I found the following summary of what passed (from SLATE) to be useful: >Well, that was quick. After a day of rapid-fire negotiations, House and Senate >leaders announced last night that they had reached a deal on a $789.5 billion >stimulus package that would, among other things, pay for billions in new >construction and infrastructure projects, provide tax relief to individuals >and businesses, and extend unemployment benefits. Democrats say it will save >or create 3.5 million new jobs, a decline from the 4 million they had >originally said was the goal. "The deal all but clinches passage of one of the >largest economic rescue programs since Franklin Roosevelt launched the New >Deal," notes the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times says that a House >vote could come as early as Friday, and the Senate would quickly follow so the >president can sign it on Monday. There's talk that President Obama might hold >a televised prime-time bill signing ceremony. The Los Angeles Times [LAT] says >the negotiations were able to move quickly partly due to "to the presence of a >team from the White House, which injected itself deeply in the process." After >all the partisan fighting, it might be surprising to hear that the final deal >"followed remarkably closely to the broad outline that Obama had painted more >than a month ago," points out the Washington Post...
>Just because the agreement on the stimulus package came quickly doesn't mean >it arrived "without moments of high drama," as the LAT puts it. Everybody >points out that at one point in the day, Senate Democrats announced they had >reached a deal, but House members denied that was the case. That led to a >two-hour meeting in which it seems Democrats were able to win some last-minute >concessions. >Full details on the revised stimulus package weren't available last night, but >the papers, especially the WSJ, have lots of details. In an inside story, the >LAT handily outlines who will benefit from the package. Approximately 35 >percent of the bill's total would go to tax cuts, and the rest would go to >spending. The tax relief for individuals was reduced, and the White House also >agreed to cut back on the proposed aid to financially strapped state >governments. In the end, $53.6 billion will go to a state "stabilization >fund," and most of that money will be for schools. The money devoted to tax >breaks for home and car buyers was also decreased. But the final agreement did >keep the $70 billion measure to prevent millions of Americans from having to >pay the Alternative Minimum Tax next year. >There was grumbling among some Democrats yesterday that their side gave in too >easily, but leaders said they had no choice if they wanted to hold on to the >three Republican votes in the Senate. There was particular ire directed at the >Alternative Minimum Tax provision that they said would have been approved by >Congress regardless. "It's about 9 percent of the whole bill," Sen. Tom Harkin >of Iowa said. "Why is it in there? It has nothing to do with stimulus. It has >nothing to do with recovery." >In a front-page analysis, the NYT says that while the agreement represents "a >quick, sweet victory" for the president, it "was hardly a moment for cigars." >Obama got his package, but without the broad bipartisan support he was >expecting. The question now is whether Obama will be able to move on to other >items in his domestic agenda so that his first days in office aren't defined >solely by a stimulus package that, by his own admission, may not work as >quickly as many Americans might be expecting. >In a front-page piece, USAT says that while it's clear that Obama "had some >stumbles" along the way, many are impressed by the way "Obama and his team >have shown a willingness to cut their losses and revise their tactics." In the >end, the fight over the stimulus package may have taught the young >administration some valuable lessons about doing business in Washington that >could prove to be useful as the president continues to pursue his agenda in >the coming months.< another story of interest: >The [Washington POST] off-leads a look at how employers are increasingly >trying to block unemployment payments to former workers. More than one-quarter >of people applying for unemployment benefits are being challenged by their >former employers, and numbers show the proportion of attempts to block the >payouts has "reached record levels in recent years." Employers save money on >their unemployment insurance when the claims are dropped, so they've >increasingly been trying to show that a worker was fired for misconduct or >left voluntarily, two factors that makes someone ineligible to receive >benefits. The increase is particularly notable in challenges involving >misconduct, which employers lose "about two-thirds of the time." < -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
