I realize I have to admit I flipped on daytime cable in order to bring you this nugget, but if I tell you I was looking for news on the Stevens crash, I suspect you'll forgive me. Anyway, MSNBC is switching between coverage of the plane crash in Alaska and the jobs bill that just passed the House:
House Democrats on Tuesday pushed through a $26 billion jobs bill to protect 300,000 teachers and other nonfederal government workers from election-year layoffs.(Note the use of the phrase 'election-year layoffs.' Was 'layoffs' insufficient? Did we really have to inject the assumption of political posturing into the lede?)
The bill would be paid for mainly by closing a tax loophole used by multinational corporations and reducing food stamp benefits for the poor. It passed mainly along party lines by a vote of 247-161.
But back to my initial frustration. Several times now, MSNBC anchors and reporters have asked whether Rep. Charlie Rangel's comments on the floor will take away from coverage of the jobs bill. I don't know, MSNBC reporters and anchors, will it? How about this: Not if you don't let it.
To be clear, the exact issue they're raising is whether or not Rangel's comments will be a distraction while they are actively making it a distraction.
This is why I should not be allowed to watch this crap. It just makes me angry.
cross-posted on Americablog
1 comment:
"The bill would be paid for mainly by closing a tax loophole used by multinational corporations and reducing food stamp benefits for the poor."
Now THAT makes me angry! I'm all for restoring jobs in education and other sectors that benefit the public. And for closing tax loopholes on multinational corporations.
It also makes me more than a little sad that it doesn't appear to matter if the poor just get a little hungrier. To update Marie Antoinette: Let them go to the local food bank! (Presuming the food bank has enough donations...)
And then there are the people who have lost their jobs and, perhaps for the first time in their lives, need to rely on food stamps to feed themselves and their children. Guess they should feel lucky that they have unemployment benefits -- for as long as they last. Wouldn't want them to be able to eat, too! They might not want to look for work, with such a cushy lifestyle. /sarcasm
Couldn't they have found another corporate tax loophole to tighten instead?
Post a Comment