The caption linked to the photo above reads, "President Bush signs bill S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, in the East Room of the White House in Washington Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2006. Around him are House and Senate supporters of the Bill. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)."

Notice the sign on the front of Bush's table - "Controlling Federal Spending." There are no cuts to the programs for big money corporations. The federal deficit will increase this year. There are no cuts to big money special interests.

Bush and his supporters are cutting money for student loans, health programs, children programs, education, retirement, welfare and other entitlement programs. The cuts affect you. Bush's tax structure helps the most rich -- not you.

Do you really think they care about you? No women, no people of color, no regular or common people are part of Bush's team. Their dream is a nation with a small percentage of WEALTHY WHITE MEN holding all the power over the rest of us. He uses fear to convince millions to vote against their best interests.

Watch out... there's a terrorist right behind you!

Inequality has been rising for the past 25 years, and is getting worse. With the start of a new year, it's time to focus on the millions of Americans who are struggling simply to break even each month. The American consumer sustains the U.S. economy, and contrary to Ayn Rand's plutocratic view of economics, it is the consumer, not "Atlas," who is shrugging under the weight of debt and financial pressure.

The Bush administration and Republican controlled Congress recently passed another series of cuts that affect working people. These include dramatic reductions in funding for student loans, Medicaid and Medicare. At the same time they pass legislation that puts more money in the pockets of the most wealthy.

The United States of American became the world's greatest economy in the two to three decades following WWII. As the chart below (left) shows, we accomplished this feat by putting money in the pockets of average families and average workers. We call this "bottom up" economics. Since the election of Ronald Reagan we have witnessed a rich revolution. Reagan and Bush adherents follow a "top down" strategy. We ask you one simple question: Are you better off today? The "haves and have mores" (Bush's base) are clearly living in bling -- thanks to your sacrifice!

ABC News conducted an opinion poll (3.22.05) asking respondents their position about the tragic Terri Schiavo case. Specifically, "Do you think the political leaders who are trying to keep Schiavo alive are more concerned about her and the principles involved, or more concerned about using her case for political advantage?"

Americans overwhelmingly recognized the political opportunism. Nearly 70 percent noted the Republican leadership was using Terri's situation for political gain. This is an example of compassionate conservatism. Sadly, neither side is offering a humane solution -- we would hope to be treated differently if we were in such a situation.

We believe it is cruel to force Terri to starve to death or die from thirst. We would prefer to be put to sleep as Americans manage an aging family dog. Rather than allow Terri's vegetative body to wither away slowly, we would recommend assisting her passing in a safe and compassionate manner. Nobody would offer their family pet anything less. Poor Terri. May God bless her. Shame on the Republicans and George W. Bush for using her suffering to push their agenda!

It seems one can't open a newspaper or watch TV news without hearing Republicans claim Social Security is in a crisis. They are misleading Americans. Loose nuclear materials is a crisis. Iraq is in crisis. Global warming represents a crisis. Social Security is an American entitlement program that must be continually tended, as one would tend a garden. It is not in a crisis. Yet by 2008 the first of the baby boomers will begin to retire. People are living longer, and living costs are increasing. What do we do to ensure ALL Americans have an opportunity for a quality retirement that ensures a life with dignity and comfort?
Politics 101 Reviews the Issue

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY, (R-IA): It's in man's basic nature going back to John Locke that people want to be free and they're born free.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL, (D-NY): I tell you this, if the president means what he says in his inaugural address, then we're going to have to go into Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, North Korea and China.

You know, for Americans to get so hypocritical over democracies with countries that we trade with every day, it really amazes me. And I'm telling you, we went into Iraq not for elections. We went there to knock off Saddam Hussein, but the American people thought it was connected with 9/11, there was weapons of mass destruction, there were connections with al-Qaeda. It was all a fraud.

SEN. GRASSLEY: [Talking About Social Security Reform] "What Democrats like to do is wait until the last minute, until there's really a crisis out there..."

A number right-wing Washington, D.C. politicians have headed back to their states as newly-elected governors. And their behavior, once they leave Beltway fantasyland for the real world, shows just how out of touch today’s conservative ideology is with solving real problems. For instance, as a congressman, Ernie Fletcher was a reliable vote for Bush administration cuts to health care and Medicaid. Now, as governor of Kentucky, Fletcher told Fox News in January that he’s “very concerned about any cuts” to Medicaid proposed by the President. Similarly, as a congressman, Bob Riley was a reliable vote for Bush-backed tax cuts to the richest 1 percent of the country. But as governor of Alabama, Riley pushed a statewide initiative to raise taxes on the rich and wealthy corporations.

But perhaps the biggest hypocrite of all is Mitch Daniels. As President Bush’s Budget Director, Daniels was a top point man in ramming massive tax cuts for the wealthy through Congress, and gutting spending for critical programs. Now, as governor of Indiana, he is facing the ramifications of his actions in Washington - and proposing exactly what he railed against. See for yourself:

THEN:
"It's especially risky to talk about let alone a jack up today's level of taxation."
- White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels, 2/5/02

NOW:
"Gov. Mitch Daniels called for a one percent income tax increase to help balance Indiana's budget."
- Indianapolis Star, 2/20/05

THEN:
"[Mitch Daniels] is truly committed to cutting back the size of government."
- Cato Institute fellow Stephen Moore on Daniels efforts to gut spending on safety net programs, 1/20/03

NOW:
"Instead of immediately shrinking state government [upon becoming governor, Daniels] expanded it, creating a Department of Child Services."
- NY Times, 2/20/05

In some ways, it is laudable that Daniels and other right-wingers are embracing more progressive positions. But the sincerity of their ideological conversion is dubious - they are merely up against budgetary reality, and desperate for solutions.

And that is exactly why what they are doing is so dangerous to conservative hacks like Grover Norquist. The actions of Daniels and his fellow converts, motivated by a need to address reality rather than push ideology, provides proof that the progressive agenda can better address America's real-world challenges.