Senate agrees to pass reduced version of Obama “stimulus” plan

Dandelion Salad

By Patrick Martin
7 February 2009

The Obama administration reached a tentative agreement Friday with a group of Senate Republicans and conservative Democrats to cut the planned economic stimulus package by tens of billions of dollars, paving the way for the Senate’s passage of the legislation over the weekend. Floor debate began Friday evening on a measure to cut $110 billion in spending from the bill, reducing the measure to a total of $780 billion.

The nature of the “compromise” agreement is best illustrated by considering the political physiognomy of the five senators who negotiated it. They include three Republicans—Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania—Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the most conservative member of the Democratic caucus, and independent Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, an all-out supporter of the war in Iraq who was one of the most vitriolic supporters of defeated Republican presidential candidate John McCain in the 2008 elections.

The final deal was reached in face-to-face talks between Collins and Specter, speaking for the group of five, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, after the Senate Democratic caucus approved the package Friday evening


via Senate agrees to pass reduced version of Obama “stimulus” plan.


Will Obama Start the Next Trade War? by Shamus Cooke

Open Letter to Dr. Joseph Stiglitz and Challenge to Debate By Richard C. Cook

It’s Not Going to Be OK, By Chris Hedges

The Economy Sucks and or Collapse 2

2 thoughts on “Senate agrees to pass reduced version of Obama “stimulus” plan

  1. Irregardless of a stimulus package or not, the economy is going to sink a lot further, especially considering all the damage that has already been done with the pissing away of taxpayer money–money that only generates more debt when it was the debt that created the problem. The illogic of Congress and the administration, and most mainstream economists seems to rein supreme. The nation will be lucky if it only loses a decade.

  2. In my humble opinion, this bill, even if it passes, is problematic and undoubtedly will fail, but not for the reasons which many might think.

    This economic situation is a big deal. Historically in society, when something is a big deal and potentially threatens the very existence of a nation (whether economic or otherwise), the citizens of a nation rally around the flag and join forces to confront it.

    That is not the case here. There is no mandate here and this patchwork effort will continually be subject to criticism, whether fair or not. If I were Congress, I would return to the drawing board and come up with “something” which at least 75% of our elected officials could support with some degree of enthusiasm.

    We need that type of unusual leadership right now. We’ve seen for the past several years, in the case of Iraq, what happens when a country is significantly divided as to an approach taken to address a matter of national concern. There at least ought to be what amounts to a consensus. The symbolism is huge.

Comments are closed.