The House and Senate Thursday approved their versions of a fiscal 2010 budget that included President Barack Obama's biggest priorities, giving the president a significant victory as he works to shift the government's direction from the Bush era.

Democrats made some changes in Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget, but kept intact the core of Mr. Obama's plans for increased spending on health care, energy and education, setting up fierce fights on those issues later this year.

...The House and Senate now must craft a compromise. Along with the $787 billion stimulus enacted in February, the approval of the 2010 budget by both chambers is a substantial boost to the president's agenda.

From the New York Times:

Democrats said the two budgets, which will have to be reconciled after a two-week Congressional recess, cleared the way for health care, energy and education overhauls pushed by the new president. The Democrats said the budgets reversed what they portrayed as the failed economic approach of the Bush administration and Republican-led Congresses.

“This responsible budget will start cleaning up the mistakes of the past and make critical investments in our future,” Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the majority leader, said.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said Democrats would like to find consensus with Republicans, but not at the expense of the infusion of federal money that the majority calls crucial in a time of economic distress.

“The American people want us to find our common ground where we can, but they did not send us here to split the difference,” Ms. Pelosi said. “They want real change, and we have come here to make a difference.”

POLITICO also noted that despite the fact that no Republican in either chamber voted for the budget: 

...the 233-196 House vote surpassed the size of budget victories for either party over the last decade. And Democrats lost only two of their members on the 55-43 vote in the Senate.

Congress is now in recess until Monday, April 20th.

"Tonight, the Senate has joined the House of Representatives in taking an important step toward rebuilding our struggling economy. This budget resolution embraces our most fundamental priorities: an energy plan that will end our dependence on foreign oil and spur a new clean energy economy; an education system that will ensure our children will be able to compete in the economy of the 21st century; and health care reform that finally confronts the back-breaking costs plaguing families, businesses and government alike."

House and Senate members will now move to conference committee, where they will work out differences between their two respective versions.

update
The White House has released the following statement from the President;

"Tonight, the House of Representatives took another step toward rebuilding our struggling economy. This budget resolution embraces our most fundamental priorities: an energy plan that will end our dependence on foreign oil and spur a new clean energy economy; an education system that will ensure our children will be able to compete in the economy of the 21st century; and health care reform that finally confronts the back-breaking costs plaguing families, businesses and government alike. And by making hard choices and challenging the old ways of doing business, we will cut in half the budget deficit we inherited within four years. With this vote comes an obligation to pursue our efforts to go through the budget line-by-line, searching for additional savings. Like the families we serve, we must cut the things we don't need to invest in those we do."

We still need your help to get the Senate to pass the budget. Call your Senators and ask them to support health reform, education and energy independence that President Obama outlined in his budget proposal. There is still time to contact your Senators and let them know where you stand:

President-elect Obama announced that an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan will jumpstart job creation and long-term growth by:

• Doubling the production of alternative energy in the next three years.
• Modernizing more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills.
• Making the immediate investments necessary to ensure that within five years, all of America's medical records are computerized.
• Equipping tens of thousands of schools, community colleges, and public universities with 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries.
• Expanding broadband across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world.
• Investing in the science, research, and technology that will lead to new medical breakthroughs, new discoveries, and entire new industries.

Full remarks below.

In recent weeks, Senator Obama has stressed his targeted tax cuts for 95 percent of hard-working Americans, and independent studies continue to show that the middle class would benefit more from Obama's plan. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, says Senator Obama's plan is better for the middle-class. Not convinced yet? Try this.

John McCain repeats the same tax lies about Senator Barack Obama time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time and so on...

Check out the Obama-Biden Tax Calculator and find out how much you will save their tax plan.

Spread the word, and put this widget on your site or blog.

Independent sources have consistently shown that hard-working Americans would benefit more under Senator Obama's plan than under John McCain, who would actually tax healthcare benefits for the first time ever.

Senator Obama offers a fair shake for hard-working Americans.

John McCain plans to cut more taxes for the wealthy, hand over billions in giveaways to oil companies, and leave 101 million households with nothing.

That's not the change we need. That's more of the same failed economic agenda we've experienced for the last eight years, and we've seen where that has led us.

Get the facts.

Read more about the Obama-Biden plan on taxes here.

Get the code to embed this widget here.

And send this to your friends and family here.

As a short-term fix, the digital dollar sign on the billboard-style clock near Times Square has been switched to a figure -- the "1" in $10 trillion.

It's marking the federal government's current debt at about $10.2 trillion.

The Durst Organization says it plans to update the sign next year by adding two digits.

