In today's Washington Post, the senior Republican statesmen appeal (again) for their colleagues in the Senate to ratify New START.

Republican presidents have long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers. That is why Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush negotiated the SALT I, START I and START II agreements. It is why President George W. Bush negotiated the Moscow Treaty. All four recognized that reducing the number of nuclear arms in an open, verifiable manner would reduce the risk of nuclear catastrophe and increase the stability of America's relationship with the Soviet Union and, later, the Russian Federation. The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons.

As a result, we urge the Senate to ratify the New START treaty signed by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. It is a modest and appropriate continuation of the START I treaty that expired almost a year ago. It reduces the number of nuclear weapons that each side deploys while enabling the United States to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent and preserving the flexibility to deploy those forces as we see fit. Along with our obligation to protect the homeland, the United States has responsibilities to allies around the world. The commander of our nuclear forces has testified that the 1,550 warheads allowed under this treaty are sufficient for all our missions - and seven former nuclear commanders agree. The defense secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head of the Missile Defense Agency - all originally appointed by a Republican president - argue that New START is essential for our national defense.

Yeah. Even though three-quarters of the American public and more than 40 newspaper editorial shops agree, good luck with that argument, gentlemen. All the moderate Republicans have left the Congress. But I'm sure Godot is coming any minute now.

One Senator mentioned how funny it was that the same Republicans who fought so hard to stop Medicare now paint themselves as the program's champion:

The Senate voted Thursday to keep nearly $500 billion in Medicare cuts in its overhaul of the health care system, protecting the bill's major source of financing against a Republican attack.

On a vote of 58 to 42, the Senate rejected a proposal by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to send the bill back to committee with orders to strip out the cuts, a move that would effectively have killed the measure. Two Democrats -- Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jim Webb of Virginia -- voted with all 40 Republicans on the amendment.

The vote was among the first cast on proposed changes to the package, which would spend $848 billion over the next decade to extend coverage to more than 30 million additional people and implement the most dramatic revisions to the nation's health-care system in more than 40 years. Though debate officially opened on Monday, legislative progress has been hampered by disagreements between the two parties over the terms of debate and the timing of votes. But Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) still hopes to hold a vote on final passage before the Senate adjourns for the Christmas holidays, and on Thursday he told senators to plan on working throughout the coming weekend.

The vote on Medicare cuts was the most significant of four votes held Thursday. Republicans argued that the cuts, which would slow the projected increase in Medicare by about 5 percent over the next decade, would decimate the popular program for people over 65 in order to finance an expansion of insurance coverage for younger people. Any cuts to Medicare, they argued, should instead be dedicated to preserving the program, which is scheduled to start running out of money in 2017.

"If we're going to take money from Grandma's Medicare, let's spend it on Medicare," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).

Democrats, backed by an array of major senior organizations, including the AARP, argued that the cuts would extend the financial life of Medicare by several years. The cuts would not reduce guaranteed benefits or increase co-payments, they said. And because hospitals and other providers have agreed to absorb the cuts by working more efficiently, Democrats said they would not affect access to medical services.

"I think it's pretty clear that the main organizations that care about seniors support this bill," said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which drafted the bill that formed the foundation for a compromise package assembled by Reid.

L.A. Times' Michael Hiltzik:

On NBC, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), said she wanted the bill to have more spending on infrastructure, but she wanted it to be on military infrastructure, even though much of that winds up as scrap metal in Iraq and Afghanistan, not bridges and schoolhouses in the United States.

She said she would strip from the bill all the "social spending that is not going to create jobs," but when pressed by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), her on-air debating partner, she agreed to preserve some social spending, such as unemployment benefits. The effect of this exchange was to leave Hutchison sounding as though she made up her position as she went along.

Very little of these discussions addressed the principle underlying the stimulus bill. The idea is that when the private sector withdraws from the economy by cutting back on capital spending and laying off workers, it is up to the government to take up the slack, if necessary via deficit spending.

This isn't radical thinking. It's endorsed by, among others, Martin Feldstein, who was Ronald Reagan's chief economic advisor and is consistently voted by his peers as the Economist Least Likely to be Mistaken for a Democrat. Feldstein opposes most of the tax cuts favored by the GOP, especially business tax cuts. To be fair, he isn't entirely enamored of President Obama's proposal -- he thinks it should spend more on programs that will produce more short-term employment and less on open-ended programs.

Yet the plan before the Senate includes hundreds of billions of dollars in near-term programs and projects. There's $90 billion for school construction and renovation and educational grants and $79 billion for state educational programs, most of which would be spent within two years. Of the $27 billion for highway construction, most would be spent within four years.

The bill also appropriates billions for the kind of forward-looking projects we've neglected during the last two decades, such as broadband infrastructure, water and anti-pollution programs, and alternative energy research, which will produce long-term economic benefits for the entire country.

Is it possible to slip pork into a bill this massive? Well, duh. But pork is often in the eye of the beholder. House Republicans this week released a list of $19 billion in provisions they called "wasteful" (i.e., 2% of the total package). But the list includes numerous projects that many Americans would support and that would plainly stimulate our limping construction and manufacturing sectors. For example, the purchase of new computers and vehicles for federal agencies, the building of fire stations and other public facilities, and the upgrade of rail lines.

Is this the best the GOP can come up with? Or are Republicans just determined to undermine the recovery effort? It's hard to disagree with Obama's complaint that "modest differences" over the package are being inflated to stall the whole program.