Senate to vote on FEMA funding as government shutdown looms
CBS/AP
Updated at 1:55 p.m. ET
Partisan squabbling over a fraction of the federal budget has tied up a short-term spending bill, but the Senate returns to work tonight to vote on a bill in the hopes of avoiding a government shutdown this week.
The House and Senate last week intended to pass a bill to keep the government funded through November 18 and provide emergency funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). But Democrats and Republicans disagreed over whether it's necessary to cut funding for other programs to pay for the FEMA expenses, and they failed to pass the bill. Now, if Congress doesn't pass the spending bill by Sept. 30, the government would be forced to shut down.
The Senate on Friday rejected the House version of the bill, which would have allocated about $1 trillion in government funding, including about $3.7 billion for FEMA disaster aid. The Democratic-led Senate voted against the House bill because it includes $1.6 billion in Republican-proposed spending cuts targeting the Department of Energy's Advanced technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program. The program gives loans to car companies to pay for things such as factory upgrades and the development of new, green, fuel efficient technology, and Democrats say the cuts would cost up to 10,000 jobs.
With little time left to act, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tonight will hold a vote on a bill that mirrors the House version, but without the spending cuts. If it passes, the House would have to pass that version as well. If it fails, the Senate could be compelled to accept the House version or, more likely, the two sides would have to negotiate a compromise in the next few days.
The funding in question represents just .04 percent of the federal budget, but the fight represents the larger battle over deficits and government spending.
Meanwhile, FEMA is running short of cash to pay for relief efforts to help the victims of Hurricane Irene, Tropical Storm Lee, and several other costly natural disasters across the country. Victims of the disasters say Congress is letting people suffer while it continues its partisan bickering, the New York Times reports. The disaster relief fund has just $114 million left in it, the Associated Press reported Monday, which should be enough money to last until this Thursday -- two days longer than earlier predicted.
Over the weekend, members of Congress gave little indication that they were ready to compromise.
"The Senate is saying... why should we, in effect, rebuild schools in Iraq on the credit card but expect that rebuilding schools in Joplin, Missouri, at this moment in time have to be paid for in a way that has never been in any of the previous disaster assistance that we've put out before?" Sen. Mark R. Warner, D-Va., said on CNN's "State of the Union."
The office of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, meanwhile, pointed out Monday morning that Democrats have in the past diverted renewable energy funding for other programs and called Senate Democrats hypocritical for opposing to do so in this instance.
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 201 Comments
- Senators lack votes on immigration despite progress
- Senator: Oklahoma "hit hard, but we're not knocked out"
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
Mortar - you are quoting a conservative thought piece on the Great Depression, not the larger body of research about it.
You are correct, arthanyel, Thank you for your research and comment.
Motar is a serious radio listener and so rightwing he flys in circles.
We are in a double whammy of coming out (very weakly if at all) of a housing bubble and a Finacial crises. The worst of the worst. I have read that there will be no real recovery for 6 years plus, 2017. From more than 1 source. I am from the midwest, Green Bay Packer country. Home prices are at 2000 levels, vacation property on northern lakes are at 20 year lows and building permits are a joke. We have over 2 year inventory of homes on the market. Nationally 1 in 4 homes are underwater, the day Obama took office. I do not care for any politician. There are over 13,000 lobbyists who as a full time job screw the American people. I hope I am wrong but with the current stalemate politically, we will be lucky to get back on track for 10 years.
November 28, 2008, 1:47 pm
Was the Great Depression a monetary phenomenon?
Sins of omission?
Has anyone else noticed that the current crisis sheds light on one of the great controversies of economic history?
A central theme of Keynes's General Theory was the impotence of monetary policy in depression-type conditions. But Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, in their magisterial monetary history of the United States, claimed that the Fed could have prevented the Great Depression a claim that in later, popular writings, including those of Friedman himself, was transmuted into the claim that the Fed caused the Depression.
Now, what the Fed really controlled was the monetary base currency plus bank reserves. As the figure shows, the base actually rose during the great slump, which is why it's hard to make the case that the Fed caused the Depression. But arguably the Depression could have been prevented if the Fed had done more if it had expanded the monetary base faster and done more to rescue banks in trouble.
So here we are, facing a new crisis reminiscent of the 1930s. And this time the Fed has been spectacularly aggressive about expanding the monetary base:
Ben goes for broke
And guess what it doesn't seem to be working.
