|
This just in…
Wednesday, Feb 11, 2009 - Posted by Rich Miller * 2:44 pm - It looks like the Illinois budget won’t get the big help it needed from the federal stimulus plan. From the NY Times…
The original stimulus bill included $25 billion to help states with their deficits, which was somewhat similar to the old revenue sharing program that Ronald Reagan eliminated. That program was eliminated in the Senate compromise. I doubt it was put back in, but I’ve asked Sen. Dick Durbin’s office for a list of what is included. I’m still awaiting the reply. That “revenue sharing” program, by the way, was worth about a billion dollars to Illinois. * 3:41 pm - The AP had a story earlier that claims some of the school construction money was put back in, between $6 and 9 billion. But that was as of much earlier in the day. Not sure what the final deal is yet, but the NY Times story above *** 4:01 PM *** OK, now there are reports that the House Democrats are grumbling and that the deal is not a deal just yet. From the NYT…
Some money was apparently restored for school construction, but it’s unclear how much right now.
|
 |
|
|
- Bluefish - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 2:52 pm:
Uh oh. Suddenly it looks a lot bleaker in Illinois.
- Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 2:55 pm:
Methinks the Dems let the GOP cut this b/c the Dems are deliberately creating a rift between the Republican nutjobs in Congress and the Republican governors who actually have to take responsibility for stuff.
And when the new stimulus bill is written it will be a new chance to add goodies.
Do the Congressional Republicans really think letting state governments contract radically is a viable option? Do the GOP kooks in Congress not understand policy? Or do they think the services provided by the states are not essential in a recession/depression?
- Niles Township - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 3:07 pm:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/11/stimulus.plan/index.html
CNN has sources that indicate there is still $44 billion in direct aid to the states plus $ 8 - $9 billion for “modernizing and repairing schools.”
- bockrand - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 3:16 pm:
Thanks Rod (and every other elected official) for repeated cuts to the budget. My wife received notice a few minutes ago that due to cuts she is laid off, not at the end of the coming fiscal year but as of 4pm today. Nice to have some notice…idiots.
- A Citizen - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 3:19 pm:
Money is Power - most of the states are becoming more and more power-less. It is obvious to me that the Federal Gov’t is loathe to share the Power/Money other than with the banking industry. There are many states in serious trouble - Illinois, California, etc. These Congressional guys apparently don’t think we “understand”, or they just don’t care because the voters will not do anything about it. Disgusting and very disappointing.
- Chanson - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 3:23 pm:
I think that all of the Washington pols from IL are so paranoid about Blago and the whole corruption, they are going to withhold funds in order to keep low the opportunities for dirty dealing.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 3:23 pm:
Niles, all of the money that’s been listed as “direct aid” to the states by news outlets is actually money for schools that gets passed through state budgets.
- From the Sidelines - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 3:30 pm:
*Sigh* It is amazing that repairs to schools can be cut as “pork.”
- Qwerty - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 3:36 pm:
“Chicken Fried Steak”
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/stimulus_leads_to_chicken_frie.html
- dupage dan - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 3:51 pm:
Holy poor house batman. This is horrific and frightful. What now?
- anon - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 4:00 pm:
Carl - are you really blaming republicans for the cuts? Were there any repulicans in the room for the conference agreement?
- Amy - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 4:09 pm:
what about the County? one story said the County was certain
to get stim money (stimoney).
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 4:10 pm:
anon, don’t believe Drudge. The “article” he linked to ran a correction.
Also, without GOP votes this thing couldn’t pass the Senate because the GOP is threatening to invoke cloture. My own feeling is that the SDems should just let the SGOPs do that and force the Repubs to stage a filibuster, but that would be too non-DC.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 4:21 pm:
Rich -
Agreed, but i think there’s another way for the Democrats to skin the cat.
1. If the economy doesn’t start showing signs of life, start reminding folks what Republicans cut out.
2. Bring the stuff they cut out back for a second round of votes - in separate pieces - and force the GOP to take successive rollcalls.
3. Start by giving Republicans in the Senate the opportunity to filibuster against school construction — money that mainly goes to fast-growing suburban [read: Republican] regions.
4. Go back to #1 and repeat as often as necessary.
- IDOT'er - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 4:26 pm:
On the bright side, IDOT just delivered a detailed list of nearly $700 million in ready to go projects for the April letting to the GA. Can’t show ya cause then I’d have to kill ya.
- Toast Man - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 4:30 pm:
YDD-
I think they will first need to get Pelosi’s permission to participate in any negotiations.
- DCred - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 4:30 pm:
The key is going to be if the states got in the flexible spending language they were lobbying for… I think it was pretty obvious the senate wasnt sympathetic to the states cause (blame the repub governors public partisan comments.) Flexability will at least let them use the funding that is available to plug holes. Otherwise, states like Illinois who have continually funded education at a high level will actually get hurt.
- lincolnlover - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 4:32 pm:
Bockrand - I am so sorry for you and your wife. What a rotten way to end the day. I know the feeling, I received a layoff notice from Rod last November. Fortunately, I was spared and am still employed, but anything can happen at any minute.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 4:37 pm:
===The key is going to be if the states got in the flexible spending language they were lobbying for===
I do believe that’s gone. Long gone.
- Lefty Lefty - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 4:41 pm:
I read that the 60 votes are also needed in the Senate since bills that create deficits need 60 votes to pass.
Also, if this actually passes, that Muslim fascist socialist young president from Illinois just got his stimulus package through Congress on deadline. This may fall under the category of “Amazing.”
- Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 4:42 pm:
The Senate allows a Senator to filibuster a bill. To overcome the filibuster (cut off debate) there needs to be a 3/5 vote of the Senate.
It used to be that filibusters were a relatively extreme measure and the Senator had to go to the floor and talk the whole time.
But after the 2006 elections which put the GOP in the minority, the Republicans have aggressively used the threat of a filibuster to thwart the Democrat majority.
To get the stimulus passed, Obama had to wrangle three votes to overcome the GOP filibuster. He got Ben Nelson (D-NE), Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Susan Collins (R-ME). It was these three who insisted on cutting the money to states.
The aid to states was eliminated to bring the necessary two Republican votes on board. If the other 39 GOP Senators wanted to pass the bill with the aid to the states Obama and Reid would have been happy to work with them. However, the GOP seems to want to define itself as opposing Obama and the Democrats, not coming to the table to negotiate good public policy.
- cermak_rd - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 4:47 pm:
The stimulus bill didn’t need 60 votes due to a threatened filibuster, it needed 60 votes because it caused deficit spending (Pay-Go, how quaint, I had forgotten about it).
Truthfully, I would rather IL cut it’s budget to the bone (I know, it won’t entirely fix the problem, note the and) and raise its own revenue to plug its own budget than wind up sending more money to other states than we get back.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 4:52 pm:
Deficit spending requires that the bill be submitted to a point of order, which can only be waived with a three-fifths vote. So, put it to a vote then. Same dif.
- Lefty Lefty - Wednesday, Feb 11, 09 @ 8:26 pm:
This:
http://www.congressmatters.com/story/2009/2/7/161443/9275
says that points of order points of order, “if raised against bills or amendments that break the rules, can have the effect of preventing them from consideration (and therefore passage).” The point of order completely stops further consideration of the bill until the waiver is passed with 60 votes.
Right?