That will make it capable of tracking debt up to a quadrillion dollars.

With these new articles, no fewer than 103 fact checks have been published debunking McCain-Palin campaign lies since he promised to run a respectful campaign in February. Visit www.democrats.org/CountTheLies to see the updated Count the Lies counter.

New York Times: Palin Health Care Claim "Inaccurate On Several Levels." "Ms. Palin castigated Mr. Obama's health care plan as one that would be mandate a 'universal government-run' system in which health care is 'taken over' by the federal government. This is inaccurate on several levels. Mr. Obama's proposal includes an option for people to choose a new public plan with benefits similar to what members of Congress and other federal employees currently have. It also includes an expansion of Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, but it is not at all exclusively government-run. Mr. Obama's plan also only mandates that children, not adults, have coverage. [New York Times, 10/2/08: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/check-point-the-vice-presidential-debate/]

FactCheck.org: Palin Health Care Claim "False." "Palin said that Obama's plan would be 'government run' and would mandate health care. The first claim is false, as we've said before. Obama's plan would increase the offerings of publicly funded health care, but would not replace or remove private insurance, or require people to enroll in a public plan. The second claim leaves out important information. Obama's plan would mandate health coverage for children, but not for adults." [FactCheck.org, 10/2/08: http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/10/02/socialized-medicine/]

Politifact.com: Obama's Plan Does Not Call For Government-Run Health Care. "At the vice presidential debate in St. Louis, Mo., Sarah Palin defended John McCain's health care plan and criticized Barack Obama's. Obama has a plan 'to mandate health care coverage and have a universal government run program,' Palin said. 'And unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds.' Problem is, Obama's plan keeps the free-market health care system intact, particularly employer-based insurance. It is not a goverment-run program and is very different from the health care systems run by the government in some European countries… So Palin is mostly wrong about Obama's plan having a mandate; it only has one for children. He would like it to be universal at some point. She also emphasized that Obama proposes government-run health care, a statement that is completely inaccurate." [POLITIFACT.com, 10/2/08: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/765/]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Palin Claim That Biden Supported McCain Policies "Flatly False." "Sarah Palin just asserted that Sen. Joseph Biden backed John McCain's military policies until this presidential race. That is flatly false. Biden was an outspoken opponent of President Bush's troop increases in Iraq as soon as Bush announced them after the 2006 elections. As Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, he led the most heated hearings before the troops were actually deployed." [Washington Post Fact Checker Blog, 10/02/08: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/]

FactCheck.org: Palin Repeats "Old Canard" About Energy Bill. "Palin threw out an old canard when she criticized Obama for voting for the 2005 Energy bill, saying, "that's what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks." It's a false attack Clinton used against Obama in the primary and McCain himself has hurled. It's true that the bill gave some tax breaks to oil companies, but it also took away others. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the bill created a slight net increase in taxes for the oil industry." [FactCheck.org, 10/2/08: http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/10/02/2005-energy-bill-deja-vu/]

AP: Despite Claiming to Have "Taken On" the Oil Industry, Palin on Same Side As American Petroleum Institute, Big Oil on Key Issues. "PALIN: Claimed she has taken on the oil industry as Alaska governor. THE FACTS: Palin pushed to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and distributed the proceeds to the state's citizens to offset rising energy costs. However, she has also sided with the industry on a number of issues. She sued the Interior Department over its designation of polar bears as an endangered species. That puts her on the same side as the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's chief trade association. She also supports the industry's desire to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - a position at odds with McCain." [AP, 10/02/08: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEBATE_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AZTUS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT]

AP: Palin Exaggerates Pipeline Claim. "PALIN: Said Alaska is 'building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline, which is North America's largest and most expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets.' THE FACTS: Not quite. Construction is at least six years away. So far the state has only awarded a license to Trans Canada Corp., that comes with $500 million in seed money in exchange for commitments toward a lengthy and costly process to getting a federal certificate. At an August news conference after the state Legislature approved the license, Palin said, 'It's not a done deal.'" [AP, 10/02/08: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEBATE_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AZTUS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Palin Overstates Impact of Increased Oil Production. "Gov. Palin suggested that the nearly $700 billion the U.S. spends a year on imported oil could be replaced by domestic sources. CNNMoney.com took estimates from various government agencies to conclude that crude oil production could be increased at most between 1 and 3 million barrels per day, on top of the 5 million barrels a year already produced domestically. The United States currently consumes about 20 million barrels annually, so an expansion of domestic drilling would make barely a dent in that amount unless consumption also is reduced." [Washington Post Fact Checker Blog, 10/02/08: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/]

ABC News: Palin "Got Her Facts Wrong" on Homeowner Protections. "Sarah Palin got her facts wrong in Thursday's debate with Joe Biden when discussing where John McCain stands on new protections for homeowners facing foreclosures. The Alaska governor incorrectly made it sound like McCain supports giving bankruptcy judges the power to rewrite mortgage payment terms on first homes. He doesn't." [ABC News, 10/03/08: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-misstates.html]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Palin Falsely Says Troops are Now at Pre-Surge Levels. "Gov. Sarah Palin was erroneous when she claimed U.S. troop levels in Iraq are now at 'pre-surge' levels. When President Bush announced last month that he would withdraw an additional 8,000 U.S. troops over the coming months, he committed to leaving at least 138,000 troops in the country at the end of his presidency, 3,000 more than there were before the troop increases known now as 'the surge.'" [Washington Post Fact Checker Blog, 10/02/08: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/]

CNN: Palin Surge Claim "False." "During the vice-presidential debate in St. Louis on Thursday, Oct. 2, Republican nominee Gov. Sarah Palin criticized Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's opposition to the military 'surge' in Iraq and said, 'The surge worked. Barack Obama still can't admit the surge works.' …The Verdict: False. Obama has said the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" from a military perspective." [CNN.com. 10/2/08: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/02/fact-check-is-it-true-obama-still-cant-admit-the-surge-works/]

Fact Check.org: Obama Did Not Vote Against Troop Funding. "Palin repeated the claim that Obama "voted against funding our troops." The claim refers to a single 2007 vote against a war funding bill. Obama voted for a version of the bill that included language calling for withdrawing troops from Iraq. President Bush vetoed it. (McCain supported that veto, but didn't call it "vetoing support for our troops.") What Obama voted against was the same bill without withdrawal language. And he had voted yes on at least 10 other war funding bills prior to that single 2007 no vote." [FactCheck.org, 10/2/08: http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/10/02/obama-voted-against-troop-funding/]

AP: Palin Claim About Troop Levels in Iraq "Not Correct." "PALIN: Said the United States has reduced its troop level in Iraq to a number below where it was when the troop increase began in early 2007. THE FACTS: Not correct. The Pentagon says there are currently 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about 17,000 more than there were before the 2007 military buildup began. PALIN: 'Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell.' THE FACTS: Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska led an effort in 2005 to tighten regulation on the mortgage underwriters - McCain joined as a co-sponsor a year later. The legislation was never taken up by the full Senate, then under Republican control." [AP, 10/02/08: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEBATE_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AZTUS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Palin Tax Hike Claims "Untrue." "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin signaled early she would go after Barack Obama all night on the charge that he had voted 94 times to either raise taxes or fight against tax cuts. Fact check.org, a non-partisan watchdog, has analyzed the charge. Of the 94, 23 of those votes were indeed votes against proposed tax cuts. Eleven of them were increases on families earning over $1 million to help fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition. And 53 were on non-binding budget resolutions that foresaw allowing tax cuts to expire as scheduled. Such out-year projections are meaningless, since non-binding budgets are passed each year. Fact.check.org ruled the claim misleading. On another point, Palin said a tax hike that hits earners over $250,000 would hit 'millions of small businesses.' That is untrue. The vast majority of small businesses barely break even and do not pay the top tax brackets. To get that figure, Republicans count affluent taxpayers who claim some income from some small business income as 'small businessmen.'" [Washington Post Fact Checker Blog, 10/02/08: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Palin Repeats False Tax Hike for Families Making $42,000 Claim. "Sarah Palin repeated John McCain's claim that Barack Obama voted to increase taxes for every American earning more than $42,000 a year. This is a considerable stretch. Obama voted for a non-binding budget resolution that laid down general budgetary guidelines based on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts will expire, as scheduled, in 2011. The budget resolution did not represent a vote to raise taxes. Obama has said that he is in favor of continuing the Bush tax cuts for all but the wealthiest Americans." [Washington Post Fact Checker Blog, 10/02/08: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/]

FactCheck.org: Palin Got Troop Levels "Wrong." "Palin got her numbers wrong on troop levels when she said that troops were now down to "pre-surge" levels. The surge was announced in January 2007, at which point there were 132,000 troops in Iraq according to the Brookings Institute Iraq Index. As of September 2008, that number was 146,000. President Bush recently announced that another 8,000 would be coming home by February of next year. But that would still be 6,000 more than when the surge began." [FactCheck.org, 10/2/08: http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/10/02/troop-levels-off/]

