While I was hoping to post something light hearted today, alas, there has been very little to smile about. 

Given the track record of this administration and the Dems in Congress, they have told us which side they're on and it's not ours....and it's causing a lot of suffering for regular Americans, especially the tens of millions of unemployed, like the 99ers left out in the cold.

David Sirota adds to the damning evidence that Obama has answered clearly which side he is on by citing one of his bailed out financial industry donors as reason to back Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

"I just received a press release from the White House (you can see it here) citing a pro-tax cut memo from Morgan Stanley as reason for Congress to pass the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 a year. Let's step back and document the chronology that show just how audacious this really is.

"1. Morgan Stanley is one of the big financial firms that helps run the economy into the ground.

"2. Morgan Stanley becomes one of the top corporate campaign contributors to Barack Obama.

"3. Obama's Fed gives Morgan Stanley a $2 trillion bailout.*

"4. Nonetheless, Obama cites this same bailed out bank as a credible and objective source on the economy Morgan Stanley helped destroy - all in order to sell a tax plan that will benefit Morgan Stanley's executives in the form of new high-income tax cuts.

"I think the "Which side are you on?" question about Obama has been answered.

"* Note that the press release also cited another Obama bailout recipient, Barclay's...and the Ruling Class's official spokeshole, David Brooks."

And Cenk Uygur warns about "The Hidden Cost of Capitulation."

"Now that the president has signaled yet another collapse in agreeing to tax cuts for the rich, there is a hidden cost to this capitulation. He is now stuck defending this deal for the rest of his term. I predicted this on the show yesterday and today it's playing out exactly the way I imagined, with the president sending out advisers to talk about what a great idea it is to give tax cuts to the rich.

"Once you sign off on a political position, you own it. This could be a corollary to Colin Powell's doctrine on foreign policy. Powell said if you break it, you own it. In this case, if you make it, you own it.

"The president claims he will fight hard against these same tax cuts two years from now. It's hard to stop laughing long enough to make a point against that, but I will try. If you are sending out your people to talk up polls about how right the Republicans were on the tax cuts for the rich now, how are you going to send out the same people to talk about how wrong they were - and how wrong you were - two years from now?

"....he doesn't seem to understand Politics 101. You don't just count the votes based on how the other side says they're going to vote. From time to time, you call their bluff. Which means you go to the home states of swing senators like Scott Brown in Massachusetts and Olympia Snowe in Maine and you campaign on this winning issue there until you make them feel the political pain. Then you put them to a decision -- do you want to risk your career voting against me on this issue where I have huge popular support or do you want to vote with me? Then you take the vote and they will bend. If he doesn't understand that, boy did we elect the wrong guy.

"Of course, the alternative is that he does understand that but doesn't ever have the stomach for a real fight. Or even worse yet, secretly likes this deal and will always find an excuse to get more tax cuts and sweet deals for the rich and powerful. In which case, boy did we elect the wrong guy."