Weighing in on that well-trod question, I think not. I join the fray after shouting at the radio last night as Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee was speaking on All Things Considered. He is the third ranking Republican leader in the Senate. Melissa Block asks him directly:

How do you justify that a quarter of the tax savings in this deal go to the wealthiest one percent of the population? Help us understand why that’s fair.

Sen. ALEXANDER: Well, the goal is to create jobs. And if you raise taxes in the middle of an economic downturn on anybody, especially the job creators, you make it harder to create jobs.

So he doesn’t even bother addressing the “fair” part and provides no evidence whatsoever to buttress his assertion that higher taxes on “the wealthiest one percent” make it harder to create jobs. It’s just Republican common sense.

Block goes on:

BLOCK: And if you look at the proportions, though, of the top, top sector of earners in this country getting the bulk of the benefits, why does that help?

Sen. ALEXANDER: Well, if you’re a small business person in Tennessee, what this means is that you won’t be paying tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps more, in taxes and you can use that to create a job. It also means that your employees who work there will get a one-third reduction in their payroll tax payments every two weeks. And maybe they’ll spend some more money creating more jobs. So it’s a combination of policies that all together are focused on jobs.

With that he lumps small business owners in with the wealthiest one percent of the population. While one might quibble with the definition of “small business” — here in the U.S. it’s generally under 100 employees, in parts of Europe it’s under 15 — we can all agree that if its owners are in the top one percent of earners they should use more of those earnings to create jobs and become BIGGER businesses.

Beyond that Alexander doesn’t address the question, moving on instead to elements of the compromise that have nothing to do with job creation. Block wonders if he wants the tax cuts for the wealthiest earners extended permanently:

Sen. ALEXANDER: [T]hey’re not cuts, they’re tax increases. It’s the largest tax increase in history that’s automatically set [by Republican President George W. Bush] to go up January 1st. I believe that those tax rates ought to stay the same permanently. Our taxes aren’t too low, our spending is too high. That’s another debate we’re going to be having. But right now, our whole goal is to make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs. Raising taxes on anybody doesn’t do that.

BLOCK: So you would want a permanent extension, then. Curious, then, how that can be justified with the widespread fear about ballooning deficits and the talk about the future that we’re leaving for our grandchildren. How do you justify a package of tax cuts that adds $900 billion to the deficit?

Sen. ALEXANDER: You keep calling them tax cuts and I have to respectfully disagree with you. You don’t cut taxes when you leave tax rates at the same level they are. This is a big tax increase that will happen January 1st. The debt is the second big problem we have. Jobs is the first, debt is the second.

For the record, I fully support the tax compromise. The reality in America today is that policies aimed at boosting the economy and benefiting the vast majority of us are held hostage to wasteful tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent. The Wonk Room:

Obama’s components of the tax deal (extended unemployment benefits, the payroll tax cut, and the extended credits) will cost $214 billion to aid 156 million people. The Republicans priorities (extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich and cutting the estate tax), meanwhile, will cost $133 billion, but only benefit roughly 4.8 million people.

The deal is a net plus for Democrats:

The GOP got around $95 billion in tax cuts for wealthy Americans and $30 billion in estate tax cuts. Democrats got $120 billion in payroll-tax cuts, $40 billion in refundable tax credits (Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and education tax credits), $56 billion in unemployment insurance, and, depending on how you count it, about $180 billion (two-year cost) or $30 billion (10-year cost) in new tax incentives for businesses to invest.

I am persuaded by the rest of Klein’s analysis as well.

LATER — So this morning I’m shouting at the TV. Michelle Bachmann (in one of her more reasonable performances) with Meredith Vieira on Today (my rough transcript):

VIEIRA: Let me ask you about fiscal responsibility… If you extend these tax cuts we’re hearing that you’re going to add, what is it, $500 billion to the deficit? So how do you justify that? You said you oppose extending unemployment benefits because that’s going to add $55 billion. But that’s a lot less.

BACHMANN: Well, remember, it all begins with spending. There’s been dramatic overspending that has gone on…

VIEIRA: But how do you justify adding more money to the deficit?

BACHMANN: Well, remember… when people are allowed to keep their own money, that’s considered a deficit. I don’t agree with that definition. When people keep their own money that’s considered a deficit to government but it’s not a deficit to your pocket or mine….

VIEIRA: Let me ask you about people who feel…Republicans are for tax cuts to millionaires but oppose extending unemployment insurance to the people who are hurting the most. To them this is mean-spirited. Why are they wrong?

BACHMANN: But we’re not talking about millionaire sitting in leather chairs lighting their cigars with $100 bills. We’re talking about a carpet-layer in Sheboygan, WI, who employs his brother in-law and his son with gross sales of $250,000…

Uh, but you were asked about millionaires and the people who are hurting the most. It goes on.