by Matthew Hay Brown
So House leaders are congratulating themselves on the bipartisan agreement they reached with the White House on an economic stimulus package that’s expected to hit the floor for a vote next week. But what happens when the legislation reaches the Senate?
“It is imperative that this streamlined and focused stimulus package not be loaded down with extraneous provisions,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer warned Thursday.
It isn’t that the Maryland Democrat opposes extending unemployment benefits or increasing food stamps. But Democratic negotiators agreed to drop those efforts in order to gain Republican agreement to issue tax rebates to individuals who earned as little as $3,000 in 2007.
In a release, House Republican leaders referred to Democratic proposals to boost unemployment insurance, food stamps, Medicaid and transportation infrastructure as “extraneous spending.” The deal now consists of the rebate checks of $600 to $1,200 for most taxpayers, along with tax breaks for business investment.
House Minority Leader John Boehner called it a “win for the American people.
“It will help to stimulate our economy in the most direct and effective way possible: by putting money back in the pockets of middle class families, and by giving employers incentives to create new jobs and grow our economy,” the Ohio Republican said. “Equally as important, this agreement contains no unrelated spending or tax increases – a Republican condition of support from the outset of our negotiations.”
How long that support will last is the question.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday he was “proud that Democratic negotiators were able to secure tax relief for millions of Americans who would have been completely left out of the President’s proposal.”
But he added that he expected the Senate to “improve the House package by adding funds for other initiatives” – including unemployment benefits, nutrition assistance and infrastructure investment.
That would be fine with Rep. Elijah Cummings. The Baltimore Democrat said the compromise package was “not as targeted as it could be.”
Cummings called provisions dealing with food stamps and unemployment benefits “critical” to any stimulus package, saying they “maximize the likelihood that this money would be spent immediately, as opposed to tax rebates that are likely to be applied toward credit card or other types of debt.”
Others warned that such add-ons could threaten the deal.
“The House package is a streamlined, focused package that is a carefully crafted bipartisan compromise,” one House Democratic aide said. “There was agreement that arguing over controversial provisions would only slow down the enactment of economic stimulus, which goes against the main principle that we need to do this in a timely manner.
“House Democrats and Republicans and the White House have agreed on a package, and we hope the Senate will join us in supporting it. It’s questionable whether the Senate would be able to craft a different package that will draw the same broad, bipartisan support that our package does.”
• 
• 
• 
Comments
As I read this, it again shows that these people in Washington do not listen to what the people want.
I think they need to put their ears on in DC. On C-SPAN this morning, what I heard was the first half of callers said they'd bank it so they can pay the taxes on it next year when they have to claim it as income. The second half of people would pay off bills which will put zero dollars in the tills at the Wal-Mart. The last half of the people would donate it to charity or a political candidate. Not exactly what the lawmakers are invisioning is it?
Posted by: lochnessmonster | January 25, 2008 8:36 AM
Good. You do realize that even the unemployed are getting $300 from the federal government, don't you?
And you do realize what a deal is don't you, Matthew? Elijah? The democrats agreed to drop the spending increases. This administration has never adequately cut spending, so there's no room to add more. Period.
I like the stimulus package and think it will help the economy, my only question is if the government really didn't need it, then why'd they take my money in the first place?
Posted by: Jeff | January 25, 2008 9:08 AM
My fear is the Senate will compromise and put back the proposal to allow business to take longer to write off their losses against past profits in exchange for extended unemployment and food stamp benefits. It would be obscene to allow the speculative and criminal behavior that led to these losses by the financial institutions be erased at tax payer expense. But that seems to be American capitalism - CEOs and Big Business never suffer the consequences of their actions.
