When a deal is too good to be true....it most certainly is!

The last time Bush "cut taxes" I was pulling down a 6 figure compensation package and my "share" of the "tax cut" was about $350. I can't remember what I bought with my "windfall", but I'm sure it wasn't much. People in higher income brackets got as much as 100 times that amount or $35,000 (I know, I did the math at the time). If I had received $35,000, I would know what I did with that kind of money...probably invested in my family's future, bought a new car, put a down payment on a new house...you know, the stuff you remember. I bet you would have too. This latest round of "tax cuts" is structured in similar fashion, you get a little, Paris Hilton gets a lot. Here's the question for you and for everyone you know that thinks the current administration and the republican party is taking care of the poor and middle class. Why do you keep allowing Paris Hilton, Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt, Jenna Bush, Barbara Bush, Dick Cheney, etc. to ride on your dime??? Do you really like these people so much that it's OK with you that they get richer while you just tool along? Most of my friends and I'll bet most of yours don't need food stamps. Is it OK with you that Paris Hilton gets a big break while people who clean toilets at $5.15 an hour lose a benefit that helps them feed their children? Are you that angry at the poor that you cheer the loss of food to children? Big Oil made record profits in Q3 of this year, but poor kids have to go to school hungry? The aftermath of Katrina isn't about black or white, it's about what happens to the poor and middle class when the shit hits the fan. OK, so you can rationalize all of this, you want your $350 bucks. Would you invest that $350 bucks in a company that is up to its ass in red ink run by a chairman who doesn't listen to the stockholders while the chairman is calling for a redistribution of the value of the company from the stockholders to the board of directors? Would you invest in a company where the chairman announces that even though the company is doing poorly, he wants to cut revenues? Even the most brilliant business minds would think that was a pretty crazy thing to do. So why is it OK for your government to follow a leader that does this shit? If you voted for George Bush in 2000 or 2004, ask yourself if you are still happy with your choice...and if you are, why, just a year after the "election" are 6 out of 10 people not happy with him or his cronies? What do you and your other 3 buddies see that the majority of americans don't see?? Are you really better off now than you were 4 years ago? If so, how?

Your Government at Work

Champions of the Rich, Enemies of the Poor and Middle Class

In this week's episode of fuck the poor, the mostly Republican House salvaged the $50 billion spending cut by a vote of 217 to 215 by not drastically cutting the programs for the poor, college students and farmers as much as they wanted to a week earlier. The Senate was a bit kinder to the poor avoiding direct cuts to the beneficiaries of antipoverty programs but allowing arctic drilling which the congress cut from it's spending cut bill. (WaPo)

In the meantime, big oil will continue to reap tremendous profits.

Democratic Senators which proposed a bill to make oil price gouging a federal crime and outlawing market manipulation by major oil companies was defeated by 3 votes. (link)

Earlier yesterday, the Senate rejected, 64-35, a proposal by Democratic Senators Byron Dorgan and Chris Dodd to impose a 50 percent excise tax on oil companies' profits when oil exceeds $40 a barrel, unless profit is reinvested in exploration activities or developing new refineries. An amendment by California Democrat Diane Feinstein and New Hampshire Republican John Sununu to eliminate some tax breaks for large energy companies also was defeated, 51-48. (Bloomberg)

The Senate this week also voted against a way to fix Bush's Folly in Iraq. How dare senators require a timely end to the war. (USA Today)

Today the Senate will debate privacy protections regarding the Patriot Act. Yes, your privacy is still being debated you scaredy cats who willingly gave up your rights after 9/11. (link)

In an effort to keep the rich as wealthy as possible, a Democratic amendment which sought to pay for $60 billion in tax cuts by closing tax loopholes failed in the Senate on Thursday.

The U.S. Senate approved a $60 billion tax-cut measure that spares about 14 million [wealthy] Americans from paying higher rates under the alternative minimum tax. (link) Lawmakers defied a demand by the White House to delete a $4.3 billion tax increase on oil companies in the measure, which passed on a vote of 64-33 shortly after midnight last night. (link)

The tax-cut package would more than wipe out the $35 million in spending cuts the Senate approved earlier this month.

Today's Newsday editorial: "Even for a body composed of professional politicians, the Senate has had quite a week. First it offhandedly punched a hole in the Constitution, and then it sought public accolades for patching up part of the damage it had just caused." Indeed. (read the rest)