When is a tax cut not a tax cut? According to Republicans, when those receiving it are working Americans and the President proposing it is a Democrat. Because after they spent 2010 ensuring the extension of the Bush tax cut windfall for the wealthy by insisting "you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans," GOP leaders are demanding exactly that for President Obama's proposal for continued payroll tax relief.
Last week, the New York Times reported Republican opposition to Obama's call for another one-year holiday to reduce American workers' Social Security payroll tax from 6.2% to 4.2%. This week, the Times' Jackie Calmes explained the GOP's rationale for its latest obstructionism:

The single biggest stimulus measure he will propose is likely to be temporary payroll tax relief. If the current tax cut, due to expire at the end of the year, is expanded next year to employers as well as employees, it would pump roughly $200 billion into the economy, with the aim of stimulating much-needed demand for goods and services from consumers and businesses and, additionally, of giving companies an incentive to hire...
Republican leaders have said they might support the payroll tax cut's extension if its cost is offset by equal spending cuts, a condition they did not apply for extending the Bush-era tax cuts on high incomes. Mr. Obama has said he will propose long-term deficit savings to offset the short-term costs of his stimulus proposals, though that is not likely to satisfy Republicans.

Over 12 months, the lower payroll tax rate would cost the U.S. Treasury about $70 billion. As it turns out, that's about the same amount drained from Uncle Sam's coffers annually to continue the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans.
Apparently for Republicans, some taxpayers are more equal than others.
That was the clear message last year, when Republicans demanded the extension of the Bush tax cuts for upper-income Americans at a ten-year cost of $700 billion. As Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the second-ranking Republican in the Senate explained in July 2010:

"You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset [the] cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."

Kyl's was just the latest repackaging of President Bush's long ago debunked claim that "you cut taxes and the tax revenues increase." Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison parroted that line, "Every major tax cut we've had in history has created more revenue." Then House Minority Leader John Boehner agreed, insisting last June that the Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with the depleted U.S. Treasury, "It's not the marginal tax rates ... that's not what led to the budget deficit. The revenue problem we have today is a result of what happened in the economic collapse some 18 months ago." Confused as ever, Michele Bachmann in December warned about the "reduction to the Treasury in the Social Security taxes" even as she argued "It's curious to me that they say there's a cost involved when people are allowed to keep their own money." For his part, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rushed to defend Kyl's fuzzy math:

"There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

George Costanza notwithstanding, just because Republicans believe it doesn't mean it's not a lie. Leave aside for the moment that the Bush tax cuts accounted for half of the deficits during his tenure, and if made permanent, over the next decade would cost the U.S. Treasury more than Iraq, Afghanistan, the recession, TARP and the stimulus - combined.

Not only did Republicans proclaim that the revenue lost to tax cuts never had to be offset, but pretended that failure to extend the gilded-class windfall meant tax hikes for all Americans.
As the looming December 31, 2010 expiration date of the Bush tax cuts approached, President Obama proposed continuing them for 98% of American taxpayers. On July 19, Michigan Republican Dave Camp sent out an email blast warning of the "Democrats' ticking tax time bomb" claiming "Americans to pay higher taxes starting January 1, 2011." On July 20, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) declared, "Should Democrats get their way, every income tax bracket will increase on Jan. 1, 2011. Every single one."
It's no wonder Politifact deemed the charge "False." As the fact checking site put it:

"For many months, Democratic officials have consistently said that they intend to let only the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals lapse. The cutoff they usually suggest is $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. President Obama campaigned on just such a plan."

Nevertheless, Sarah Palin, who lost to President Obama in that campaign, stepped up the Republican "tax hike" fraud:

"My palm isn't large enough to have written all my notes down on what this tax increase, what it will result in.... Democrats are poised to cause the largest tax increase in U.S. history, it's a tax increase of $3.8 trillion in the next ten years and it will have an effect on every single American who pays an income tax."

Of course, now that the beneficiaries of Uncle Sam's payroll tax cut largesse reside in the middle class, Republicans are predictably silent.
No one should be surprised that Republican leaders and their conservative amen corner are not shrieking about a "$70 billion across-the-board tax hike on American workers" come January 1, 2012. As Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor put it:

"All tax relief is not created equal."

Neither, apparently, are American taxpayers.