We all know that politicans will place their own politically motivated fingerprints on things and generally muck things up. The point is not that the GOP is trying to derail this stimulus package, my point that is, but rather that legislation needs "shaping" to curtail the insane amount of wasteful spending and measures the majority party will try to force on the nation. You can not state that there is no Democratic based waste and illogical spending in the package's language. The bill is ment to stimulate the economy, meaning reversing the bleeding of jobs, stablizing the credit market, and freeing up capital so people and businesses can invest and expand. We are only now beginning to see all the waste in this package and it needs to be seriously looked at before it passes. If it takes stalling it with GOP pork leveraged as a tool to say, we will conceed this if you change that, then so be it, that is how legislation is shaped and how compromise works. Our government is build off of compromise and the Dems need to remember that. Just because one party has a majority does not mean they know best and will be responsible, bebate is always needed to curtail corrpution and temper silly 'good intention' policies that do more harm then good in the long term. The Democrats have been in control of the Legislative Branch since 2004 and thier approval ratings were worse then GW Bush's and set historic lows for Congress. The agenda of the likes of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are clearly evident and need to be tempered by moderates who are not high off the fumes of victory in November. The GOP messed things up royaly for 4 years and paid for it, and then Bush polorized the nation for 4 years causing a highly divided country. The fact this debate is going on, and at such levels and with vigor, is a testiment to how divided the nation still is and how the DNC has failed to reach across the isle with a moderate plan that can be debated and find an agreement quickly. Instead they have used the urgency at hand to try to force deficit spending beyond anyone's wildest dreams and borderline socialists programs into the package and we, the public, are only now getting to see what is all included. We need action but not for the sake of doing something, we all will be paying for this for decades so we need to ensure we get our money's worth and that it is fair and not going to further damage our bruised and battered image, no matter how that was created what is done is done and we have to move forward but we need to be cautious because not thinking things through beyond 1 year is insanity and using fear to push this through is not prudent or acceptable. Sorry for the late response, dealing with a 14 hour time delay with Central Time in the States.

Ordinarily John, I would agree with you. However, over the last 8 years the Republican administration systematically abolished proper debate and openly opposed oversight, with very little if any resistance from the party leaders or members. These are the very people crying out for them now, and I don't find it hard to believe their interests are sincere rather than partisan politicking, I find it impossible to believe. Further, the administration and party took up the 'Free Market' mantra to further their agenda but now that it appears the free market wants transparency, government regulation and oversight of the corporations receiving federal funds, they no longer seem to be for it.

Regardless, I railed against the original bailout package offered up after only 3 days of debate and no real disclosure of fact. I am not against reviewing and redesigning. I am against the GOP as a whole speaking out with such fervor against the package as a whole. I would rather see a campaign that says yes we need one, we need one fast. Here are exactly the problems we have with what has been presented and here is exactly what we would like changed. When ridiculous issues are added during this process, issues such as S.Amdt. 189 to HR1. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00047

HR1 says this with regards to the amendment offered by 7 Republicans:
9302. HIGHER EDUCATION MODERNIZATION, RENOVATION, AND REPAIR. (d) Use of Subgrants by Institutions of Higher Education- (3) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS- No funds awarded under this section may be used for- (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities--
(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or
(ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or

Clearly, this is not intended to stop a free thinking person from being religious, praying, or displaying religious symbols. It is directed at preventing a portion of the facility from being dedicated to the practice, worship or furtherance of religion if that facility accepts federal funding. Persons not of that particular, or any, religion would not get benefit or use from such a space not to mention the entangling association it presents between church and state with regards to the previously mentioned 'Lemon Test' - Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Yet, these 7 Republicans felt the need to muck up this most time sensitive issue with a meaningless amendment.

Sec. 807. ELIMINATION OF FUNDING PROHIBITION. Notwithstanding section 803(d)(2)(C), section 803(d)(2)(C) shall have no effect. Purpose: To allow the free exercise of religion at institutions of higher education that receive funding under section 803 of division A.

As I mentioned before, this is either a move to insert a Church/State relationship into the education system (see The case, Lemon v Kurtzman (403 US 602 [1971] "In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity." http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html or to stall this very necessary stimulus package from passing.

Action taken in our great republic without proper debate and oversight is against the best interest for every man, woman, and child in America. The current $900 Billion stimulus plan is flawed, filled with wasteful spending on pork barrel pet projects and special interest favors for campaign help as well as protectionism clauses that will spark off global condemnation and possible trade wars further damaging our companies and their ability to sell and reach oversea markets. Before we quickly go over the edge of the cliff we need to see if we can survive the fall and if it is the proper and correct course of action for our long term goals and prosperity as a nation.