Dang Kennedys' are at it again.

If memory serves, didn’t the Democrats make a commitment to not add stuff into bills not relating to the title of the bill? I could be wrong, but I thought I read about it somewhere. I really do want them to succeed. Because they are what we have even if not what we want. But so far it’s just been more of the same crooked political shenanigans. Kennedy must not have gotten the word. But, true to his eternal apologist nature he has managed to slip Illegal Alien Amnesty into the Minimum Wage Bill. BTW the credit for bringing this to my attention goes to Little Acorn at USMB.

To see it for yourself go to Thomas at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00002: and check out the amendments portion. You are looking for SA187 and follow the links to the text. IF someone can answer two questions for me I'd sure be obliged. First is: Why is this process even allowed at all? Second is : What does this have to do with the minimum wage? In reality, the GOP did stuff like this before. I just don't remember them saying they wouldn't and then doing it.

Here is a bit of disinformation from the Wall Street Journal.

"In his new budget yesterday, Mr. Bush proposed some modest ways to restrain the wealth gap, particularly by offering new tax breaks to help the uninsured buy health insurance, but did little to fundamentally strengthen existing government efforts to alter the distribution of income. Included in his budget also was a proposal to extend his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which Democrats say benefit the rich over everyone else." - Story.

The reason it is disinformation is that by proposing new tax breaks, it is implied that this will help the poor. In reality, if you cannot afford health insurance, you cannot afford it. All the incentives in the world will not give you money you don't have. Secondly they refer to "his" 01 and 03 tax cuts (cue the mantra) for the rich. IN reality all he can do is make proposals and lobby for it via the bully pulpit. Congress must draft, debate, consolidate, and submit all changes to the tax code. So in reality it's "Congress's tax cuts for the rich". Finally the line that scares me the most is:

"did little to fundamentally strengthen existing government efforts to alter the distribution of income."

This tells me that the WSJ favors a larger government that while discussing a minimum wage now, might be discussing a maximum wage down the road.

Stay tuned. Eventually I am going to launch an annual screaming hissy fit over the income tax. Even if you don't agree, you should at least laugh out loud at the vision of a two year olds temper fit posted on a blog.