Whoa! Before you senselessly start blaming Bush, you should understand why the tax cuts are "temporary".
At the time, the Republicans had 50 votes in the Senate, plus VP Dick Cheney to create a bare majority. It takes 60 votes to make tax cuts "permanent", because a Democrat filibuster could stop the measure in its tracks -- and Tom Daschle would've done so.
However, a "temporary" tax cut can be passed with a bare majority -- via the reconciliation process. However, such a tax cut expires in ten years. So that is the course the Bush administration chose to follow.
What would you have done under the circumstances? Insisted on a "permanent" tax cut...and gotten nothing? Or employed the reconciliation process...and gotten a tax cut for twelve years?
If we'd elected a Republican Senate and a Republican President in November, there wouldn't be a problem, would there? The tax cuts could've been easily extended for another ten years. But we didn't.
You can blame Bush for a lot of things. But "settling for a temporary tax cut" isn't one of them.
When was the last time the Democrats ever agreed to a temporary spending bill? Or a temporary tax increase?