CE Week#2: “Senate balks at House stimulus package”
Finance Committee comes up with its own plan
|
Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post
January 31, 2008
WASHINGTON – With bipartisan support, the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday approved a $157 billion economic stimulus plan that rivals the measure fashioned by President Bush and House leaders, setting up a Senate showdown today that could determine who will receive rebates from the federal government and how quickly the checks will arrive.
The Bush administration and House leaders had hoped the Senate would simply accept the stimulus plan approved by the House on Tuesday, ensuring final passage this week and mailing of the first checks by May. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., will try today to block the Senate from adopting the Finance Committee plan and force the passage of the House bill instead.
That effort received a blow Wednesday when Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the influential ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, threw his weight behind the Senate alternative. Finance Committee Republicans Olympia Snowe, of Maine, and Gordon Smith, of Oregon, also backed the bill.
“Concern with timing must be weighed against the question of the quality of the House bill,” he said, singling out that plan’s failure to include as many as 20 million retirees.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., is counting on Democrats to stay unified behind their leadership, and said that if enough Republicans join Grassley, a threatened filibuster by McConnell would be broken and the House and Senate would be forced into negotiations on a final stimulus bill.
But with only three Republicans on the Finance Committee voting for the package, and Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., absent, Baucus’ ability to round up 60 votes to thwart a filibuster {cloture} is far from certain.
Senators added provisions to the Finance Committee bill to make a “no” vote on the Senate version very difficult, offering federal stimulus checks to 20 million low-income seniors and 250,000 disabled veterans who would be ineligible under the compromise worked out by Bush and House leaders. Senators also tightened wording in the House bill to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to claim a check.
After the Finance Committee vote, AARP launched a lobbying push to win passage of the Senate version. Advocates of the Senate bill said House-Senate talks should take a few days.
I think I understand? The economy is heading near recession and Congress and the President are recognizing that there is a problem in the country and it needs to be fixed. The solution: a stimulus package that puts money into the hands of those that would spend it, poor people and the middle class. The only problem is that the House, Senate, and President cannot agree on a workable version of the bill. It has to be able to put money into the economy so that we can see changes within the next twelve months, but it can’t be detrimental in the long-run to the government’s budget deficit.
Republican Senator McConnell wants to block the Senate from adopting the Finance Committee plan and plans to filibuster it if many more Republicans support the Senates position instead of his. And the problem with that is finding 60 votes activate cloture.
The point of the bill is to put money into the hands of those who are going to turn around and spend their check right away. But is there like strings attached to the rebate check that say they have to spend it? What if the individual or couple decides to put the $300 per child check into their child’s college fund? Because if that be the case, the plan wouldn’t work. Granted, more people are going to spend it than not, so it would still do wonders for the economy. Poor people spending their money on food and such, middle class – maybe a payment on their home. I’m really curious to see how the whole thing pans out and if we can really pull ourselves out of a recession or at least make things look a little brighter within the twelve months they’ve set.
The Economic Stimulus Bill offered Bush his opportunity to make a more honorable exit that could reflect more positively on his presidency. He announced the plan for a stimulus bill to combat the recession during his State of the Union speech in January. He hoped to ride the momentum picked up from this announcement, immediately setting to work and aiming to put something in action in the subsequent week. Unfortunately, the Senate proved a tougher bunch than Bush anticipated. Instead of granting him sympathy and understanding the bill’s purpose as a first step, they saw the flaws and inconsistent distribution of money. An air of urgency followed the bill in its initiation as it captured bipartisan support. However, even the pressures from Pelosi, McConnell, and Boehner could not convince the Senators to give in without more careful deliberation.
With fewer members, the Senate tends to worry less about expediency and more about substance and details. This could be a reason that revenue bills begin in the House- so that the ideas can be thrown out without being perfected first. This allows the Senate to simply revise and propose a more refined version that competes with House appropriations bills.
I think Mandy proposed an interesting point about the effect of Americans investing the money they receive rather than putting it back into the economy in more direct ways. While I think this would still help, the boost may not be witnessed as soon or be traced back to this bill. Instead, the next president may get the credit for those investments flourishing and helping pull us out of recession.