The House and Senate gave final congressional approval to sweeping economic-recovery legislation, marking a new milestone of federal intervention in the nation’s economy.
The action came a little more than a year after the Democratic Congress, pushed by then-President George W. Bush, adopted a stimulus package that was less than a third the size of the revised $787.2 billion plan approved Friday.
How am I going to spend my extra $8.00/week, what will I do with my stimulus money? Obama and the Democrats are too kind to the American citizens.
After a month of wrangling, Congress voted to pass a compromise economic recovery package of spending provisions, tax cuts and aid to laid-off workers and their families. The 1,073-page bill contains hundreds of provisions.
Not a single Republican backed the package Friday in the House, where seven Democrats joined 176 Republicans in opposition, and 246 voted for it.
Hours later, the Senate, voting 60-38, cleared the measure to be sent to the White House for President Barack Obama to sign into law. Three Republicans joined with 57 Senate Democrats in support of the package; 38 Republicans voted against it. source.
| 
| 
| 
Related Reading:
Citation Details
Title: Shock & awe economics: the Obama stimulus bill has been called "shock and awe for a shaken nation," a military metaphor that may unintentionally hint at the economic devastation it could cause.(ECONOMY)(Barack Obama)(Cover story)
Author: Charles Scaliger
Publication: The New American (Magazine/Journal)
Date: March 16, 2009
Publisher: American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
Volume: 25 Issue: 6 Page: 12(7)
Article Type: Cover story
Distributed by Gale, a part of Cengage Learning
![Monetary Madness: Uncle Sam's Spending Scams (Waste Watch Journal 1992) [VHS]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51B6dqK7gZL._SL160_.jpg "Monetary Madness: Uncle Sam's Spending Scams (Waste Watch Journal 1992) [VHS]")
The Democratic Dilemma: Reforming the Canadian SenateIn 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government introduced two bills to reform the Senate: one to establish limited terms for senators, replacing the existing system of appointment until age 75 and the other to establish consultative elections for the Senate with the prime minister nominating the winners of the election. Both bills have been heard in the House of Commons and the Senate but neither bill has been enacted into law. The government's initiatives are proving controversial for two reasons. One is the contents of the bills. The other is procedural and concerns the federal government's strategy of treating Senate reform as a matter for Parliament alone to determine - a matter of federal legislation rather than an amendment of the constitution. Contributors examine all angles of the debate on Senate reform. They address the constitutionality of the proposals and bring to light features of the bills that have not yet been analyzed, assessing their significance for the conduct of a reformed chamber. They consider whether the objectives of the reformers are likely to be met by these proposals or whether the result will have unintended consequences. They demonstrate how complicated Senate reform is, full of unexpected twists and turns, and show that successful reform requires a deep understanding of the country's parliamentary system and culture and a delicate approach to institutional change. Contributors of this title include Jane Ajzenstat (McMaster University), Peter Aucoin (Dalhousie University), Louise Carbert (Dalhousie University), Don Desserud (University of New Brunswick in Saint John), Andrew Heard (Simon Fraser University), Tom Kent (Institute for Research on Public Policy and Queen's University), Stephen Michael MacLean (independent scholar), Lorna Marsden (York University), Vincent Pouliot (lawyer and entrepreneur, Quebec), Hugh Segal (Senate of Canada), David Smith (University of Regina), Nadia Verrelli (Queen's University), Ron Watts (Queen's University), and John Whyte (University of Saskatchewan).
