It's been hot this week. When you head out to take a dip in Lake Washington, though, take your binoculars along with you. You'll need them to find a beach that's not anywhere near maniacal, partying, drunk, rich people on oversized boats.

It's been a great year so far for rich folks, and they're living it up. Congress has just passed a bill and Clinton has signed it into law: more tax breaks for the wealthy.

Confused? Weren't those tax breaks labeled "middle class" by lawmakers and the media? Let's look at how the media (and Congress) defines the "middle class."

The "Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997" (sic) has three major aspects that affect individual taxpayers (as opposed to businesses). The most important one is a cut in the long-term capital gains tax. The main source of income for many rich people who don't work for a living comes from the sale of stocks, bonds, and other property. Rich folks pay tax on these sales when the sale amount is higher than what they paid for the investments in the first place. This is called a net capital gain.

Before Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the maximum capital gains tax was 33%, a figure far lower than the investment tax rate in European countries. Nevertheless, Ron and a Republican-dominated Congress gave rich folks a 6% cut in the capital gains tax, taking it down to a measly 28%.

Now Bill Clinton has shown his true colors. Not one to be upstaged by a B- movie actor with dyed hair and Alzheimer's, he has won his own cadre of wealthy friends by supporting an 8% cut in the capital gains tax rate, bringing it down to 20%. That's not all. The bill locks in a further decrease: in the year 2001, when Bill will be out looking for a new job, the capital gains tax will go down even further, to an astonishing 18%. Truly the dawn of a new era.

Us poor folks--and by that I mean everyone who makes less than the median income in the U.S. (about $25,000 per year)--are also getting a cut in our capital gains tax rate from 15% down to 10%. But since we pay a higher proportion of our total income for necessities (rent, food, clothing, transportation, etc.) than rich folks do, most of us don't have extra income to "play the stock market." Our real assets, if any, are houses, which we tend to live in rather than use for speculative income. A working stiff with a salary of $25,000 per year is forced to pay an 11% income tax rate and a 7.65% rate for Social Security and Medicare taxes. That's about 18% of your total income for federal taxes--the same rate that a millionaire will be paying on his or her investment income. Are you angry yet?

The media has been making a big deal over the provision in the act that allows people to avoid paying tax on $250,000 (if you're single) or $500,000 (married) of net gain from the sale of their homes. What they don't tell you is that people could do that before the bill was passed, provided they bought a new home for at least the same price as the one they sold. But the truly sleazy part of this deal is that a person making $25,000 per year (the true "middle class") can't afford to buy a house, or even a $100,000 one-bedroom condominium, the entry-level property in Seattle's real estate market.

The people who will really benefit from this scam are people who make at least as much money as, say, Slade Gorton. A lot of rich folks will sell off their houses fitted with marble floors and old-growth cedar paneling, swimming pools, Jacuzzis, sun rooms, 4-car garages, and servants quarters, only to buy something just a little bit smaller. They can pocket an extra $500,000 tax-free. It's one hard life for these parasites.

But don't despair. As conservatives have relentlessly pointed out, there's a special little tax credit tucked into the bill just to help us struggling non-millionaires: a $500 tax credit for each child in our family. Have a thousand kids, and you can equal the tax break being given the wealthy.

Meanwhile, $500 is not going to keep your new baby in Pampers, much less pay for food, clothing, school supplies, toys, doctors' visits, prescription drugs, daycare, or any of a million other child-related expenses. But Congress wasn't even thinking in terms of everyday expenses. Parents are supposed to take that $500 and put it into a savings or investment account to pay for their child's education. In other words, give the money back to the wealthy to profit from. Do they think we're idiots? Even the most optimistic calculations can't make the accumulated total pay for more than one year of a person's college education at current tuition levels--let alone what they might be in 15 years.

The "Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997" is really the "Rich Person's Excuse to Party Act of 1997." As you head out to go swimming this weekend, don't forget to take your sunscreen, and keep an eye out for drunk, coked-up jet skiers from Madrona or Mercer Island. They have health insurance, a hefty bank account, a team of lawyers, and the U.S. government on their side. And you don't.