm speaking generally here but tea party extremists, primary voters love that newt gingrich goes after president obama. a lot of people hate president obama. newt gingrich calls him names and -- >> from the beginning, would other -- >> good guy. >> he was the one that was constantly refocussing the fire on the president and away from the other people on the stage and he was sort of looking like, you know, he was going to stand up and be the grownup who was going to bring it all back to the president. >> also disdain for the media and experts. >> right. right. i mean, played it wonderfully. played the whole thing wonderfully. >> can you believe six months ago, seven months ago, we were talking about how his campaign staff left him because he was on a cruise with his wife. no one thought -- no one -- >> it happened because rick pairy and herman cain imploded. they why. >> all of this talk about this -- ever changing republican field or the front-runner in the republican field, it takes some of the focus away from the economy. maybe for president, m