Obama and the Dems might have got played here. Krugman and other economists are saying it's too small to work - so the GOP got the Dems to slash it which lessened it's chances of working and still voted against it. So the GOP weakened it, but the Dems still own it completely.

As I noted in another post, the thing that struck me about this op-ed is that he explains the cuts they made by saying they ought to be dealt with as part of the normal appropriations process, a catch-all justification that could be applied to any cut in any area.

But he doesn't really attempt to justify what they cut in policy terms, nor does he attempt to justify why they insisted on more tax cuts.

While I'm glad he's on board, to me this shows the utter bankruptcy -- economic, moral, political -- of the so-called "moderates'" position.

Ironically, their "compromise" -- because of how much it will weaken the impact of the stimulus --could actually cause Obama more damage over the long run than the Repugnuts who are just being asshole obstructionists.

Reconcillation only needs 51 votes in the senate. pass the best bill that can get 51 votes and move forward. remove tax cuts and get the spending rolling. Krugman and others have said that doing too little is the real danger. Don't have a bill that is too small, won't work and will blamed on the democrats anyway. I think that Obama and the dems should make an all spending bill as a substitute to be introduced via reconcillation ready to go when the compromise bill goes down.

Specter is still shaking in his boots at the possibility that Pat Toomey may primary him, either with himself as the candidate or some other Club for Growth wacko. But the dude needs to wake up. First of all, he was able to get by Toomey when things, while not looking great, were much better for the GOP. Second, his state is bluer now than it was 2 years ago. Third, Specter is at the end of his career - why go out as the guy who screwed his own state out of needed cash.

The fact is that the GOP is OWNED by Norquist/Toomey/Limbaugh/Dobson. Those guys will NEVER lead the GOP into the majority but they can get a more moderate GOPer defeated in a primary. But I don't think Specter is vulnerable to a challenge from a fringe wingnut so I'm not sure why he's being such a jerk.

So, all it takes to be deemed serious and showered with bipartisan praise is a willingness to indiscriminately slash programs while voting for a bill that would pass with or without your vote. That's quite a racket.

http://pufferfishblog.com/

Obama townhall underway now. Go Mr. President!

As we head into the final stages of the debate, I'm so glad the President is standing strong against the economic ignorance and political games of the Republicans. We need investment in jobs and infrastructure, NOW- not tax cuts. Making dumb choices in the name of "bipartisanship" does not make sense, and I think Obama, having given it a good try, now realizes the Republicans are unable or unwilling to put country ahead of party.

As for the Senate "compromise" proposal -- among other cuts, the state stabilization funding and the school construction funding that the "centrists" cut from the bill would be immediately, strongly stimulative to local economies- allowing school districts across the country to both save and create thousands of teaching and construction jobs, right now. These cuts must be restored in the final version. (I am a local school board member here in Portland and we are facing devastating cuts due to imploding state budget; and we have $273 million in school renovation work ready to go, just lack the funding.)

Also, the wasteful and non-stimulative tax cuts that the Senate "centrists" put in should be removed. Tax cuts don't work. We need investment in jobs and infrastructure, not more tax cuts. I hope the President and the D's in Congress stand strong and take the additional tax cuts out.

My comment is limited to the piece in the above post about NIH funding. As indicated above, and as trumpted by Senator Nelson, a lot of people seem to struggle with the concept of increasing the budget of the NIH in times like these, questioning how that will save jobs or help at all. My husband is a research scientist, and relies on funding from the NIH, NSF, ACS, and various other agencies to pay his salary and those of his employees in the lab, as well as to fund his research. In the past 8 years, the Bush admin did little or nothing to increase funding for any of these agencies. Funding, if it was increased at all, went up very minimally, not even keeping up with inflation (surprise, surprise -- they shortchanged science). As a result, paylines for grant funding dropped from 15-20% (meaning 15-20% of grants submitted would get funding) during the Clinton admin to a pitiful 5-10%. This has led to many scientists being forced to leave academic research and to try to make a go of it in industry. Nowadays, with the economy as it is, there aren't a lot of industry positions. These scientists are being forced out of jobs (many universities require scientists to recover 50% and upwards of their salaries from grants), and, in turn, are having to let go post-docs, lab techs, etc. The scientist is also losing his/her career, too -- in my husband's case, that would be 11 years of post-high school education (plus an addition 3 years of post-doctoral work) going down the drain, along with the livelihood of his family.

I understand people being concerned about a lot of the cuts being made in the attempts to secure a compromise, but thumbing one's nose at NIH funding doesn't take into account that increasing funding allows scientists and their labs to stay employed.

BTW, although I don't live in Nebraska, I contacted Sen. Nelson's office about this issue, as he's complained about it too -- I've gotten no response.