Who won?

It's less clear who won in the battle over the recovery package, but it is starkly clear that the Republicans lost. The little clout they gained in the Senate negotiations was largely overturned in the conference committee with the House.

Georgia's Johnny Isakson got an amendment passed in the Senate version that would have given a $15,000 tax break to home buyers (largely benefitting the more affluent); it was stripped in the reconciled version. And why not? He voted against the bill that he had amended, so why keep his provision, when it garnered not a single Republican vote?

The relative balance between infrastructure spending and tax cuts for business was shifted toward spending, though still less than progressive wanted. Money for schools, unemployment, and other spending was largely retained. So it looks like the final bill is less expensive that either original (a disappointment to progressives) but more focused on spending than the Senate version and less on tax cuts than either one. Yet, at the same time, it preserves Obama's broad tax cuts for working people and those on Social Security.

Considering all, it's probably the best that could be passed at this time. The risk is that the spending is too little to effect the economic boost that's needed. But it's better than either House or Senate version was, and more can be added in a later bill. Obama clearly seems to have won -- a pretty good bill with three Republican allies, and perhaps a few more might join in to vote for the final bill.

Republicans are betting on being able to claim that the whole plan was an expensive failure. That's their current strategy, along with whining that they were shut out of the process and that the deals were struck in secret. Of course you were left out of serious negotiations when all you bring to the table are "tax cuts, tax cuts" that have proven to fail, plus an obdurate refusal to look at reality.

They were given a chance to have input at the beginning; the majority just didn't buy what they were sellilng, so why have them at the table in the final negotiations? Even they can't pretend they had anything constructive to offer at that stage.

Now their campaign is on to discredit Obama and the Democrats. They're betting on failure so they can crow and gain political advantage. How patriotic !!! I'm betting on Obama and his team. Let the American people judge.

Ralph