« Steele Keeps Pushing GOP's Debunked Stimulus Math | Home | FutureGen 'Clean Coal' Earmark Removed From Stimulus »
Pelosi's Summary of the Stimulus Deal: Read it Here
House Democratic aides haven't formally released the details of the stimulus deal yet, but we've got the information -- thanks to the reader who sent it in.
Note that the school-building fund sought by House Democrats, which sparked an internal tussle between Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), is nowhere to be found in the final stimulus. Instead, school repairs will be paid for using part of the states' $54 billion "stabilization fund," which was brought up $15 billion above the Senate's original number.
But no matter how you slice it, the Senate won that fight.
Advertisement
Josh
Matt
Eric
States will not use that money to repair schools. They will hold onto every "stabilization" dollar that they can get since they got short changed.
February 12, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do none of these "centrist" idiots in Congress talk to governors and mayors in their states?
February 12, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
By an amazing coincidence, the governor of the So-Called Moderate Senators' states are of the opposite party from the SCMS.
February 12, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure which planet or country these people are from but it obvious is not here.
The state won't use their money for schools and Obama's health care plan will not lower health costs.
Look at it this way. If one has a business and somebody finds a way to lower your businesses overhead significantly, will you pass these savings on or pocket the difference ??
{Dead silence}
I rest my case.
C
February 12, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That depends on how/if the federal money is mandated. In other words, the money may have to spent on specific items or it may not be spent at all. Funded (and unfunded) mandates happen all the time. State governments receive specified monies all the time that can not be used for other purposes.
February 12, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize I am not speaking from the approved Dem talking points, but whatever.
This "Payroll Tax Cut" is moronic and useless. Withholding $13 less a week is not going to do anything for the economy. Indeed, it's not going to do anything for anyone except for those really living on the margins. Sure, we should help those people. But let's call it relief and limit it to the most needy. This "tax cut" won't even be enough for a middle-class couple and their two kids to go out to Applebees once a month.
There was a lot of criticism about the rebate checks, but at least it came in a lump sum. I.e., people felt a windfall. Sure, some saved it or paid down debt, but a lot of people spent all or part of it. This is simply not going to be noticed by the vast, vast majority of recipients.
And I really want to know why Social Security recipients get their payment in the form of a lump sum $250 check. I mean, if it's smarter to piece the stimulus out over time for people who work, then why not for seniors? I smell vote-buying, and I am getting really sick of living in a gerentocracy.
When you add up this useless provision ($120b) with the AMT fix we were going to go anyway ($70b), you have $210b that could have actually accomplised something worthwhile. We could have moved toward universal healthcare. We could have had a real investment in infrastructure improvemens (like the rail projects discussed above). We could have made real steps in the move to clean energy.
February 12, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Giving people a few extra bucks a week will not do much for the individuals. Giving a hundred million a few extra bucks a week will do a lot for the economy, and a lot more than giving it to them in a lump sum.
If you give people who are employed, but worried, a significant lump sum in times like these, they'll save it or pay down debt. If you reduce their withholding a bit, however, they're probably going to just spend it, because its not enough to make a difference to their debt or savings levels. That's what we want them to do with it.
That's why stimulative "rebates" fail to stimulate the economy and why this is more likely to succeed, albeit more slowly.
February 12, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you on the idea. We'll see if this is enough to actually make a difference though.
And assuming you're correct, why are we cutting lump-sum checks to seniors and the disabled? Couldn't we get a better bang for the buck by upping their weekly check by $5?
February 12, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya...that's it spend it. Hummm...$13.00....Oh I know, another soda at work each day.
That's just about it.
C
February 12, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally with you on the AMT fix, though. The idea that a tax fix that's already priced in to people's withholding and their expectations, given that its happened like clockwork, every year since sometime during the Jurassic era, is in any way stimulative is imbecilic.
February 12, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It actually sounds pretty good when you read it. There are hints of school construction here:
"Investing in Education for the 21st Century"
"Preventing Teacher Layoffs and Education Cuts by the States
Prevents teacher layoffs and other cutbacks in education and other key services, by establishing a $53.6 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, including $40.6 billion to local school districts using existing funding formulas, which can be used for preventing cutbacks, preventing layoffs, school modernization, or other purposes; $5 billion to states as bonus grants for meeting key performance measures in education; and $8 billion to states for other high priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education."
February 12, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, with building funds folded in emergency operations $, school districts facing imploding budgets are going to choose operations (ie saving existing jobs) over infrastructure.
The notion that school construction work is not worthy of inclusion in an economic stimulus package absolutely boggles the mind. Collins boasting in WaPo about "hanging tough" on excluding school infrastructure $ makes my blood boil.
This "centrist" compromise represents a tremendous lost opportunity to create jobs as well as improve our schools for generations to come.
And, the reduced emergency state aid isn't nearly enough to stop the implosion. Here in Oregon we're looking at cutting weeks off an already shamefully short school year. And that's just the cuts to this year's budget- next year will be worse.
The stimulus pkg contains lots of desperately needed and much appreciated funding for schools- but the hijacking act pulled off by the "centrists" lost us a ton of jobs and opportunity to do better by our kids.
February 12, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. About 600,000 jobs, according to Krugman's first calculations. Heckuva job, "Moderate" senators!
February 12, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
For reasons I'm unable to fathom, Republicans think spending for things like schoolhouses is a matter of taking a fistful of dollars, throwing it down in a vacant lot, and jumping out of the way as SPUNG!, a building miraculously appears.
They can't humanize the process. There's the guy running the grader to level the lot; the ready mix driver bringing the concrete; the rebar guys and concrete workers putting in the floor; drywallers and glaziers; electricians and plumbers; cabinetmakers and furniture manufacturers; plumbing and electrical supply houses . . . need I go on?
February 12, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and good get Elana!
February 12, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The footer of the pdf is dated 2/12/09 8:38am--yesterday morning...
February 12, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink