this is just hilarious. what else is buried in this bill that no one has read? http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWYyNjJhYTc4NWY3NTQwYjVjNjI2ZjVlZTAyNGM1YzQ= [rquoter]Sen. Schumer has pledged to undo a provision included in the stimulus package that will make it nearly impossible for New York’s banks to hire foreign workers through the H-1B visa program. The amendment to the stimulus bill, proposed by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Chuck Grassley, D-Iowa, originally would have banned the visas for any company that received money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP. A compromise lifted the ban, but companies will still be required to hire from the growing pool of laid-off American workers first. Advocates say that the mandate is so onerous that it will virtually stop banks from bringing foreign workers into the country. According to a report released last year by the Partnership for New York City, roughly 13,000 workers in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are here on H-1B visas. The top visa sponsors in the area are the very same banks that have received TARP money. Those banks also have significant overseas operations, says Kathy Wylde, and this provision will hurt most when the economy turns around and the banks look to hire talent to tap new markets. “When they require someone with a language or other skill who they feel is the best person for the job, if they can’t bring them to New York, they will move the function,” says Wylde. “That’s what’s happened in the past when we’ve had a shortage of the H-1B visas.” Since the bill was signed with the provision included, Schumer will need to undo it in another bill, which could be tough sledding. “This is a counterproductive amendment that could hurt New York’s economy, and we are going to work hard to change it,” Schumer says.[/rquoter]
Why has nobody read it? How do you know Chuck didn't read it? The Bill has been available for a long time, and the changes that were made were easily read in the time the congress had. I'm guessing that you haven't read any of it, since you haven't been able to answer which parts of it you think are pork. Or do you just call the bill that because the party you are slave too thinks it's oh so clever and funny? By the way none of them have said which parts they think are pork either. Until you actually point out which parts of the bill you think are pork your words on the bill mean less than zero.
Well, he definitely didn't read it very closely or you think he would have brought it up before the bill was signed, no?
He did do this - a program to renovate the bathrooms in the National Mall was identified as "pork" - because, well, he said it was, it's not like it's a major tourist attraction/national monument that tens or hundreds of millions pass through annually and pumps billions into the DC economy. I guess he has no need of big gubmint sh-tters, which makes sense as he basically craps all over himself daily on these pages.
...further embarrassment for the Dems... While quite good at squawking and complaining, they apparently have great trouble leading. It's a circus, folks.
Just curious, have you read it or do you blindly support b/c it is supported by democrats? I have not read it, but generally feel from the break downs I've seen that more should be spent on infastructure and tax cuts. Also from what I have heard, there seems to be too many pet projects that sound like they might create a few jobs, but nothing that would really stimulate the economy.
I haven't read it word for word. I have followed it from it's beginnings to the final bill, and the spending breakdowns. I also posted a link that talked about where the money was being spent. rimrocker posted a link to the bill itself, and I've read bits and pieces of that. I think creating jobs is stimulus. Do you disagree? For the record there are some things in the bill that I don't think needed to be there. I think the bill puts too much emphasis on tax cuts which really aren't a good stimulus to the economy, or not as good as money spent on things such as food stamps, and extended unemployment benefits.
No, I agree, creating jobs is stimulus. I'm more concerned on the amount of jobs that some of these projects might create. I think there is stuff in the bill that is not necesarily bad, but does not really stimulate the economy in a way that we are looking for.
I know that he did on an earlier version. I didn't know he'd brought up anything with the final version. So even if that was pork, is it really a significant portion of the 790 billion dollar stimulus bill? That's the reasoning and argument that people want to base their opposition to this bill on?
The provision got rewritten in conference. Once the bill came out of conference, there's no opportunity to edit the bill - you either vote it up or down. There was no opportunity for Schumer to change it at that point.
At least - that's my understanding of when the final change was made. Or it could be that it was needed in there to get it passed and thus the rest of the Senate was unwilling to change it. There's any number of reasons why Schumer wasn't able to edit it during the original bill drafting besides not having known about it. After all, they all voted on the Sanders amendment in the first place.
Here's a copy of the bill from www.recovery.gov. It's 407 pages. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Friday, Feburary 13, 2009, the House of Representatives and Senate approved the conference report for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Read the final text of the legislation (PDF, 13.4MB), as the President signed it -- then use the form on the right to leave your comments, thoughts, and ideas.
