You can't disagree with this (from Matt Yglesias):
In other words, there’s no debate in Washington about whether rich people should get a permanent tax cut. Nor is there any debate in Washington about whether rich people’s tax cut should be financed by long-term borrowing. Nor is there any debate about whether rich people should get a bigger tax cut than middle class people. But we “can’t afford” unemployment insurance, we “can’t afford” to pay bank regulators competitive salaries.
On a related note, I thought this was an amusing line from The New York Times' look at Russian corruption, as revealed in the leaked diplomatic cables:
The cables also showed how bureaucratic, national and economic power often all converged in the Kremlin, and how the state’s suitors grasped that access often equaled results. [...]
The cables further revealed how the nexus of business and state interests among Russia’s ruling elite had fueled suspicions in Washington that Mr. Putin, in spite of his vigorous denials, had quietly amassed a personal fortune.
Wall Street wrecked -- and nearly destroyed -- the global economy, but instead of investigations and prosecutions, we dropped billions of dollars in an effort to keep them safe. TARP was successful, and financial reform a genuine accomplishment, but it's still unsettling to watch Obama treat the banks with kid gloves and look the other way as homeowners are ripped off in near-sham foreclosure courts. And, as Yglesias says, our Congress is currently arguing over how much money we should should give to the country's wealthiest people.
Obviously, Russia is a tremendously corrupt place -- and as far as I know, Obama hasn't amassed a huge personal fortune while president -- but given the last two years, is the Times really so shocked by a government that works closely with and for the benefit of business?
-- Jamelle Bouie