Democrats, fake Republicans in 'deal' on bail out

Rick Moran
The media is crowing about the "bi-partisan" nature of the deal reached last night between 3 senators who call themselves Republicans and Democrats.

Susan Collins, Arlen Specter and Mel Martinez labored long and hard with the Democrats and were able to get the liberals to drop around $80 billion from the bill.

That's $80 billion out of nearly $900 billion they started with.

Question: If 2 or 3 Republican senators vote for this bill, how is that considered "bi-partisan?"

Fox News:

Senators have reached a tentative deal on a version of President Obama's economic spending plan, including about $811 billion in spending and tax cuts, that will win enough Republican votes to move forward.

Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Susan Collins of Maine appeared to be the critical Republicans to sign onto the bill, giving Democrats the 60 votes needed to advance to a final vote. Democrats also voiced confidence that Republican Sen. Olympia Snow of Maine also would vote for the plan.

It isn't certain when a vote would come, but Democratic leaders said it could possibly come Tuesday.

The agreement capped a tense day of backroom negotiations in which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, joined by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, sought to attract the support of enough Republicans to give the measure the needed majority.

Uncertain of the outcome of the talks, Democrats called Sen. Edward M. Kennedy back to Washington in case his vote was needed. The Massachusetts senator, battling brain cancer, has been in Florida in recent days and has not been in the Capitol since suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day more than two weeks ago.

Reid, who had sought Friday to cut just $63 billion in spending from the bill, throwing a monkey wrench into the talks, called it an imperfect compromise. He warmly praised it nonetheless.

"But at the end of the day, we are passing a bold and responsible plan that will help our economy get back on its feet, put people to work and put more money in their pockets," Reid said.

I have no doubt this bill will put "money in people's pockets" but is there a reason that most of them are going to have a (D) after their name?

When this compromise process began, I was hopeful that they would pare it down by at least $200 billion perhaps more. Anything less would have been unrealistic.

Turns out, I was the unrealistic one. I didn't bank on the idiocy of Republican "moderates" who have now been thoroughly hoodwinked. Chances are good that a lot of those cuts will be put back by the House in the conference between the two chambers where they will meet to hammer out a final version of this monstrosity.

So Collins, Martinez, and Specter will have sold their souls for nothing.

More on the stimulus at my own site .

 

 



The media is crowing about the "bi-partisan" nature of the deal reached last night between 3 senators who call themselves Republicans and Democrats.

Susan Collins, Arlen Specter and Mel Martinez labored long and hard with the Democrats and were able to get the liberals to drop around $80 billion from the bill.

That's $80 billion out of nearly $900 billion they started with.

Question: If 2 or 3 Republican senators vote for this bill, how is that considered "bi-partisan?"

Fox News:

Senators have reached a tentative deal on a version of President Obama's economic spending plan, including about $811 billion in spending and tax cuts, that will win enough Republican votes to move forward.

Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Susan Collins of Maine appeared to be the critical Republicans to sign onto the bill, giving Democrats the 60 votes needed to advance to a final vote. Democrats also voiced confidence that Republican Sen. Olympia Snow of Maine also would vote for the plan.

It isn't certain when a vote would come, but Democratic leaders said it could possibly come Tuesday.

The agreement capped a tense day of backroom negotiations in which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, joined by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, sought to attract the support of enough Republicans to give the measure the needed majority.

Uncertain of the outcome of the talks, Democrats called Sen. Edward M. Kennedy back to Washington in case his vote was needed. The Massachusetts senator, battling brain cancer, has been in Florida in recent days and has not been in the Capitol since suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day more than two weeks ago.

Reid, who had sought Friday to cut just $63 billion in spending from the bill, throwing a monkey wrench into the talks, called it an imperfect compromise. He warmly praised it nonetheless.

"But at the end of the day, we are passing a bold and responsible plan that will help our economy get back on its feet, put people to work and put more money in their pockets," Reid said.

I have no doubt this bill will put "money in people's pockets" but is there a reason that most of them are going to have a (D) after their name?

When this compromise process began, I was hopeful that they would pare it down by at least $200 billion perhaps more. Anything less would have been unrealistic.

Turns out, I was the unrealistic one. I didn't bank on the idiocy of Republican "moderates" who have now been thoroughly hoodwinked. Chances are good that a lot of those cuts will be put back by the House in the conference between the two chambers where they will meet to hammer out a final version of this monstrosity.

So Collins, Martinez, and Specter will have sold their souls for nothing.

More on the stimulus at my own site .