After the vote, Mr. Reid said he needed time to decide how to proceed. The majority leader, however, had already decided on the Team Reid Uniform (see staffer in the background).Politics is easy. Governing is hard. But the hard politics of the government finding an easy, if not band-aid solution, to an ailing economy reared its ugly head again yesterday. Enter the Blame Game, again.
Senate Republicans, by a single vote filibustered the Senate version of the economic stimulus package. The political brinkmanship in the Senate stood in marked contrast to the House, where Republicans and Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi took just a week to reach a deal on an economic stimulus package with President Bush, and just four more days to pass the bill.
The measure was opposed by Republican leaders who said the Democrats added too many costly provisions, including an extension of unemployment benefits, tax credits for the coal industry and increased subsidies for home energy costs.
The total cost of the Senate plan came to about $204 billion over two years, or about $40 billion more than the House version.
The package needed 60 votes under Senate rules to move forward but failed 58 to 41, with 8 Republicans joining 48 Democrats and 2 independents in support of it. The majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, switched his vote to no from yes at the last second, a parliamentary move that lets him control the next steps on the bill.
What would the next president say?
The Crypt, Politico.com's blog reports on the Senate's three presidential candidates' action/or not on yesterday's Senate session:
With 99 senators voting on the economic stimulus package and Democrats one vote short of their goal, some of them wondered:
Where is the Democrats' favorite Republican?
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was actually in Washington _ his plane landed at Dulles Airport by 5 p.m., leaving plenty of time to make the 5:45 p.m. make or break procedural vote, according to Politico's Jonathan Martin.
But while hard core conservative critics of McCain might fear he'd join Democrats and vote for an expansive economic stimulus package opposed by GOP leadership, McCain's office says he wouldn't have helped Democrats on the bill.
"As you know, it was a procedural vote _ so his absence would not have affected the outcome as he would have opposed cloture," McCain spokeswoman Melissa Shuffield wrote in an e-mail to Politico.
So McCain could have added one more "no" vote and exhibited Republican unity as he seeks to nail down the Republican presidential nomination. Shuffield did not explain where McCain actually was instead of the Senate floor.
Democratic White House hopefuls Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) both made it to the Senate floor and voted "yes" on the economic bill, which now stands in limbo thanks to Republican opposition.
So what do you think? Is this just more party politics. Or does stimulating our sagging economy simply need more time (and riders?!)
7 comments:
I think it is quite obvious why McCain didn't vote with the Democrats. He's been receiving a lot of criticism recently for not being a true, reliable conservative. His critics would have attacked him without mercy for voting with the Democrats, and furthered suspicions that he is a liberal at heart. It really was a smart move on McCain's part.
Although I think the Democrats' provisions are well-intentioned, getting this stimulus package passed as soon as possible should be their top priority, especially after the House has already passed their version.
Well, it was only a temporary block. Reaching compromise the Senate overwhelmingly passed their version of the Stimulus Bill:
From the Washington Post:
The Senate today added payments for seniors and disabled veterans to an economic stimulus package approved by the House that would send checks to most American families, then overwhelmingly approved the $151 billion shot in the arm to the U.S. economy, 81-16.
The House is scheduled to give final approval to the legislation tonight and send the plan to President Bush for his signature, ensuring that checks will begin reaching families by mid-May.
"This is the Senate at its finest, recognizing this was an opportunity to demonstrate to the public that we could come together, do something important for the country and do it quickly," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "We were able to put aside our differences, not only in the Senate but with our colleagues in the House and with the administration."
"It's tremendous what we've been able to accomplish," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
The legislation would provide $600 payments for individuals -- $1,200 for couples -- plus $300 for each child under 17. It would begin to phase out eligibility at $75,000 in adjusted gross income for individuals and $150,000 for couples. Workers who can show $3,000 in earned income last year--not enough to pay taxes--would be eligible for payments of $300.
Businesses also would be given generous incentives to invest in new plants and equipment. The Federal Housing Administration and the federally-backed mortgage consolidators Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be allowed to insure larger home mortgages.
On a 91-6 vote, the Senate added a provision granting $300 checks to seniors, disabled veterans and veterans' widows who can show $3,000 in Social Security or veterans' disability benefits last year. Senators also tightened rules to prevent illegal immigrants from claiming payments.
In all, the tax checks will cost the Treasury $105.7 billion, all of it added to the budget deficit.
Good intentions, but once again, more deficit spending. I certainly don't dispute the need to bolster the economy, but this ups the ante above the $3 trillion mark. With our national debt pushing $10 trillion, we need to watch the spending. On the bright side, at least Bush was able to work both sides of the aisle, thus showing he's not quite a lame duck yet.
I don't understand why people point fingers at Democrates when they want to do something good for the country that requires a little spending, like SCHIP or this stimulus plan. People say that the democrates are spending too much or that they are going to bankrupt this country but, if I'm right, the president is the one who out spent all of his predecessors combined and created the massive debt. For some reason, we seem to forget this. At least the democrates are helping the American people and keeping the money in this country, unlike Bush who is sending it to the middle-east.
That being said, I really think that the democrates and the republicans should stop playing politics when it comes to the economy or any other issue for that matter. I expected that the bipartisan president/house stimulus plan will sail through smoothly. As it turns out again, the Senate Democrates are adding more and more provisions into the bill that they know will kill it. Even if this revised bill gets through the senate, it must go back to the house, which will delay it even longer. I know that the provisions are well intended but they can pass those at a later date. America needs a stimulus package to help against the current recession and although this bill may be too late and too little, it is still something.
Well, by fillbusting (why could i not think of that word during the test??) the economic proposal I think that many Republicans did leave room for riders especially Reid who switched his vote at the last second, allowing Dems to understand that he could be persuaded given the right deal. Again, its all about politics.
-Jenny
It is party politics at its best (and worst). And it will loose a lot of people a lot of elections if this doesn't pass quickly.
I totally agree with sreeharsha. The provisions promoted by the Democrats would indeed help Americans facing difficult circumstances, and that partisanship should be avoided because precious time is being wasted.
The real group to blame is the Bush Administration, whose reckless fiscal policies are drowning this country in debt.
George W. Bush is actually the first President who cut taxes during wartime. Why would any government slash tax revenues when at same time it is pumping billions of dollars into a war with an indefinite end? And on top of that, his Administration and other Republicans have the nerve to criticize Democrats for their "wasteful spending". Give me a break!
Many may say that Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and big business would ultimately increase tax revenue for the government. The belief is that the tax cuts going to the wealthy would motivate them to invest in the economy, and this investment would lead to greater prosperity for society as a whole, and ultimately more revenue for the federal government. This economic policy is commonly known as the “trickle-down” theory.
The truth is that tax cuts don’t boost revenues. And “virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to” (TIME).
I strongly recommend the following the article to anyone interested in learning more about the Bush tax cuts.
"Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues"
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html
Despite these conclusions the Republican Presidential candidate(s) continue to believe in the revenue boosting power of tax cuts. I literally cringed when I heard Mitt Romney attack McCain for once opposing the Bush tax cuts.
This is just another reason why I’ll be voting Democratic this November. I’m not sure exactly how the Democrats would get us out of the deficit, but I want someone in the White House who at least does not subscribe to the fallacies of supply-side economics, which George Bush, Sr. appropriately (and ironically) once called “voodoo economics”.
As Barack Obama rightfully said during a recent debate, the Republicans are in no position to be calling for fiscal discipline.
Some of you may think that I am just using this platform to bash Bush, but to me incompetence is incompetence, regardless of what side of the aisle you’re on.
Post a Comment