Pro-Business lobbyists: STFU and vote for it, GOP.

[SirNitram]

Link

With a deal filed Saturday night and growing business support, President Barack Obama must next overcome two 60-vote Senate hurdles Monday and Tuesday before plunging into final negotiations with Congress over the final shape of his economic recovery plan.

Those same House-Senate talks will give the administration an opening to exert itself more directly than it has up to this stage. But so many changes have now been made to the initial House bill that the conference will almost surely run past Obama’s Feb. 14th deadline and into the Presidents' Day recess.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has vowed there will be no holiday until the bill is done. And at a party retreat in Virginia Saturday, the California Democrat sought to tamp down criticism from her caucus about the concessions made in the Senate talks.

“Respect the bill for what it does, don’t judge it for what you wish it did,” she said, according to a leadership aide. Nonetheless, her home state has huge issues with how the Senate would distribute new Medicaid funds, and the reduced level of state aid is a flashpoint for many governors struggling with budget deficits.

The first Senate test Monday evening will come on a cloture petition to cut off debate on the revisions negotiated Friday — revisions that cut about $108 billion from the total cost of the package. The second challenge would follow on mid-day Tuesday when 60 votes will be needed again to waive budget points of order and complete passage.

The administration is betting on at least three Republican moderates to help see it through, and the traditionally Republican-leaning business lobby is beginning to exert itself more as well.

In announcing his support Friday night, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) pointedly read from a Chamber of Commerce endorsement. The National Association of Manufacturers has also weighed in, telling Republicans that votes on the bill “including potential procedural motions” may be considered for designation as key votes in NAM’s scoring of their legislative record.

Coming in at noon, the Senate held a rare Saturday session to set this process in motion.

As it worked out, Democrats needed all day—and a big chunk of the night—-just to finish assembling the papers to implement Friday’s agreement. The final package, filling 778 pages, was not filed until near 10 p.m. Saturday, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) broke the silence by filing cloture an hour later.

Reid thanked Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.), who sat in the chair for hours waiting, for being on hand to “get the wheels finally moving.”

The text before the Senate now is essentially a complete substitute for the initial Senate bill, wrapping together the agreement Friday and all the amendments previously adopted on the Senate floor. Among these is a $15,000 homebuyer’s tax credit, which has since been estimated to cost much more than first advertised. But no changes were made in this section, though the question is sure to be revisited in talks with the House.

As for the bill itself, it's now clearer that the overwhelming share of the $108 billion in reductions would come from the spending side of the ledger. The end result is a bill about the same size as the nearly $820 billion House package but tilted far more toward tax reductions, which would be more than 40% of the total.

Discretionary funds governed by the Senate Appropriations Committee are cut by about $83 billion, a 23 percent reduction that includes a $40 billion cut from a state fiscal stabilization program and the virtual elimination of a $19.5 billion public school and higher education construction program opposed by Republicans.

One of the last decisions was to strike $5.8 billion in public health funds to fight preventable diseases. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was the driving force in making this cut, but elsewhere, she was also a force in adding $870 million for community health centers.

Within the Senate Finance Committee, about $7 billion in savings would be achieved from spending programs and $18 billion from tax changes.

The savings include $2 billion from the president’s health information technology initiative. Another $5 billion would be achieved by scaling back subsidies promised under a new initiative to help workers maintain their employer-provided health insurance when cut from company payrolls.

Among the modifications to tax provisions, the single largest relates to the treatment of low-income housing tax credits. But politically, the two more sensitive issues relate to income rules applying to the refundable child tax credit and Obama’s signature “Making Work Pay” payroll tax credit, worth $500 per individual and up to $1000 for families.

In each case, the revisions dial back eligibility to save a total of $5 billion altogether. The payroll tax credit would begin to phase out when a worker’s adjusted gross income exceeds $70,000, compared to $75,000. In the case of the refundable child tax credit, a worker would become eligible only when his or her wages exceed $8,100, $2,100 higher than the initial Senate bill and far above the House version.

