Today in Washington D. C. - Feb 5, 2009
Yesterday, senators worked their way through a number of amendments to the bill. Senators adopted by voice vote an amendment from Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) to create a $15,000 tax credit for homebuyers. Also adopted by voice vote was an amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) to modify the “Buy American” provision in the bill so that it be “applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.” The Senate Democrats rejected eight Republican amendments: an amendment by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) to cut $47 billion in wasteful spending, an amendment by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) cut corporate and individual income taxes and repeal the AMT, an amendment by Sen. John Thune (R-SD) to require funding for all projects in the bill occur within one year, an amendment by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to require spending cuts and a move to a balanced budget once the economy recovers, an amendment by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) to cut $5.2 billion in pet projects and replace it with the same amount of defense spending, an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) to cut the tax rate for the lowest tax bracket in half, an amendment by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) to repeal the 1993 Social Security tax increase, and another McCain amendment to strike the “Buy American” provision from the bill. None of these amendments attracted more than 4 Democrats’ votes, and 4 were opposed by every Democrat in the chamber.
CongressDaily reports: “President Obama and key advisers Wednesday pressed Senate Democrats to allow spending cuts to the economic stimulus bill to win Republican backing, senators said.” And several Democrat senators, including Ben Nelson, Claire McCaskill, Kent Conrad, and Evan Bayh, have said many of the pet projects that clearly will not create jobs should be trimmed. Bayh told Fox News yesterday, “We need to eliminate the wasteful spending and the silly stuff.”
While some Senate Democrats are critical of the bill, overall Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s caucus has not made any serious moves to “eliminate the wasteful spending and the silly stuff.” Aside from an amendment to eliminate an embarrassing tax break for Hollywood (which 43 Democrats voted against), no amendment to cut spending in the current bill has passed. Instead, the price tag of the bill has increased over the course of the week to over $920 billion.
While Democrats defend the spending in the stimulus, public opinion has soured on the bill. Support for the bill has dropped from 45% two weeks ago to 37% yesterday in a Rasmussen poll. Part of the reason for the steep decline is seen in several headlines today: Politico: Obama losing the stimulus message war; Politico: GOP jams the airwaves; Time: Can Obama Regain Control of Congress’ Stimulus Bill?; Newsweek: “Obama needs to reassert command of the agenda in Washington.” Liberal columnist E.J Dionne admits today that “Republicans . . . have been winning the media wars over the president’s central initiative.”
President Obama has found himself defending the bill in a series of TV interviews and an op-ed in The Washington Post. Obama has been forced to use all of his political influence to attempt to drag this bill across the finish line in the Senate. Most telling are the series of meetings Obama has had to have with moderate senators, including Democrats like Ben Nelson, to sew up their support for the stimulus bill, as Politico reports today.
Tags: economic stimulus, US Congress, US Senate, Washington D.C. To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
1 Comments:
No to “stimulus” bill. Here’s why:
Since Obama’s earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, has confirmed the very threats to our Republic’s survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court and Military Joint Chiefs to refrain from exercising WHAT IS THEIR ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION. The questions of Obama’s Kenyan birth and his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingnes to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his internet posting of a discredited ‘after-the-fact’ short form ‘certificate’. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addressed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment ‘citizen’ is not sufficient. A ‘President’ MUST BE an Article 2 ‘natural born citizen’ AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS’ INTENT.
Post a Comment
<< Home