Though the tax deal negotiated by President Obama and Congressional Democrats includes an extension of a handful of Recovery Act provisions, like the expanded Earned Income and Child Tax credits, one potential for inclusion that was ultimately left on the sidelines was an extension of the expiring Build America Bonds (BABs) program.

This program has the federal government pay 35 percent of the interest on bonds that states issue to fund transportation, infrastructure, and school construction projects, allowing them to initiate projects (and create jobs) that they otherwise wouldn’t have, given their budget woes. Last month, BABs issues surpassed $150 billion, as governors from both parties took advantage of the program.

But as Reuters reported today, Congressional Republicans are ready to bring it to a halt:

Congressional Republicans will block any inclusion of Build America Bonds, a taxable bond program popular with states, cities and other muni issuers, in the tax deal they clinched with President Barack Obama, a Republican aide said on Tuesday. “We have a very firm line on BABs — we are not going to allow them to be included,” a congressional Republican aide said.

Today, New Jersey is using the BABs program to raise money for work on the New Jersey Turnpike. In all, 1,912 bond issues have been made by state and local governments, funding everything from school construction and water projects to roadwork. “Build America Bonds have provided crucial support for state and local governments at a time when they faced unprecedented stress raising funds,” wrote Princeton economics Professor Alan Kruegar. “State and local governments have used BABs savings to create jobs and reduce taxes.”

“Once we emerge from these difficult times, investments made with Build America Bonds will be one reason that communities that are now suffering will once again be thriving,” added Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA). “Extending the life of this innovative bonding program will ensure that growth continues and that our country will remain competitive.”

As The American Prospect’s Tim Fernholz explained, Build America Bonds “is one of the most successful programs of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, spurring productive investment, job creation, and creating a more progressive and democratic method of local finance.” CAP’s Seth Hanlon, Jordan Eizenga, and James Hairston noted that the bonds also save taxpayer dollars, make the government more efficient, and are “far more transparent than tax-exempt municipal bonds.”

Reuters’ James Pethokoukis predicted today that allowing BABs to expire is part of a GOP strategy to push troubled states into bankruptcy and cripple public employees unions.

As part of the much-discussed tax deal between Obama and Congressional Republicans, all of the Bush tax cuts — including those for the richest two percent of Americans — will be extended for two years. But for months now, Republicans have been hollering that the one thing American businesses need to start hiring again is certainty. “America’s employers are afraid to invest in an economy stalled by ‘stimulus’ spending and hamstrung by uncertainty,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH).

As Dave Weigel pointed out, Boehner said just one month ago that a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts was not a way to end uncertainty for employers. ” I — I don’t think — that eliminates the uncertainty that’s preventing employers from hiring,” he said. And Boehner was far from alone:

SEN. JIM DEMINT (R-SC): To have certainty in what the tax rates will be is much more important than a temporary extension of the current rates. We don’t need a temporary economy.

REP. SCOTT GARRETT (R-NJ): Is 25 months a good period of time for that uncertainty? No.

REP. MIKE PENCE (R-IN): Uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity. Saying that there’s going to be a tax increase two years from now…leaves further uncertainty in the system.

In fact, there were plenty of members of the GOP claiming that what businesses really needed to start hiring was tax certainty. Watch a compilation:

But now that a deal has been struck, as National Journal’s Edmund Andrews and Jim Tankersley noted, “the great uncertainty, bemoaned by Republicans and business groups, is if anything greater than ever.” “The deal worsens one of the tax code’s biggest underlying problems: almost every major part of it, from rates to breaks, is literally temporary,” they wrote.

Of course, when it came to tax cuts, Obama’s plan for permanent extension of the middle-class tax cuts and expiration of those cuts for the richest two percent of Americans would have provided certainty. But the GOP was so desperate to extend tax cuts for the rich that “certainty” was thrown under the bus.

