Harvard economist Greg Mankiw says it "might be worth remembering" that 70% of economists who expressed an opinion in a Wall Street Journal poll last month thought that all the Bush tax cuts should be extended, 24% thought they should for households making under $250,000/year, 6% said they should all be allowed to expire.  Of rightish-leaning economists, Mankiw is one whose thoughts are often worth reading, but I'd much rather hear what he thinks on the issue (I suspect he's with the 70%) and why, than what 48 of 53 economists chosen by the right-leaning WSJ have to say.  I have three main points: (1) the Journal quotes four respondents by name---they are from Northern Trust, Standard & Poors, Perna Associates, and Pierpont Securities.  In other words, this is not a poll of academic economists, but of economists working for financial firms.  Maybe they're good at forecasting, maybe not.  I care more what people like Mankiw himself, Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, Robert Barro, Barry Eichengreen, Thomas Sargent, Christina Romer, Laura Tyson, etc... think on these issues.  (2) It's not clear what the basis for the judgment is supposed to be---it thus likely mixes their values regarding inequality, taxes, etc... with issues of the economic effects of tax policy. (3) Much discussion currently centers around whether or not the cuts should be made permanent.  "Extended" is a very different thing; many would support extensions while we are still in a slump, but not necessarily permanent ones.  For example, I'd support (along with Obama and virtually everyone else) an extension for people making under $250,000 a year as providing fiscal stimulus (though government spending, especially direct aid to states and municipalities, would be more effective), but not necessarily a permanent extension for everyone in this group,