[General Zod]

On a related note, Republicans think the stimulus will end in disaster, click for full article

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Leading Republicans warned Sunday that the Obama administration's $800 billion-plus economic stimulus effort will lead to what one called a "financial disaster."

"Everybody on the street in America understands that," said Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee. "This is not the right road to go. We'll pay dearly."

Shelby, of Alabama, told CNN's "State of the Union" that the package and efforts to shore up the struggling banking system will put the United States on "a road to financial disaster."

But Lawrence Summers, the head of the administration's National Economic Council, said Republicans have lost their credibility on the issue. Video Watch Republicans criticize the stimulus bill »

"Those who presided over the last eight years -- the eight years that brought us to the point where we inherit trillions of dollars of deficit, an economy that's collapsing more rapidly than at any time in the last 50 years -- don't seem to me in a strong position to lecture about the lessons of history," Summers told ABC's "This Week."

President Barack Obama, his advisers and the Democratic leaders of Congress argue the roughly $830 billion measure will help pull the U.S. economy out of its current skid. Much of the package involves infrastructure spending, long-term energy projects and aid to cash-strapped state and local governments.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported last week that the measure is likely to create between 1.3 million and 3.9 million jobs by the end of 2010, lowering a projected unemployment rate of 8.7 percent by up to 2.1 percentage points.
Don't Miss

* Debate on stimulus package to resume Monday
* What got cut from the stimulus bill
* GOP senators 'caved in' on stimulus, Paul says

But the CBO warned the long-term effect of that much government spending over the next decade could "crowd out" private investment, lowering long-term economic growth forecasts by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent by 2019.

In a concession to Republicans, about a third of the bill involves tax cuts. But the measure is expected to have only minimal GOP support when it goes to a scheduled vote early this week. Video Watch South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford warn of "disastrous consequences »

The version of the bill that passed the House of Representatives had no Republican votes.

"We need to spend money on infrastructure and on other programs that will immediately put people to work. But this is not it," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, last year's GOP presidential nominee.

Senators reached a tentative agreement Friday on a compromise bill largely negotiated by a handful of moderate Republicans whose votes are needed to prevent a filibuster. But McCain told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the package should have been about half the size of the one now before senators, and should be balanced between tax cuts and spending.

I think it's hilarious that Republicans are saying it needs to be spent on infrastructure and programs that'll put people to work, yet that's precisely what they cut.

[Ryan Thunder]

I think it's hilarious that Republicans are saying it needs to be spent on infrastructure and programs that'll put people to work, yet that's precisely what they cut.

Pretty clever of them, actually. Why do you think they cut it? The retards will probably think it was never there to begin with.

[Darth Wong]

None of the Republicans' behaviour has anything to do with what's best for anyone or anything other than their midterm election chances in 2010.

Every single person who has ever posted on this forum to boast about the glorious idea of government gridlock is a fucking idiot (excepting those who have recanted). This brilliant scheme of constantly electing politicians to square off against each other in a game of checks and balances does nothing but produce endless political campaigning, where there is no governance. There is only the next political campaign, which starts before the previous campaign ends.

[ray245]

None of the Republicans' behaviour has anything to do with what's best for anyone or anything other than their midterm election chances in 2010.

Every single person who has ever posted on this forum to boast about the glorious idea of government gridlock is a fucking idiot (excepting those who have recanted). This brilliant scheme of constantly electing politicians to square off against each other in a game of checks and balances does nothing but produce endless political campaigning, where there is no governance. There is only the next political campaign, which starts before the previous campaign ends.

Try telling that to most Singaporeans, especially those nutcases who supported the SDP. Trying to find a political system where both parties can argue reasonably is hard.