FactCheck.org: Palin Repeats "Several False Claims" on Taxes. "Palin repeated several false claims about Obama's tax policies. Obama did not in fact vote to increase taxes on "families" making as little as $42,000 per year. What Obama actually voted for was a budget resolution that called for returning the 25 percent tax bracket to its pre-Bush tax cut level of 28 percent. That could have affected an individual with no children making as little as $42,000. But a couple would have had to earn $83,000 to be affected and a family of four at least $90,000. Palin also repeated the exaggeration that Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes. That number includes seven votes that would have lowered some taxes, 23 that were against tax cuts, and 17 that came on just seven different bills. And finally, it's false that Biden and Obama voted for 'the largest tax increase in history.' Palin is referring here to the Democrats' 2008 budget proposal, which would indeed have resulted in about $217 billion in higher taxes over two years. That's a significant increase. But measured as a percentage of GDP, the yardstick that most economists prefer, the 2008 budget proposal would have been the third-largest since 1968, and it's not even in the top 10 since 1940." [FactCheck.org, 10/2/08: http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/10/02/tax-distortions/]

New York Times: Palin's Small Business Tax Hike Claim Overstated. Ms. Palin said "millions of small businesses" would pay higher taxes under Mr. Obama's tax plan, pointing to the increases for "those making $250,000 a year or more." Mr. Obama's plan would affect couples making more than $250,000 or singles making more than $200,000. Many small-business owners actually pay taxes as individuals, not as corporations. But Factcheck.org cited a projection by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center that 663,608 taxpayers with business income would fall into the top two tax brackets in 2009 and, therefore, be affected by the Obama tax plan. Not all of these, however, would be properly considered "small business owners." Some are simply those who get income in from real-estate partnerships or other investment arrangements. In other words, the actual number of small businessmen who would be affected by Obama tax plan is likely even smaller than that number, not "millions." [New York Times, 10/2/08: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/check-point-the-vice-presidential-debate/]

New York Times: Palin Increased Wasilla Sales Tax. "Governor Palin said she reduced taxes when she was mayor of Wasilla, from 1996 to 2002. The city did eliminate property taxes, but she also pushed through a half-cent sales tax increase to pay for a $15 million sports complex. That increase followed a 2-cent sales tax initiated by her predecessor that helped the city expand its police force and pay for other new services. Ms. Palin also said she eliminated a business inventory tax. She did, and that move is credited with bringing many large chain stores to Wasilla." [New York Times, 10/2/08: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/check-point-the-vice-presidential-debate/]

New York Times: On Taxes, Palin "Made Claims About Senator Obama's Policies That Are Not Correct. "In addressing the issues of taxes, Governor Palin has made claims about Senator Obama's policies that are not correct. She revived, for example, an accusation that he and Mr. Biden voted "for the largest tax increases in U.S. history" and also charged that he would raise taxes "for those families making only $42,000 a year. Mr. Obama voted twice this year in favor of a budget resolution that would have allowed the tax cuts that President Bush pushed through Congress in 2001 and 2003 to expire at the end of 2010, as the original law mandated. But that, by the definition of the Congressional Budget Office and other tax experts, does not constitute a tax increase. The resolution, if not accompanied by other tax changes, envisages an increase in taxes for an individual earning $42,000 a year who has no dependents and owns no real estate. But it would not apply to a family. Indeed, estimates are that a family of four making as much as $90,000 would not see a tax increase." [New York Times, 10/2/08: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/check-point-the-vice-presidential-debate/]

AP: Palin Repeats "Dubious Count" of Tax Votes. "PALIN: Said of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama: '94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction.' THE FACTS: The dubious count includes repetitive votes as well as votes to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them on the rich. An analysis by factcheck.org found that 23 of the votes were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all, seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, 11 would have increased taxes on only those making more than $1 million a year." [AP, 10/02/08: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEBATE_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AZTUS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT]

New York Time: Palin's Claim About McCain on Fannie and Freddie Not Accurate. "Gov. Sarah Palin boasted that Mr. McCain 'sounded that warning bell' about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, echoing some of Mr. McCain's recent comments in which he portrayed himself as being on the vanguard in warning about the impending financial crisis. Ms. Palin was referring to Mr. McCain's decision in 2006 to sign on as a co-sponsor of a Senate bill that would have overhauled regulations governing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But the legislation was introduced more than 16 months earlier and the debate over the issue had been going on for some time. He also only added his name after an oversight agency issued a lengthy report condemning practices at Fannie Mae." [New York Times, 10/2/08: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/check-point-the-vice-presidential-debate/]

The President's request is 37% below the funding levels enacted by Congress for 2008 with the President proposing $16.154 million for Lewis and Clark and $26.24 for Mni Wiconi's construction and operations budget.

