Jobs bill to stop teacher layoffs nears approval

[FBaggins]

WASHINGTON – Last-minute money to save the jobs of tens of thousands of teachers and other public workers overcame a Republican filibuster Wednesday and sped toward Senate passage. The House, under pressure to help hard-pressed schools nationwide, was being called back from its summer break for an expected final vote next week.

The $26 billion measure would help states ease their severe budget problems and — advocates said — stop the layoffs of nearly 300,000 teachers, firefighters, police and other public employees. Though scaled back, the bill also would salvage a victory for Democrats who have been unable to deliver most of the jobs help they and President Barack Obama promised.

The legislation advanced by a 61-38 tally that all but ensured it would pass the Senate on Thursday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would call the House back into session next week to approve the measure to get it to Obama for his signature before most schools reopen.

Many Republicans objected to the expense at a time of record budget deficits, but moderate Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine cast the key votes to break the filibuster — as they did last month in helping Democrats pass a six-month extension of jobless benefits.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100804/ap_on_bi_ge/us_jobs_bill

[strategery blunder]

1. At the expense of food

So now the Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to fund keeping teachers in the classroom by letting kids go hungry the night before. So the kids get hosed either way. This was paid for by a food stamp cut, apparently. :grr:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8883388

[FBaggins]

2. Not really.

It's almost entirely an accounting gimmick. The food stamp cut doesn't take effect until 2014 (and will almost certainly be undone by that time).

[strategery blunder]

4. I wouldn't really trust that the cut would be restored

Look at the fight over the last year to stave off scheduled reimbursement cuts to Medicare...

Food stamps have nowhere near the popular constituency that Medicare does, and it's enough of a fight to prevent Medicare from getting cut. There may well be far less political will to restore any "accounting gimmick" cuts, especially if the rethugliKKKans gain too many seats. :(

[FBaggins]

5. Well... I don't really "trust" it either... but you pick

Either:

Thousands upon thousands of teachers keep their jobs (possibly resulting in fewer people needing food stamps in the future due to a better education) and maybe food stamps get cut three years from now...

OR

Food stamps are untouched and tens of thousands of teachers start needing food stamps this summer. Teachers in general are already pretty ticked off at their treatment over the last couple years, so their even further diminished support results in a republican congress (and possibly president in 2012) - and food stamps are slashed anyway.

You pick.

[strategery blunder]

6. The point is, it shouldn't even come to this

Hungry children have more immediate things on their mind than learning...

I wholeheartedly agree that teachers should be kept in the classroom. However, the Senate picked one of the absolute WORST cost offsets imaginable. A hungry student won't care how small his class size is; he'll only care about how long until the next meal. Granted, the cut to food stamps isn't for a couple of years, but regardless, I view the cuts as unlikely to be restored. *Especially* if Republicans regain even the slightest scintilla of power.

The Dems really seem to be doing all the damage the Republicans wanted to do, but could not. This is but one example. :(

[Hannah Bell]

7. where's the bankster cut? why is the gov't playing off teachers & food stamp recipients with

"accounting gimmicks"?

how does a gimmick solve a supposedly real budget problem in the first place?

smoke & mirrors.

[FBaggins]

8. The real budget wasn't a factor.

They wanted to spend the money (and it's certainly a good cause) and couldn't get the votes without cutting something... so the "something" they picked was imaginary dollars a few years down the road.

If this was republicans "paying for" a tax cut by cutting spending down the road - I would have a problem with it. As it is? Not so much.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Well a few weeks ago it was attached to the war bill

These games are no longer surprising.

[femmocrat]

9. This is taken from a post on DU earlier today, about the funding of the bill:

The bill was bipartisan and deficit-neutral, and came with the support of First Lady Michelle Obama.

>snip<

The bill, controversially, is offset mostly with cuts from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, already cut to help pay for the state aid bill. Congress made SNAP benefits more generous in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the $787 billion Feb. 2009 stimulus bill. To pay for the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, the bill reduces some of the additional benefits, starting in a few years. Senate aides stressed that Democrats left the SNAP benefits requested in the Farm Bill untouched, and argued that tackling childhood hunger would reduce the strain on family food budgets and the SNAP program overall.

Source: http://washingtonindependent.com/93897/senate-unanimously-passes-sweeping-child-nutrition-bill


I don't completely understand it either, but it partially explains how they are paying for it.