[CmdrWilkens]

Actually the Parliamentary system is basically designed to get things acheived. The US system is designed to be adverserial and conceded this down to a bare minimum of legislation. Its two competing ideals and in the later case if you have actual statesmen its possible to get things done (or if you have super majorities) however for day to day governance and accountability it isn't really the ideal solution. Conversely the British system is designed to pass legislation (even poor legislation) which means that bad policies by one party can very quickly turn into a full blown revolt by the opposition which neccessitates new elecitons and a new government that can immediately reverse course...theoretically.

Both systems have their shortfalls but the current term system in the House and Senate have the effect of making everything a permanent campaign.

[KrauserKrauser]

I understand that alot of people have big 'ole hard ons for this stimulus but the Congress has already demonstrated their complete inability to deal with these large sums of money with the intial bank bailouts. I would think intense scrutiny should be placed on this bill as tehy already have a horrible track-record when dealing with the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars at once.

Tax cuts, some infrastructure and more pork than they will know what to deal with is what I see for this bill. At this point I'd rather it just not get passed because I simply don't trust them to spend this amount of money in a sane and useful manner.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The CBO did a report over the weekend ripping apart the new stimulus bill and asking for less alarmist "We do this now, no questions, or the world ends" bull, which we got off Bush and Paulson with the first TARP.

[KrauserKrauser]

Now, be fair, it was not just alarmism from the White House, there were the same sentiments from Obama, Pelosi and Reid. It wasn't just Bush cramming it down the throats of the unwilling Democrats in Congress. I sure aas hell didn't hear Barney Frank crying about it.

[General Zod]

I understand that alot of people have big 'ole hard ons for this stimulus but the Congress has already demonstrated their complete inability to deal with these large sums of money with the intial bank bailouts. I would think intense scrutiny should be placed on this bill as tehy already have a horrible track-record when dealing with the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars at once.

The bank bailouts were nothing but sheer incompetence, but it almost looks like they've learned from their mistake on this one. Most of the items I've seen seem to actually be geared towards job creation in some degree or another.

Tax cuts, some infrastructure and more pork than they will know what to deal with is what I see for this bill. At this point I'd rather it just not get passed because I simply don't trust them to spend this amount of money in a sane and useful manner.

And you define pork as. . .what?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I understand that alot of people have big 'ole hard ons for this stimulus but the Congress has already demonstrated their complete inability to deal with these large sums of money with the intial bank bailouts. I would think intense scrutiny should be placed on this bill as tehy already have a horrible track-record when dealing with the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars at once.

Congress DIDN'T allocate the TARP, you idiot. It was simply placed as the discretion of Treasury to do with it what they must. Why is it a package to help the real economy and average people must be perfect and must be trimmed down to the very last line-item must be so perfect while the business elite got TARP with no trouble at all is fucking pathetic.

Tax cuts, some infrastructure and more pork than they will know what to deal with is what I see for this bill. At this point I'd rather it just not get passed because I simply don't trust them to spend this amount of money in a sane and useful manner.

You're a fucking idiot. Its a shitty bill for reasons that AV and J and aerius, but you're arguing in principle that no rescue should be attempted because your party and POTUS destroyed government credibility with SOME Democrat help. Furthermore, unlike TARP, this bill specifically allocates funding toward sources which will have to publish their balance sheets and where we'd be able to do investigating, contrary to the secret bank aid. You Republicans don't even know what pork is, you just voted for McCain and thought it was the Last True Hope for making the GOP sound fiscally responsible.

[KrauserKrauser]

Congress DIDN'T allocate the TARP, you idiot. It was simply placed as the discretion of Treasury to do with it what they must. Why is it a package to help the real economy and average people must be perfect and must be trimmed down to the very last line-item must be so perfect while the business elite got TARP with no trouble at all is fucking pathetic.

So Congress doesn't share the responsibility because they just handed over 700 billion to the treasury without any restrictions? They could have put restrictions on the money but they decided not to. Were my posts reflectine of somehow approving of the way the TARP was handled? You seem to be accusing me of supporting the TARP because it went to the rich and not supporting this because it is going to help the non-rich, which is not the reason I do not support the Stimulus package.