In December, the South Dakota delegation called on Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Jim Nussle and the White House to keep funding for the Lewis & Clark project on track to bring water to more than 300,000 people in 20 communities in three states. Budget Director Nussle told members of the South Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa congressional delegations that the budget would reflect out nation's "highest priorities" and promote "sustained economic growth."

"Lewis and Clark needed up to $35 million to keep the project moving forward. We're willing to work with the President, but this is less than half of what they need. This budget is unrealistic and short-sighted. Tax cuts for Wall Street millionaires have found their place in the President's budget, but the 300,000 people from our tri-state area were told their drinking water isn't important enough to fully fund," Johnson said.

And as a side note, in the MSNBC article linked above, the subheader says: "Spending plan features big increases for defense and big deficits."

(Hat Tip: Lowell, Badlands Blue)]]> http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/02/bush_cuts_criti.php http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/02/bush_cuts_criti.php South Dakota Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:35:22 -0500 As Atrios might say, behold the World's Greatest Deliberative Body:

"When it comes to fiscal discipline, Republicans have made a mess. It was Bush Republicans who turned record surpluses into record deficits, gave reckless tax cuts to people who did not need it, and waged a failed war of choice in Iraq, a war that new reports suggest will end up costing $3.5 trillion if Republicans keep standing in the way of change.

"The fact is, Republicans in Washington have decided that refusing to join Democrats in doing the work of the American people and then blaming Democrats for the deadlock is more important than standing up for America's working families. This obstructionism-at-all-costs strategy is not going to work, and Republicans will pay for it in next year's elections. The American people know we need a Democratic president to get us out of Iraq, restore fiscal discipline, and take our country in a new direction."

He's running for president, but some of Rudy Giuliani's campaign-trail hotels have been fit for a king.

Giuliani, whose campaign boasts of having spent the least cash of all the Republican White House candidates, rented rooms at a string of high-end hotels as he stumped around the country over the last three months, his campaign filings show.

They included the swank Fairmont San Francisco, the Arizona Biltmore hotel in Phoenix and the Hotel Andalucia in Santa Barbara, where the campaign paid $2,457 at the end of last month.

Some $4,600 went to the Conrad Hotel in Indianapolis, a city where the candidate held a fund-raiser last month co-hosted by former Mayor Stephen Goldsmith, a policy adviser to Giuliani.

Oh, and by the way... Giuliani's not a tax-cutter after all..

But he also worked hard for high taxes. In 1994, Giuliani endorsed Gov. Mario Cuomo, a Democrat, for re-election against then-challenger George Pataki, the Republican. Why? In part, it was because Giuliani opposed Pataki's proposed tax cuts.

And in 1999 Giuliani fought against the State Legislature's repeal of a commuter income tax.

In fact, Giuliani's rather smallish tax cuts were swamped by his tax increases. New York City's personal, corporate and unincorporated business income taxes, on top of state income levies, have long hampered entrepreneurship and economic growth, chasing away individuals and businesses. Giuliani's budgets called for continuing a temporary personal income tax surcharges when they were to expire. Those are big tax increases Giuliani does not bring up when he's campaigning.

Despite the empty threats, the bill passed 81-15. The Washington Post cited the failure of the Republican Congress to approve the appropriation bills:

Congressional Democrats blame Republicans for leaving them a fiscal mess from last year, when Congress approved just two of the 11 appropriations bills and forced them to craft an omnibus bill that would fund a large chunk of the government for the remainder of fiscal 2007.

"Today's action is another step towards cleaning up the fiscal mess left by the 109th Congress," said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

So it appears there will be no "showdown." This is a victory not only for the Senate Democrats who stood up to Republican empty threats, but also for the American people. Here's more information from the Washington Post about the bill that passed in the Senate:

The spending plan would maintain funding for most federal agencies at their 2006 level, but it would add billions of dollars in funding for Democratic priorities such as veterans' health care and Pell grants for higher education.

The additional funding for Pell grants would mean an increase of $260 per year, up to $4,310, for students, according to congressional estimates. The National Institutes of Health will have an additional 500 research grants to administer because of almost $620 million in increased funding.

The Republicans were wise not to block the bill and shut down the government because of their own failure to resolve this in the 109th Congress.