As Weigel put it, “By Boehner’s own standard, this compromise doesn’t reduce uncertainty, which during the election and after the election really became the key Republican argument for keeping the rates.” Jonathan Chait added, “For those still clinging to any naive notion that Republicans meant this as anything more than a slogan, the answer is now clear. [Republicans] want low tax rates for the rich. They don’t care about certainty”:

Republicans had a choice. They could accede to certainty with Clinton-era rates on the rich, or uncertainty with Bush-era rates on the rich. They chose uncertainty. The Bush-era rates will live on for two years, after which nobody knows if they’ll be extended or not.

The data for this post was compiled by Michael Linden, Associate Director of Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Yesterday, the White House agreed with Congressional Republicans on a “framework” for extending the soon-to-expire Bush tax cuts. In exchange for a two-year extension of all the tax cuts — including those for households making more than $250,000 per year — the deal includes a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits, a two percent cut in the employee side of the payroll tax for one year, and a retention of some expanded tax credits included in the 2009 Recovery Act.

To get Republicans on board, Obama also agreed to a two-year cut in the estate tax (which he characterized in a statement as a “more generous treatment of the estate tax than I think is wise or warranted”).

So, in order to get desperately needed help for the long-term unemployed and to provide the middle-class with tax relief in a weak economy, Obama agreed to tax cuts for a small, wealthy portion of the population that the Republicans were willing to go to the mat for, even if it meant that everyone’s taxes went up if the Bush tax cuts expired.

For comparison’s sake, here is a chart detailing both the number of people (in millions) who benefit from each side’s priorities, as well as the total cost (in billions). 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.

Excluded from this analysis is extension of the broad-based Bush tax cuts, on which everyone agreed. The total package will cost about $900 billion over the next two years, entirely financed through deficit spending.

As CAPAF’s Michael Linden and Michael Ettlinger noted, the various components of the tax deal (outside of the broad Bush tax cuts) will save or create about 2.2 million jobs. If, however, the GOP’s priorities were discarded in favor of further cuts in the payroll tax, that number would increase to 2.7 million, an addition of 500,000 jobs.

Of course, the lost revenue of the bonus tax cuts and the estate tax cut could also have gone towards reducing the deficit, which Republicans spend so much time complaining about, while simultaneously expanding by cutting taxes for the rich.

It’s unclear, at the moment, what Congress will do with this package, as both House and Senate members from both parties have expressed opposition. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said yesterday that he would filibuster the package.

Read more about the tax deal in today’s Progress Report, “Tough Pill To Swallow.”

This year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ran one of the largest, most partisan, corporate-funded attack campaigns in its history. It worked closely with Karl Rove’s network of attack groups, while raising $75 million dollars to smear Democrats, including Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), and others. The Chamber’s ads were particularly sleasy; many were patently untrue, while others criticized Democrats for supporting legislation that the Chamber actually asked them to support.

Part of the Chamber’s strategy has been to manipulate the press and the wider public by falsely portraying itself as a community of small businesses and local chambers of commerce. Meanwhile, local chambers are upset that they are being unfairly associated with the U.S. Chamber’s far right partisanship. Politico reported today reported on the growing rift:

“We were getting pounded. We felt here, in Central Pennsylvania, that the ads they were running were not professional ads,” said David Wise, president of the Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County, which is considering dropping its national membership. “This was not a unifying event. It was divisive.” [...] Other chambers plan to take the extraordinary step of ending their affiliation with the U.S. Chamber, including The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. Its leaders reported being inundated with angry — and sometimes profanity-laced — telephone calls from people objecting to the U.S. Chamber-backed ads. [...] Looking ahead to the 2012 elections, if more local chambers publicly declare their independence, it could undermine the power and credibility of attacks launched from the Washington office.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, during part of its history, was a practical business lobby interested in working with Democrats and Republicans alike to promote policies to boost both the interests of executives and to help ensure high employment. However, those days are long gone. Since the 70s, the Chamber has been a far right lobbying group, representing mostly multinational corporations like ExxonMobil and CitiGroup. Last year, nearly half of the U.S. Chamber’s entire budget came from large health insurance companies. As ThinkProgress reported, the Chamber also recently began a secretive effort to attract donors from foreign corporations, including the Bahrain Petroleum Company and the Bank of India.