Are you calling your Senators about the tax vote?

I just got off the phone with Senator Wyden's office. :grr: I have long suspected that he is a corporatist, and today I have my confirmation. The staffer was rude to me, and yes, I was polite and personable with him. When I asked how the senator was going to vote the staffer asked for my zip code. Then he still didn't answer my question, just asked if I had a comment. So I commented on what I thought about the tax "deal". I then asked again how the senator was going to vote. The staffer then asked for my zip code again. :grr: I had to stay on him to get his answer that Wyden supports a one year extension of the tax cuts for all.

For those who are not familiar with Wyden or Oregon politics, Wyden is supposed to be a Liberal.

The payroll tax holiday is particularly troubling for women, who rely more on Social Security than men do. The "holiday" benefits higher income people more than those in the middle or bottom, excludes retirees -- including those forced into early retirement due to joblessness -- and excludes state and local government workers at a time when they are facing a pay freeze. Worst of all, it slashes Social Security's dedicated funding stream -- something Republican leaders and other anti-New Deal forces have wanted to do for decades.

Cutting Social Security's dedicated funding stream threatens its long-term integrity, and breaks faith with the workers who have paid into the system so that it would be there for them when they are no longer working.

The White House says the tax holiday will stimulate the economy, and Social Security will get its lost revenue back from the federal budget. We say: then why not use the federal budget to stimulate the economy in the first place? Proposals exist that would do just that. For example, it would be simple to double the Making Work Pay program. Giving everyone who earns at least $5,000 per year a benefit of $800 would be much more progressive than the payroll tax holiday and would directly stimulate the economy.

There is no need to strike at the heart of Social Security's integrity in the name of stimulus.

The president's package also allows income inequality to continue growing, and will result in more pressure to cut programs that employ and serve women disproportionately, including education, health care, child care, domestic violence prevention and other social programs.

NOW urges the Senate, which is expected to vote on the president's proposal on Saturday, to reject it. Instead, senators should pass a stimulus package that targets relief to where it is needed most -- middle and low-income families, not those earning $1 million, $2 million, or $5 million per year and more.

...but getting constant busy signals, so I emailed all four of them .