I think the thesis of the Monetary History has just taken a hit.
Charts are @ this link
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/was-the-great-depression-a-monetary-phenomenon/
But they have the corrupt corporate media (like Fox and Murdoch) and the greedy rich right wingers financing their propaganda Newspeak.
Top 400 people have as much wealth as the bottom 125 million. Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and S&P and many other robber barrons crashed this economy, losing over 9 TRILLION in home equity.
I agree, GOP, GREEDY OIL PARTY has a good start out the door, 87% of America wants congress OUT! 80 million boomers will not vote for Perry or any other clown who will mess with Social Security.
Dec 30th 2009 | from the print edition
Some produced big stimulus programs. China's is the best known, but Russia, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, Brazil and Chile also unveiled large anti-crisis budgets or counter cyclical spending programs. As a share of GDP, stimulus spending by the emerging-market members of the G20 was larger than spending by the rich members. In that sense, emerging markets did more than their Western counterparts to combat global recession. Even countries that could not afford emergency programs like China's let their fiscal balances deteriorate as counter cyclical spending got under way. In Africa, oil importers let their budget deficits rise from 2.2% of gdp in 2008 to 6% in 2009.
By ring fencing social spending, developing countries managed to protect some of their poorest people. Brazil expanded the coverage of its assistance program for the poor, called Bolsa Familia, by over 1m households to 12m. India expanded to the whole country a program that guarantees 100 days' employment on public works each year to any rural household that wants it. China's massive stimulus program may have forestalled disaster in the migrant labor force. Half the 140m laborers working in Chinese cities returned home in early 2009, a fifth stayed there, and another fifth could not find work when they returned to the cities. But as spending on infrastructure started to kick in, employment surged by the middle of the year, joblessness among rural migrant workers was down to less than 3%. Beyond China, fear of social unrest associated with jobless migrants (as in 1997-98) has not materialized. A forthcoming study of 11 countries by Oxfam, a British NGO, found that migrants took new jobs, often at lower wages or with longer hours. In Vietnam some were even given money to stay in the cities by their families in the countryside, a kind of reverse remittance. But there was no mass return to the villages.
http://www.economist.com/node/15172941
Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics, is even more bullish, forecasting a 1.9 million job boost and a 2% lift for GDP if the package is passed as proposed.
Zandi said while pushing more money into the economy is the key, passing the jobs package could also provide a much needed boost of confidence at a time when the economy teeters on the edge of a new recession due to so much uncertainty.
"Investors, consumers and businesses appear shell-shocked by recent events," he said. "Confidence normally reflects economic conditions; it does not shape them. Yet at times, particularly during economic turning points, cause and effect can shift."
"Sentiment can be so harmed that businesses, consumers and investors freeze up, turning a gloomy outlook into a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is one of those times," he added.
But others aren't expecting as big of an impact.
David Wyss, an economist at Brown University, expects only about 600,000 additional jobs if the package passes. And Jeff Joerres, CEO of staffing firm ManpowerGroup (MAN, Fortune 500), said while there's a lot to like about the proposal, it shouldn't been viewed as the solution to a weak economy and labor market.
"We should be realistic about what it actually can do," he said. "When it comes down to it, the only way to create massive amounts of hiring...is sustainable demand for products and services. This is not going to create that."
Economists say one big problem with assessing the program is figuring out its chance of passage in the face of Republican criticism.
Keith Hembre, chief economist for Nuveen Asset Management, said he thinks the package could lift GDP by 1.5 percentage points and add 1 million jobs, but doubts Congress will approve Obama's proposal.
"It seems much more like a wish list than anything that is likely become law," he said.
1 MILLION NEW JOBS
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Economists gave generally positive reviews to President Obama's jobs plan Friday, with some estimating that at least 1 million jobs could be added in the next year if Congress passes the package.
The payroll tax holiday for workers and small businesses was cited specifically for having a relatively good "bang for the buck." And that part of the plan may have the most bipartisan support.
"This additional spending capacity in the hands of consumers should continue to foster improvements in aggregate domestic demand. And ultimately, it is demand and demand alone that will lead to more business hiring," said Russell Price, senior economist for Ameriprise Financial Services.
