Senate Dems Compromise Away Best Parts of Recovery Plan

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/125844/senate_dems_compromise_away_best_parts_of_recovery_plan/

By John Nichols, The Nation. Posted February 7, 2009.

Senate Democrats on Friday bartered away key elements of the more robust plan approved by the House.

Determined to pass something in the way of a stimulus package, Senate Democrats on Friday bartered away key elements of the more robust plan approved by the House.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and his caucus colleagues got what is being called a "bipartisan agreement." But this is not a case of less being more.

The Senate's $780 billion plan is still a budget buster.

It's just not focused on spending as much of the money as the House sought to on renewing the economy.

In order to get the votes of two Republican (Maine's Susan Collins and Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter) and perhaps another (Mainer Olympia Snowe) that were needed to undermine the threat of a GOP filibuster, Reid surrendered $86 billion is proposed stimulus spending. In doing so, the Democrats agreed to cut not just fat but bone, and to warp the focus and intent of the legislation.

The Senate plan is dramatically more weighted than the House bill toward tax cuts (which account for more than 40 percent of the overall cost of the package). This is despite the fact that there is a growing consensus -- among even conservative economists and policy makers -- that tax cuts will do little or nothing to stimulate job creation in a country that lost almost 600,000 positions in January alone. As French President Nicolas Sarkozy, no liberal, said Friday of countries that opt for tax cuts rather than stimulus: The approach "will bring them nothing" in the way of economic regeneration.

FULL story at link.

[MrPerson]

1. You need 60 votes to waive the Budget Act.

It isn't about the filibuster.

[lostnotforgotten]

2. Best Not Let The Dem Leadership Near The Corn Cobs 'cause There Ain't Enough KY For All Of Us

eom

[Duer 157099]

3. Compare that to this quote from 2004

when the repukes had control and a huge spending bill was on the table:

"We're not going to remove anything," Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican leader, said about the contentious policy provisions. "We're not changing this bill, period."

I would love to see these 2 bills compared side-by-side, just for shits and grins.

edit to include link:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/senate.spending/index.html

[Turbineguy]

4. The Repubs want to own

a depression.

[NOW tense]

5. It is time to start looking for

primary candidates to run in 2010.

here is a list of incumbents.
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
Barbara Boxer of California
Michael Bennet of Colorado
Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii
Roland Burris of Illinois
Evan Bayh of Indiana
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
Harry Reid of Nevada
Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
Chuck Schumer of New York
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
Ron Wyden of Oregon
Patrick Leahy of Vermont
Patty Murray of Washington
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin

Who needs to go?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010

[karynnj]

6. Can we look to replace the Republicans - before we even think of removing a Democrat?

Many on that list are among the best Senators we have.

[NOW tense]

8. We can do both. n/t

[ProSense]

10. Do both? Who are you proposing to get rid of, and for what reason? n/t

[NOW tense]

14. Harry Reid

Now I do realize that by actually running people against an incumbent Senator. The result would most likely damage them in an election. I just think that we need to start being a small d democracy. I don’t think it is good enough to be safe if you have a D behind your name.

Side note:
I like most of the people on that list.

[Enrique]

9. my list

2.4.1 Richard Shelby of Alabama
2.4.2 Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
2.4.3 John McCain of Arizona
2.4.4 Johnny Isakson of Georgia
2.4.5 Mike Crapo of Idaho
2.4.6 Chuck Grassley of Iowa
2.4.7 Jim Bunning of Kentucky
2.4.8 David Vitter of Louisiana
2.4.9 Richard Burr of North Carolina
2.4.10 Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
2.4.11 Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
2.4.12 Jim DeMint of South Carolina
2.4.13 John Thune of South Dakota
2.4.14 Bob Bennett of Utah

[MasonJar]

7. It seems to me that 4 points stand out: 1) Hopefully some or all can be

restored in conference with the House; 2) If not, hopefully some or all can be covered in other ways such as the budget; 3) Obama really wants this stimulus and according to another post, when Rahm showed up from the WH Collins got a lot more than the Dems in the Senate were offering; 4) Why would Obama want a poor bill? Why didn't he try to sell it to America and then he could have gotten a truly good bill? The people would have demanded it. More importantly, why can NO DEMOCRAT EVER DO ANYTHING RIGHT?

[4 t 4]

11. Honest to God

senate Dems can suck me they have let us all own.

[stillcool]

12. Why would Obama want a poor bill?

Did you hear him speak about the bill? The part where he said education, and some other things that he wants will not be cut from the "final" bill? Do you think he's going to sell what he wants to see in it now that he knows what "IS" in it? Why is it that people have such an aversion to picking up the phone, and calling their own damn Senators and representatives? How do people think legislation is made?

[chill_wind]

13. I'm sure he doesn't want a poor bill, but here's his sense of immediacy:.

And then there's Emanuel at the end twisting arms.

But the likely passage of the legislation represents a significant victory for Obama, who has put his political capital on the line to relentlessly stress the immediate need for the bill, even as it swelled in cost and lost GOP support.

Obama endorsed the moderates' effort and brought its leaders -- Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- to the White House to discuss their proposed cuts. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel attended the final meetings in Reid's office last night to work out lingering differences. Before Emanuel arrived, Collins said, Democrats were advocating $63 billion in cuts. "Then Rahm got involved, and a much better proposal came forward," she said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020602097.html?wprss=rss_print