Smaller? Why???

The original house bill (H.R. 1) called for $825Bn.

Some commentators - among them Nobel laureate Paul Krugman - thought this was too SMALL!

The just-passed Senate version?
$780Bn.
Why smaller???

The bipartisan logic seems to be something like:
- Senate Dems don't have 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster.
- Senate Republicans threaten to filibuster the larger bill
- Senate Dems cave to Senate Republicans, agree on a smaller bill.

Me? What I'm hoping when the thing goes to joint House/Senate committee for re-work:

1. House version is enlarged.
2. Senate Republicans threaten filibuster.
3. Senate Democrats say, "Go ahead."

After a couple of days of Republicans giving mindless, unending speeches on the floor of the Senate - all covered by MSNBC, HN, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS & C-Span - I'm betting that more than a few Republican Senators would be willing to join their Dem colleagues.

The alternative Senate Republicans face? - Having the whole country watch 'em act like spoiled brats while the economy sheds another 20K jobs per day.

Pass the right bill! - Don't cave to your hopelessly ignorant - but sincere & respected - Republican colleagues!!!