Price estimates the increased payroll tax holiday for workers by itself is likely to add between 750,000 to 1 million jobs, and that the new break on payroll taxes for employers could add an additional 100,000 to 200,000 jobs.
He added that gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity, could get a 1.5 percentage point boost as well.
Macroeconomic Advisors, a St. Louis research firm, estimates that payrolls would grow by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and another 800,000 by the end of 2013, if the package passed as proposed. It is looking for a 1.3% rise in GDP.
Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisors, said even if the impact to the economy is short lived, the jobs plan should be passed.
"Given the elevated risk of recession the U.S. faces today, additional near-term stimulus reduces that risk," said Prakken. "Given the deleterious effects of long-term unemployment on an individual's skills and long-term employment prospects, speeding a return to employment is both individually and socially beneficial."
Bush sends jobs overseas
With no fanfare, President Bush Friday signed the most sweeping rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly two decades, showering $136 billion in new tax breaks on businesses, farmers and other groups.
Intended to end a bitter trade war with Europe, the election-year measure was described by supporters as critically necessary to aid beleaguered manufacturers who have suffered 2.7 million lost jobs over the past four years.
But opponents charged that the tax package had grown into a massive giveaway that will add to the complexity of the tax system and end up rewarding multinational companies that move jobs overseas.
Bush sends jobs overseas
With no fanfare, President Bush Friday signed the most sweeping rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly two decades, showering $136 billion in new tax breaks on businesses, farmers and other groups.
Intended to end a bitter trade war with Europe, the election-year measure was described by supporters as critically necessary to aid beleaguered manufacturers who have suffered 2.7 million lost jobs over the past four years.
But opponents charged that the tax package had grown into a massive giveaway that will add to the complexity of the tax system and end up rewarding multinational companies that move jobs overseas.
CBO-8-26-2011
CBO reports revised figures say unemployment would have been 2 points higher without Obama stimulus.
Many good things happen on President Obama's watch, e.g., CBO confirms the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" (ARRA -- Obama's 1st stimulus) had positive effects on the US economy. In a report "Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from January 2011 Through March 2011" CBO says ARRA had the following effects through Qtr1 of calendar year 2011:
Raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.1 percent and 3.1 percent
Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.6 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points
Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 3.3 million, and
Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.6 million to 4.6 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise, as shown in Table 1 (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)
Quite a reversal from GW Bush & crew's dismal job loss record (700,000+/month & 7.8million+ total) when they slinked out of Washington DC. While subsequent data indicates Bush's 2008 recession & economic mess was worse than originally estimated, things would have been far worse without Obama's 1st stimulus.
The full CBO report is at:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12185/05-25-ARRA.pdf
Big money now controls every part of our government.
The "MOB" creates fear in the public by threatening to shut down the government and promptly goes on another break so their constituents can't lay their hands on them.
They have done this repeatedly and done it often enough to prove to Americans they want complete control over everything.
DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM.!!
We have been shafted enough by these money-grubbing corrupt politicians.
If we wait until 2012 to take them on, it will be too late.
They will have corrupted or destroyed every program created to further aid or benefit the American people and prostituted us into oblivion.
This is all part of their plan to divide and conquer.
Why do we continue to put up with a President and Congress that is robbing our children and grandchildren of the basics (ex: a GOOD education) and send money to countries who are our enemies to better educate their children.
None of this makes any sense.
But for the past 11 1/2 years they haven't done anything that does make much sense; so I guess all we can expect is more of the same.
CBO-8-26-2011
CBO reports revised figures say unemployment would have been 2 points higher without Obama stimulus.
Many good things happen on President Obama's watch, e.g., CBO confirms the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" (ARRA -- Obama's 1st stimulus) had positive effects on the US economy. In a report "Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from January 2011 Through March 2011" CBO says ARRA had the following effects through Qtr1 of calendar year 2011:
Raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.1 percent and 3.1 percent
Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.6 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points
Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 3.3 million, and
Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.6 million to 4.6 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise, as shown in Table 1 (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)
Quite a reversal from GW Bush & crew's dismal job loss record (700,000+/month & 7.8million+ total) when they slinked out of Washington DC. While subsequent data indicates Bush's 2008 recession & economic mess was worse than originally estimated, things would have been far worse without Obama's 1st stimulus.
The full CBO report is at:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12185/05-25-ARRA.pdf