Posted by: Alan Mc | January 25, 2008 9:19 AM
Just wait for Dickie Durbin, Chuckie Schemer, Harry Reid and Teddy Kennedy to start pulling things like the $600 rebate out so they can spend it on liberal welfare programs using code words like infrastructure. They want everyone dependent on the liberal tax and spenders I hope W threatens them with a veto to keep the package from being prostituted to please Schemer, and Dickie Durbin. Dickie's already got $7.3 million in his campaign account he'll grab all he can from lobbyists before he's through with this or any other sensible bill. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | January 25, 2008 9:42 AM
To little, to late. Enjoy the inflation these rebate checks will generate later this year when the economy picks up.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | January 25, 2008 9:55 AM
Agree people will make the minimum payment on their credit cards, make the past due mortgage payment or buy a new flat screen tv from China. Where is the stimulus in that. Let the government spend the money on infrastructure. That will put the money into much needed building materials industry, and create jobs for those needing unemployment extensions. Where did I hear this suggestion. Oh thats right Mike Huckabee suggested it during the debates last night. Brilliant. Too bad he is not President yet.
Posted by: carlene | January 25, 2008 9:57 AM
Bush Administration to America: Take this $600 as an apology for the destruction and rape my friends and we have done to the economy.
Posted by: john | January 25, 2008 10:07 AM
Jeff,
Did John McCain tell you to say that? I wonder what your position would be if McCain was against this too little, too late bribe....then again I don't wonder, you would parrot his position.
Posted by: jackson | January 25, 2008 10:09 AM
If McCain felt differently I wouldn't support his position, but I'd still support him. One issue voters aren't really making informed electoral decisions. I've disagreed with McCain on religion and other issues on this very blog.
Posted by: Jeff | January 25, 2008 10:32 AM
Did anyone see the Q & A poriton of the debate when Ron Paul ran laps over and around McCains head on economic issues. After stumbling and fumbling for seconds McCain said that he would leave the decision to his advisors recommendations. A very vague non answer from a man who clearly had no idea of the group or what Ron Paul was talking about. Too bad the fawning media loves McCain too much to bring it up in post-debate discussions. If he didn't know what the group was or does, he should've asked, after all the only stupid question is the one that is not asked. Pretending you know and answering with vague generalities is so amateur.
Posted by: jackson | January 25, 2008 10:48 AM
Redistribution of wealth
Posted by: Steve | January 25, 2008 11:25 AM
This is a horrible idea any way you slice it. Give people back $600 of their money (except those who don't pay income taxes.. then just give them a check anyway)... take TAXES OUT OF IT next year because it is income... oh and then raise taxes because there is now $100 BILLION that we don't have to spend that we're giving back to the citizens. *smacks head in frustration* OH and then be on teh brink of a recession and have to wait 6 months for this rebate anyway because the IRS is too busy with the 2007 income tax filings. Yeah... it's going to help. (please watch your step as that statement was dripping with sarcasm)
Posted by: Tammy | January 25, 2008 11:35 AM
Paultards see the world through crazy colored glasses so I'm afraid I have to report to you that Paul never "ran laps over and around anyone's head."
I think the best answer to that question was McCain's. Leave it to the advisors who are closer to and know more about the markets than any politician (including a crazy one like Ron Paul). Ben Bernanke was the head of the Princeton Economics Department. He's just one of millions of people who know more about economics than Ron Paul.
p.s. Ron Paul's economic intelligence includes believing President Lincoln was wrong about nearly every economic decision he made during the Civil War, too.
p.p.s. Oh, and as for stumbling and fumbling, try to remember that Paul could hardly ever get out of the way of his own mouth last night, as in most of the debates. Paul is actually a year OLDER than McCain.
Posted by: Jeff | January 25, 2008 11:36 AM
p.s. Ron Paul's economic intelligence includes believing President Lincoln was wrong about nearly every economic decision he made during the Civil War, too.
Posted by: Jeff | January 25, 2008 11:36 AM
Jeff,
Curious that you equate intelligence with whether you agree with someone's opinions or conclusions. What a strange breed you are. McCain was confused. He couldn't even repeat the name of the group Ron Paul asked him about because he had no clue what and who they were. Some leader.
Posted by: jackson | January 25, 2008 12:38 PM
As a young american with a family of four, trying are hardest to live day to day. My husband and I both have decent jobs, but its still not enough and we still struggle everyday. So for those of you who say it wont help or its not going to what the goverment wants it to.is wrong. It will help the economy if its paying off someones bills then that means they have more money from there normal checks to by food, and clothes for there children. If people are going to donate it to a charity (thats awsome) Its now helping a charity that needed the money so badly(and if it wasnt for that they would have never recieved it) For people who are just going to put it in the bank, that will give a family whos been living pay check to pay check and sence of comfort knowing they have a little bit stored away for a rainy day. So look in the eyes of the people, the people who go to work every day, put there life on the line to save yours, and still come home to a stack of bills,a car that needs repairs, A student loan. Think about them think about how that little amount of money would go so far in there life and the life of the economy.
Posted by: Jenn | January 25, 2008 12:45 PM
"Just wait for Dickie Durbin, Chuckie Schemer, Harry Reid and Teddy Kennedy to start pulling things like the $600 rebate out so they can spend it on liberal welfare programs using code words like infrastructure."
"Infrastructure" is a code word for "welfare!?" HILARIOUS!!
Grab yourself a dictionary, you crazy ol' coot!
"(1) The fundamental structure of a system or organization. The basic, fundamental architecture of any system (electronic, mechanical, social, political, etc.) determines how it functions and how flexible it is to meet future requirements."
Gee whiz, we wouldn't want that now would we! Who needs roads, bridges, telephone lines, fiber optic connections...
I mean, without those things American businesses would be even better off, right? I'm sure dirt roads and morse code will effectively serve the needs of American businesses in the 21st Century, right?
Its difficult to even attempt to hide my contempt for this brand of "thinking."
One thing pretty much all Republicans have in common- they refuse to acknowledge the extent to which THEY PERSONALLY benefit from government largesse.
I guess infrastrucute is just "welfare" that every one needs, from the poorest of the poor to the mightiest Fortune 500 countries.
If Jerry White and his ilk had been running this country since the Great Depression, America would be a Third-World vassal state suckling at the teet of the far more technically advanced European and Asian economies.
Simply astounding "logic."
Posted by: Jones | January 25, 2008 2:09 PM
Jackson, only an idiot like Ron Paul believes President Lincoln was wrong to free the slaves, among other choices. The FACT that freeing the slaves was the right thing to do is not something that's open to conclusion or opinion.
Paul is the one who doesn't know the facts surrounding the situation. He claimed on "Meet the Press" that Lincoln should have merely purchased the slaves, ignoring the FACT that Lincoln twice offered to do that very thing to southern leaders who were not interested because their plantation economy depended on slave labor.
This is just one of the many issues Ron Paul does not know basic history about. Economics is another.
It is a fact that Lincoln made amazing correct economic and wartime decisions to keep the union together, not an opinion. Ron Paul's slander of our 16th president is the crazy opinion.
p.s. Nobody knows the whack job groups that Ron Paul hangs around and Thank God, they don't, or we'd have KKK meeting minutes being recited by our government. I'm glad McCain ignored him.
Posted by: Jeff | January 25, 2008 4:01 PM
Jackson, only an idiot like Ron Paul believes President Lincoln was wrong to free the slaves, among other choices.
Posted by: Jeff | January 25, 2008 4:01 PM
Why do you post these lies and smears? Ron Paul thinks that slaves shouldn't have been freed? Maybe you could put on your little Northwestern journalism hat and show us where Ron Paul said such a thing. That is a disgusting lie, worse than anything John E. would ever insinuate.
Posted by: jackson | January 25, 2008 5:07 PM
Jones, the USA was actually far technically superior to the European nations you cite WAY before the great depression. The US already had transcontinental railroads, a sophisticated network of international shipping that included the Panama Canal project, and hemispheral hegemony by the time Teddy Roosevelt left office.
Telephone lines and railroad infrastructure were created by private companies under government contract just like they are today.
The Eisenhower interstate system wasn't created until after WWII but the nation still had plenty of roads. Your assumption that increased government spending granted the nation technological superiority is therefore, incorrect.
The GOP likes government contracts for infrastructure as much as any democrat. They just don't like the waste that goes along with it, like giving tax "rebate" handouts to people who don't pay taxes.
