Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
The Economic Recovery Plan America Needs
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Poverty, Income, and Health Insurance: What to Expect and Why It Really Matters
Jared Bernstein
Democracy and Elections:
Troops Abroad Donate 6:1 to Obama Over McCain
Luke Rosiak
DrugReporter:
Unlocking the Power of Art to Counter Injustice
Anthony Papa
Election 2008:
I Spent Years as a POW with John McCain, and His Finger Should Not Be Near the Red Button
Phillip Butler
Environment:
Why T. Boone Pickens' 'Clean Energy' Plan Is a Ponzi Scheme
Scott Thill
ForeignPolicy:
Russia and Georgia: All About Oil
Michael T. Klare
Health and Wellness:
Medical Tourism Is Great -- for Those Who Can Afford It
Niko Karvounis
Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman
Immigration:
American Legion Immigration Report Replete With Falsehoods
Sonia Scherr
Media and Technology:
Communication Breakdown: How Cell Phones Hurt Communities
Benjamin Dangl
Movie Mix:
Protest over Use of the Word 'Retard' in Stiller's 'Tropic Thunder' Misses the Target
Annabelle Gurwitch
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Obama Should Pick Hillary
Lanny Davis
Rights and Liberties:
Who Will Crash the Democratic and Republican Conventions?
Michael Gould-Wartofsky
Sex and Relationships:
The Things Women Go Through to Attract Men ...
Cheryl Saban
War on Iraq:
Robin Long, War Resister Deported from Canada, Faces Trial This Week
Sarah Lazare
Water:
Water for All: The Leaders of a New Revolution
Jay Walljasper
UPDATE: The Senate late Thursday afternoon passed a stimulus bill that adds tax rebates for 20 million elderly people excluded from the House version, as well as 250,000 handicapped veterans. Senate Democrats failed by one vote to get a stronger bill, with extended unemployment benefits, more money for food stamps, and emergency energy assistance for the poor.
Basically, the Democrats played a potentially strong hand badly. They began with a package too small and too feeble, so when it came time to split the differences with the Republicans they were vulnerable to the usual salami tactics.
Senate Democrats and Republicans are currently debating whether to pass a stimulus bill that spends $158 billion (the Senate Democratic package) -- or the $145 billion passed by the House. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is currently one vote short of the 60 Senate votes that he needs. The battle is certainly worth waging, because it compels Senate Republicans to either vote for a slightly better bill written by Democrats, or to oppose added support for the elderly, veterans, food-stamp aid, energy assistance, and extended benefits for the unemployed.
But the sums in both bills are far too paltry, given the severe downturn that the nation's economy faces. In December, House Democrats began negotiations with the Bush White House, proposing an even smaller number -- about $90 billion -- than the administration wanted. After the administration indicated a desire for fast action, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the leadership rushed to compromise with Bush, trading away additional aid for food stamps and increased unemployment compensation in exchange for a cap in the package on tax relief for the wealthy.
The bill that passed the House weighs in at just 1 percent of the gross domestic product, in a year when joblessness is rising fast and Americans are projected to lose $2.2 trillion dollars of the value of their homes. You know you have settled for too little when you are criticized from the left by Max Baucus, perhaps the Senate's most Republican of Democrats.
Democrats are already saying that they plan to come back for "Stimulus II," and that package needs to be a lot more robust, both for political reasons and economic ones. Their initial posture signaled nothing so much as thinking small, at a moment when the economy's problems are immense and long-term.
After their accord with the White House, the Democrats got nice prime-time TV treatment with Bush, chumming it up with the hugely unpopular president who gave us this mess. When the eventual bill is signed, the Democrats would be wise to skip the signing ceremony and hold their own event, on the recovery program that the country really needs.
Why did the Democrats initially settle for so little, and what should they be promoting? Two senior Democratic legislators told me that they were pleasantly surprised when Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson reached out to them and indicated that Bush was serious about wanting legislation. The Democrats felt they needed to reciprocate. For the first time in memory, Bush actually negotiated in good faith, and split the difference with the Democrats. But there wasn't that much difference to split, since the Democrats' opening gambit was so feeble.
In part, their caution reflected the influence of the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs who insisted on a very modest package as their price for coming along at all. Another lead weight on the Democrats' bargaining position was the widespread view that the stimulus should be "timely, targeted, and temporary," lest Bush use it for more permanent cuts in the revenue base. So instead of looking forward to November, or outward to what the country needs, Democrats looked backward to the big Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 -- whose extension was never seriously in the cards in any case.
See more stories tagged with: economy, recession, republicans, democrats, stimulus package
Robert Kuttner is co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect. He writes regularly for the magazine on political and economic issues. Bob has just completed a book, to be published in 2007, on the connection between political and economic inequality and systemic risks facing the economy. He is pursuing these issues as a distinguished senior fellow at Demos. Click here to read more about Kuttner.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »