Towards the end of Ryan Lizza's profile of Rahm Emanuel (long, but well worth the read) is this tidbit about the final negotiations on the stimulus. The passage shows the impact of the differences between the House and the Senate, and the power of individual senators
“Emanuel laughed as he recounted the final sticking point in the negotiations. It was not, as many people have thought, an argument between the five centrist senators—Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Collins, Snowe, and Specter—and the House but a debate among the centrists themselves. The dispute was over a formula for how Medicaid funds in the bill would be allocated to the states. In the House version of the legislation, fifty per cent of the funds would go to all states and fifty per cent would go to states with high unemployment. In the Senate, where rural interests are more dominant, the formula was 80-20. A deal had been reached between the two chambers to split the difference and make the formula 65-35. “Everybody signed except for Ben Nelson,” Emanuel said. “He wants 72-28, or seventy-two and a half, and he says, ‘I’m not signing this deal.’ Specter says, ‘Well, I am not agreeing with you.’ ” Without Nelson, Collins wasn’t likely to vote for the deal, either. “Collins and Snowe are kind of like, at this point, looking at their shoes,” Emanuel went on, “because Specter says, ‘Well, why make it seventy-two? What do you mean? We all have it at sixty-five, in the middle.’ ” Emanuel politely declared that the formula would stay at 65-35. He then asked Nelson to step out of the room with him. After a brief conversation in the hallway, they returned, and Nelson agreed to the stimulus package.”
This blog serves my Congress course (Claremont McKenna College Government 101) for the spring of 2024.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
I shall post videos, graphs, news stories, and other material there. We shall use some of this material in class, and you may review the rest at your convenience. You will all receive invitations to post to the blog. (Please let me know if you do not get such an invitation.) I encourage you to use the blog in these ways:
There are only two major limitations: no coarse language, and no derogatory comments about people at the Claremont Colleges.
To post questions or comments about the readings before we discuss them in class;
To follow up on class discussions with additional comments or questions.
To post relevant news items or videos.
There are only two major limitations: no coarse language, and no derogatory comments about people at the Claremont Colleges.
Search This Blog
Links
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(134)
-
▼
February
(48)
- This calls for a trip to the DMV ...
- A new health care plan?
- Word on the Tweet
- The Myth of the Filibuster
- Committees
- House vs. Senate
- In the Spirit of our Last Essay
- And the recount continues...
- With Words We Govern
- RNC chair plans 'off the hook' campaign, tells cri...
- More Burris - It's not looking good for him
- Congress could have used this:
- "How Congress Actually Works"
- The House Minority Leader Reacts to the Stimulus
- Presidential Rankings
- What is in the stimulus?
- Congressional approval allegedly jumps
- Burris Update
- New DSCC Chair Projects 2010 Success
- What constitutes a successful legislative fight as...
- Hill Style and Home Style
- The Best They Could Do
- No title
- There must be somthing in the water in Illinois...
- Eric Cantor and Newt Gingrich
- Number 59
- Did Reid Roll Pelosi?
- Elections: Parties and Outcomes
- Moving Right Along
- "The" Facebook
- Congressional Elections: Strategy and Tactics
- Tentative roster of simulation roles
- Freshman Year
- Delaware Senate Seat a Contest in 2010?
- Where is John McCain now? *random*
- Clogging the Bipartisanship Drains
- Congress and the Stimulus
- Rahm to Oversee the Census?
- Again???
- Point of Reflection
- And the scandal continues...
- Money
- Interesting 2008 House Ads
- The other shoe?
- First Lady Steps Out of the White House
- Rahm Roasted
- Rahmbo insults children
-
▼
February
(48)
No comments:
Post a Comment