Posted by: Jeff | January 25, 2008 5:15 PM
Folks, this is cover for both parties; They both can say, come November, we did 'something'. Crikey...
Here's what will happen;
-Some will save it. (Me!)
-Some will charge it up in advance
thinking they will pay it down when the check arrives.
-When the check arrives they will spend it instead of paying down the card.
-Then they will have to pay it back in 09, but won't have it.
Double Indemnity/Jeopardy America!
Save save save....
Posted by: C.Morris | January 25, 2008 7:23 PM
Who will pay the future bill for protecting Chimpy from a recession on his watch? Chimpy has thrown the hot potatoe of any exit strategy from his Iraq invasion AND his ECONOMIC MESS to the NEXT pres. Don't cash any rebates until you know for sure how it will affect your IRS bill in 2009. W. Bush appears to be the worst kind of pathetic chickenhawk wimp--born on third base and thinking he actually got HIMSELF to third base. (as heard on TV this morning)
George W--is the American dollar even with your Mexican peso yet? According to the PATRIOT ACT--the ATTORNEY GENERAL was authorized to waive any cap on the number of full time employees assigned to the INS on the NORTHERN BORDER-CANADA. Feds were given the funds to triple the personnel along the NORTHERN border. I read NO such language or NO SAME WORDING for the SOUTHERN--MEXICAN-American border. Why? Gonzales? Corporate worker welfare for your private friends? Jeb's wife? A love for another country more than America? Or, is it about your run down of the American dollar to the peso?
BTW--W Bush loves building infrastructure in his bombed-out Iraq. Only many of the puke contractors that he gave the contracts and millions $$ to either never actually built the projects, or else many of them have been a sham-- piles of falling apart crap.
Posted by: Vivian | January 25, 2008 9:15 PM
I just wanted to point out that the person who posted the first comment on this page gave three halves as his stats. 1st half, 2nd half, last half.
Any discussion that starts on that note can go nowhere but up. Congratulations fellas.
Posted by: Brandon | January 25, 2008 10:59 PM
Save save save....
Posted by: C.Morris | January 25, 2008 7:23 PM
Screw that! I going to the track.
Posted by: chimpymcflightsuit'snavigator | January 26, 2008 12:22 AM
PLEASE, USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE $300,000.00 A YEAR COULD NOT POSSIBLY BENEFIT FROM A $300.00 OR $1200.00 REBATE CHECK. GIVE THE REBATE TO THE REAL MIDDLE CLASS OF $100,000.00 AND LESS. SURE IT WILL HELP SOME PEOPLE PAY A PAYMENT OR KEEP FOOD ON THEIR TABLE FOR ANOTHER MONTH OR SO. I AM ABOUT TO RECIEVE MY LAST UNEMPLOYMENT CHECK AS I'M SURE ARE OTHERS. I WORKED FOR THAT MONEY, AND I AM, PRAYING TO GET CALLED BACK. MEANWHILE I'M SEARCHING FOR ANY NEW EMPLOYMENT, BUT AS WE ALL KNOW ARE JOBS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AWAY TO OTHER COUNTRIES. THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT WRONG IN TRING TO HELP THE LESS FORTUNATE BY EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT. IF I KNEW I MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER CHECK COMING I WOULD CERTAINLY GO GROCERY SHOPPING, TO RESTOCK MY SHELVES. AS FOR MAKING 80 MILLION JOBS AVAILABLE WE KNOW DREAMING. WAKE UP! HELP THOSE OF US WHO ARE STRUGGLING TO STAY AFLOAT!!! USE YOUR COMMON SENSE DON'T AGREE WITH PELOSI (THEIR IGNORANT TO THINK SUCH A SHORT TERM PACKAGE IS THE RIGHT THING)!!!!
Posted by: JANET | February 7, 2008 2:23 PM
Lochnessmonster, please explain to me how it is possible to have a first half, second half, and a last half. Sorry, I find this as an amusing democrat joke. I am all for the tax relief...this is a great opportunity for home improvements. However, I do agree with some of you. If they have the money to give us why did they take it in the first place?
Posted by: madscience | February 21, 2008 12:28 PM