The reason I believe the stimulus bill should be in your words "perfect" is because they fucked up on the TARP program, they now have a history of not being able to properly handle these large sums of money, so why should I not want every i and t to be crossed and make sure that if we are going to be spending this kind of money, we should be spending it on items of concrete benefit.

Have I advocated for tax cuts to be included int his bill? Have I been screaming about the payments that will be made to those people that don't pay as much into the system? No, you put words in my mouth because you are an asshole.

Hell, I've moderated a shit ton from my previous stances, I've admitted that tax cuts aren't necessarily the be all end all and that there is some merit to the more socialist nature of government as life has given me more perspective to learn from, but that does not mean I support congress' rush to spend $800 billion because "OMG THE WURLD IZ ON FIRES!!! BURN BURN BURN."

You're a fucking idiot. Its a shitty bill for reasons that AV and J and aerius, but you're arguing in principle that no rescue should be attempted because your party and POTUS destroyed government credibility with SOME Democrat help. Furthermore, unlike TARP, this bill specifically allocates funding toward sources which will have to publish their balance sheets and where we'd be able to do investigating, contrary to the secret bank aid. You Republicans don't even know what pork is, you just voted for McCain and thought it was the Last True Hope for making the GOP sound fiscally responsible.

Well, McCain lost alot of credibility for supporting the TARP bill, so I don't really know what to say about that. Obama's support was just as impacting on the bill passing as McCain, it's not like he's not equally as responsible.

As for SOME Democrat support, I could have sworn that a greater majority of Democrat Congress-people voted for the TARP program than Republicans, wouldn't a more accurate statement be:

"The Democrats and POTUS destroyed government credibility with SOME Republican support?"

There were more Democrat votes for the TARP bill than Republican, are you refuting that fact? The bill got passed in a Democrat controlled House and Senate, do you refute that as well? The Democrats got a version of the TARP bill through Congress with a complete lack of restrictions on the actions of the Treasury. They could easily have handed over the bill to Paulson with a bunch of "but if" clauses, but they did not. It was a Democrat bill that Paulson proceeded to hump vigorously the ass of America with. They rushed into a decision and this is the result, should we not learn from our previous mistakes and quit rushing into this current spending bill as well?

Do you have a detailed link for all of the things this bill will in fact be funding? With the TARP bill in my mind, I do not trust that the money will be spent well. My claims of pork, etc are done out of ignorance to athe actual contents of the bill and a distrust of the current Congress so enlightenment would be much appreciated. Hell, I'll break down the spending with my opinions if I can get a copy of it.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Far, far more needs to be put into permanent infrastructure expenditure with immediate results e.g. nuclear and highways, rather than as throwaway gestures (like the bank bailouts) that achieve little if anything even in the short term. I notice that this bill has very little in the way of building a better America than many had predicted, hence the disdain from both sides of the political spectrum and many key economists. Now, we can either do this right, or just leave it and see how that takes us. I wouldn't recommend the last option.

No one should be pressured into pushing forward another boondoggle of pork and wasted programme money when an arbitrary deadline is written down. This plan needs to be seriously assessed on its long term merits, because a lot of it won't make any impact within two years anyway, so it needs to be done right. The vast majority should be going towards public works to reverse the neglect over many previous administrations to the national framework of industry, from power supply to logistics and social improvement. Forget the idea of being energy independent. That's not happening even if Obama was in office for two decades. Instead, Capitol Hill has the task of keeping spending realistic and getting the most from it, which right now, can only be down to rebuilding a decaying US. I'd recommend a healthy cut in military expenditure too to help finance this (although it's all going to be bonds or printing now).

These actions are needed sooner or later, whereas with the TARP, the line "Don't just do something, stand there!" would've been a better descriptor than the calls for doing anything to sure up corpses of finance. This same plan of action worked post-9/11, where the PATRIOT Act was passed with barely anyone even reading it, because suddenly TERRUHRISM was lurking around every corner, and nothing being done right damn now meant America would burn. Or not. If Congress can digest these things in a good time-frame, then any worries over ability to allocate spending and tax cuts etc. properly should be assuaged.

