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. not going to happen >> 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. but 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? >> it makes sense from a political point of view, which is why i agree with candy that 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 -- potentially very harmful? >> why? >> very harmful. 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 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 good 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. >> if they can't agree on $200 billion for a tax holiday, you think they could agree on how to blow it up and start over? >> first they have to decide on a candidate. >> you talk about tinkering 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 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 actually 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 -- back for working. >> 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 extended unemployment benefits is not to boost the economy, but to give a little help to people who are really hurting. >> candy, just -- >> talk to employers. >> this disagreement you see here, is, you know, they're on polar opposites like the body of congress. >> let me tell you something, they're also going to pass an extension of the unemployment benefits. >> you think so. >> it's christmas, 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 can't disappoint your constituencies, that's why we are where we are today and no one can give a temporary tax break and give it back or expanded tax benefits and take it back. >> after a while it doesn't make sense to talk about deficits because if you are not going to raise taxes and if 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. >> steven -- >> we can't cut spending? look we've got a $4 trillion budget, grown by leaps and bounds over the last couple years. i think you made the key point what's been happening over the last three or four years under republicans and democrats, we keep providing these short-term pieces of candy to taxpayers, we never have way to pay for it even -- what they're 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 coming 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 $1500 over the course of the year is big, but in order -- anybody i've talked to, including both these guys, know that it's 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 education and two other -- >> there you go. >> do you remember how many -- candy, bob, stephen, stay right where you are. both president obama and his potential republican say they're committed to helping the middle class. why are both talking about class warfare this week? that's next on "your money." nyquil: you know i relieve coughs, sneezing, fevers? tylenol: me, too. and nasal congestion. nyquil:what? tissue box (whispering): he said nasal congestion... nyquil: i heard him. anncr vo: tylenol cold multi-symptom nighttime relieves nasal congestion... nyquil cold & flu doesn't. not quite knowing what the next phase was going to be, you know, because you been, you know, this is what you had been doing. you know, working, working, working, working, working, working. and now you're talking about, well you know, i won't be, and i get the chance to spend more time with my wife and my kids. it's my world. that's my world. ♪ 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 same policies, the sort of we can't wait policies we've seen before, the material is not new but the way it's framed is new. almost like a re-set 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, that's true, but anybody who thinks that come, you know, the end of next november, this will all be settled and the american people will have spoken -- are smoking something because it's not going to be settled, it's never settled, an ongoing struggle about the size of the government and role of the electorate. what is the fair share the rich people don't pay their fair share. a lot of discussion after the speech about not paying their fair share. is it not fair if you are 58-year-old person who has 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. >> well, i disagree with the president in the sense i think this is about class warfare. there's been class warfare for the last 30 years, a war against the working classes and 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 helped it, 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 you to listen for a 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 democrats 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 the two parties. which ever party wins this election, will determine which direction this country goes. by the way if you look at what happened -- >> 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. >> steven, remind us how that speech turned out again? >> didn't work so well for jimmy carter. we've had this discussion for the last ten minutes or so about the deficit and nobody in washington even the republicans, are talking about cutting spending. the thing that's so amazing to me, we just had an election a year ago, remember that, where the electorate said overwhelmingly, stop the spending, stop the bailout, get the debt under control and all we're talking about now is raising taxes before a dime of spending has been cut. >> many say nothing has been done since america lost its aaa credit rating. >> in the real world taxes are not being raised. people may be talking about raising taxes but talking about extending tax cuts. >> steven, bob, candy, nice to see all of you. >> good to see you. >> 30 days ago polls showed 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. redient plus the comfort of a stool softener for gentle, overnight relief of occasional constipation. go to senokot-s.com for savings. welcome back to "your money." wnl one month ago a 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. polls show gingrich is leading the pack by 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." will, the same poll that showed romney beating obama a month ago showed gingrich trailing the president by 8 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 president obama. i would add a carve ve at. they want to beat president obama in a debate apparently. they want to beat president obama stylistically. nothing to do with substance. all the critiques as a voter of mitt romney exist for newt gingrich. not about character. the reason you fled from herman cain to newt gingrich can't be an increase in character value. it's about style. it's about your ability to debate and be bumped back. >> democrats want him because that style comes with distractions and i mean this phrase, every rise of newt gingrich is followed by the fall of newt gingrich. >> yeah, reminds me of the villain in scooby-doo where he's mean and scares the heck out of scoobby but he loses when they take his mask off. that's happened to him and his career. what will is talking about that style, something that mitt romney is missing. i'm speaking generally, tea party extremist and republican and conservative primary voters love newt gingrich goes after president obama. a lot of people who hate president obama. newt gingrich calls him name, a -- >> when other -- >> romney is a good guy. >> he was the one refocusing the fire on the the and away from the other people on the stage and 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 -- >> but why did it happen? because rick perry and herman cain imploded. that's why. it wasn't because of his -- >> all this talk about his ever-changing republican field or the frontrunner in the republican field, it takes some of the focus away from the economy, maybe, for the president. maybe the white house likes this searching and trying to find the leader in the republican party. >> yeah. that's another good point and the question becomes how long will it last? traditional political analysis is by mid january, early february, you will have what they call bandwagon effect. one guy win two, three states. voters coalesce behind him. the thought is that if newt can hang on for that long, six weeks, eight weeks, he can be the guy that has the bandwagon effect. i'm not sure. there is no cohesive candidate that can pull everyone together in this field. what if you have a fractured electorate for months into the summer? late spring . you're right, we've not talked about the economy for some time. >> another republican presidential candidate, jon huntsman, says it is too late for president obama to fix this economy. >> the president had two years to get this economy right. to infuse a little bit of confidence in our direction. he has failed. that door has closed and it doesn't matter whether he goes to illinois, ohio, californi