[Darth Wong]

I would say that the big problem with TARP was that the whole crisis happened during an election campaign, hence everyone's attention was divided between the issue and the campaign politics. But America is always in an election campaign.

[General Zod]

Do you have a detailed link for all of the things this bill will in fact be funding? With the TARP bill in my mind, I do not trust that the money will be spent well. My claims of pork, etc are done out of ignorance to athe actual contents of the bill and a distrust of the current Congress so enlightenment would be much appreciated. Hell, I'll break down the spending with my opinions if I can get a copy of it.

As I recall, the current bill is upwards of several hundred pages long right now. Since it's not quite approved yet good luck finding a comprehensive source of every item detailed in the plan. I've posted one article already detailing items that the GOP considers "pork" in N&P, though. Should still be on the first page.

[Darth Wong]

Shouldn't someone demand that the GOP produce an explanation of precisely how they define "pork"?

They've been allowed to get away with nebulous bullshit shifting definitions for many years. People need to start calling them on it. Either they'll produce a narrow definition which excludes most of the things they call pork, or they'll produce an absurdly broad definition which includes tons of things they love to do themselves.

[Admiral Valdemar]

We can all agree that pork is bad (unless it's the cooked kind, which is yummy). But just bleating about that doesn't change the fact that it does need a definition. Some Republicans would consider spending money on social welfare programmes as "pork", or moving to renewables and shunning Saudi etc.

[KrauserKrauser]

There would need to be some allowance for context within the bill as well. I happen to agree with the cutting of the increased family planning spending from the bill.

While family planning is something I would normally consider a net positive to the economy, I do not see the justification for including such a politically racy issue in a such "critical and direly needed, get our asses out of the fire" stimulus bill.

I would define this spending as pork in the context of this stimulus bill as it is definitely long term in its effect. The stated purpose of the bill is short term stimulus to get us over the hump, this is a non-positive in the short term and would be better served attached to a long term bill. Sadly, long term bills are few and far between in the current political climate.

[Darth Wong]

In other words, your definition of pork is overtly built on shifting sands and subject to political whim.

[General Zod]

I would define this spending as pork in the context of this stimulus bill as it is definitely long term in its effect. The stated purpose of the bill is short term stimulus to get us over the hump, this is a non-positive in the short term and would be better served attached to a long term bill. Sadly, long term bills are few and far between in the current political climate.

Guess what? Infrastructure is long term in its effect. By your definition any construction projects are pork too.

[KrauserKrauser]

I mean, it's politics, since when is it inherently logical?

What is your definition of pork? What would you remove from a bill because you view it to be "pork"?

[J]

As I recall, the current bill is upwards of several hundred pages long right now. Since it's not quite approved yet good luck finding a comprehensive source of every item detailed in the plan.

The most recent draft I found was around 750 pages, lord knows what's buried in there. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a tax rebate subsidy for pink latex condom manufacturers, afterall they had one for toy arrows in the last bill.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Anything not (literally) set in concrete. We're too far gone to be wasting money we don't have on things we don't need. Keeping the lights on and people providing for their families (or only themselves) is the priority now. No one needs a fucking dog park more than a more up-to-date power grid, as cheap as the former may be.

[KrauserKrauser]

Guess what? Infrastructure is long term in its effect. By your definition any construction projects are pork too.

Honestly, yeah, I walked into that. The bill is being sold as a short term stimulus but most of the actual spending is going into long term projects, so objectively as there is a net positive effect and the amount required is comparatively so small, I chose a very poor rock to stand on.

I'll look at the previous post like I should have done before and try to come back with a better choice.

[Darth Wong]

I mean, it's politics, since when is it inherently logical?

What is your definition of pork? What would you remove from a bill because you view it to be "pork"?

You're the one ranting about "pork", not me. You should define the term.