GOP senators draft stimulus alternative

[Daniel]

NN) -- A group of Republican senators drafted an alternative stimulus measure that narrows government spending to infrastructure programs and helping unemployed Americans, addresses the housing crisis and relies mostly on tax cuts.
Sen. Mel Martinez has been working with GOP senators on an alternative to the current stimulus plan.

Sen. Mel Martinez has been working with GOP senators on an alternative to the current stimulus plan.
Click to view previous image
1 of 3
Click to view next image

The $713 billion plan was put together by Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, who has been working with a handful of other GOP senators.

The proposal includes $430 billion in tax cuts, $114 billion for infrastructure projects, $138 billion for extending unemployment insurance, food stamps and other provisions to help those in need and $31 billion to address the housing crisis.

The draft Martinez put together is a broader approach than what some GOP leaders have suggested.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republicans appear to want to limit the stimulus to tax cuts and addressing the housing crisis.

But the draft is more narrow than the Democrats' plan because it eliminates spending on government programs that Republicans and some Democrats say shouldn't be in the bill because they don't create jobs.

Martinez has just started showing the plan to his colleagues, and it is too early to tell how much traction this idea will get among other lawmakers.

McConnell on Monday dismissed the idea that Republicans are trying to block passage of the economic stimulus plan.

"Nobody that I know of is trying to keep a package from passing," he said at a news conference Monday. "We're trying to reform it."

The House last week passed an $819 billion stimulus bill without a single Republican vote, despite Obama's efforts to work with both sides of the aisle.

The House version is two-thirds spending and one-third tax cuts.
Don't Miss

* Senators work for bipartisan support
* How a 'perfect storm' led to an economic crisis

Much of the $550 billion in spending is divided among these areas: $142 billion for education, $111 billion for health care, $90 billion for infrastructure, $72 billion for aid and benefits, $54 billion for energy, $16 billion for science and technology and $13 billion for housing.

Republicans have blasted numerous measures in the package, such as funding for veterans in the Philippines, sod on the National Mall and honey bee insurance.

On Monday, Senate Democrats dropped two controversial spending programs in the Senate economic stimulus bill: $75 million for anti-smoking programs and $400 million for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.

Two Democratic leadership sources told CNN on Monday that the Democrats dropped the programs as a "symbolic gesture" to show Republicans they are listening to their objections.

But one of the Democratic sources also said, "It's hard to explain when you're in the midst of a crisis why these programs are important. When people are struggling and thinking about their jobs, it's hard to make that connection."

Republicans, and even some Democrats, have been pointing to both of these items as prime examples of "excess spending" that doesn't belong in the stimulus bill.

Sen. John McCain said Monday that he would not be able to vote for the Senate bill in its current form. Video Watch McCain explain why he'd vote no »

The former GOP presidential nominee said President Obama and Democrats will have to "seriously negotiate" with Republicans if they want to pass a stimulus plan with bipartisan support.

"I think we are clearly prepared to sit down, discuss, negotiate a true stimulus package that will create jobs," McCain said on CNN's "American Morning."

"But now it's time, after the way it went through the House without any Republican support. It's been rammed through the Senate so far. We need to seriously negotiate. We haven't done that yet."

McCain said he's been working with fellow Republican senators to come up with a plan that eliminates policy changes that have nothing to do with job creation.

He said the way to separate what's pork and what isn't is by asking two things: Does it take effect in the next year or so? And does it create jobs?

One change already made in the Senate version is the addition of $71 billion to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was intended to place a tax on the wealthy but now hits many middle-class families.

The Senate bill also adds a $300 payment to seniors, disabled people and others who can't work and suspends taxes on the first $2,400 on unemployment benefits.

Meanwhile, House Republican leaders put out a list of more than 30 "wasteful" provisions in the Senate version of the stimulus, including:

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion pictures

• $650 million for the digital television (DTV) converter box coupon program

• $248 million for furniture at the new Department of Homeland Security headquarters

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census

Asked if it would be better for the president to offer up two separate bills -- one for job creation and another for programs Democrats think were neglected during the Bush years -- Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, said that "might be a better way to bifurcate the issues."

"But, at times, you put things together because of the efficiency of getting something done," he said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "And there's no pork in this. Let me say that right away. But there may be some sacred cows."

Nelson and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, spent the weekend scrubbing the bill of spending that does not narrowly target job and economic growth so moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats will be more likely to vote for it.

President Obama said Monday that both parties need to work together so that a bill can be passed quickly.

"There are still some differences between Democrats and Republicans on the Hill, between the White House and some of the products that have been discussed on the Hill," he said. "But what we can't do is let very modest differences get in the way of the overall package moving forward swiftly."

Obama's remarks came after meeting with Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican governor who supports the economic stimulus program.

The president also was meeting Monday with Democratic congressional leaders.

Obama said Sunday he's confident that his economic package will have Republican support once the final plan is hammered out.
advertisement

"I've done extraordinary outreach, I think, to Republicans because they had some good ideas. And I want to make sure that those ideas are incorporated," he said in an interview with NBC.

"We're going to be trimming up -- things that are not relevant to putting people back to work right now," he said.


----

I like that the GOP is coming to the table with something substantive instead of just throwing political lobs. I hope that this can come the basis of a productive discussion on what is really essential and what is not.

We'll see how things go.

If anyone finds a website which outlines the differences between the two bills, I'll pos rep you. I'm knee deep in papers right now.

[Gan]

Ahhh. Finally some details are being presented to the press.

I'm glad they listened to my suggestion.

[Daniel]

Here's a list of the projects Republicans rejected. I'll bold and add comments for those I disagree with.

$2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. DHS desperate needs a new headquarters. Right now it's spread out across the entire city which is not condusive to any sort of cohesion.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's. I may disagree with this. However, I'd have to see specifics.


• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.


• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. We need to invest more in educational development.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI. FBI is underfunded and they need to be able to attract the best and brightest to protect the nation.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River. This sounds like an investment for the future.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings. Another investment for the future. "Green Buildings" are typically cheaper to maintain and this will help build the infrastructure to move towards a more sustainable lifestyle throughout the country. However, the devil is in the details here.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.
Need specifics.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands. Need specifics, but we lose billions of dollars to wildfires every year. If this will help that, then I'm for it.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.


• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
Heh. This isn't true...at all.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations Will take a step towards more energy independence.

[Parkbandit]

Of those bolded items you've marked.. which ones are supposed to immediately cause the stimulation of the economy again? I mean.. it's called a "Stimulus Package" for a reason.. I thought the reason was to stimulate the economy.

I see so very little in ways of stimulation of the economy and so very much in ways of stimulating the 2010/2012 election cycle.

[Kembal]

Any construction/renovation project brings jobs. Any infrastructure dev. or repair project brings jobs. (I bet the DC sewer system is in really really bad shape, for example. Of course, that amount could be 20% less if they were allowed to use foreign-made product for certain parts of it, but whatever.)

A lot of these projects bring in a lot of short-term temporary spending that has a multiplier effect, which is what's needed.

I'd knock off the smoking cessation, polar icebreaker, tribal substance abuse reduction programs, lead-based paint, canal inspection, Hollywood tax break, and Smithsonian facilities off at first glance as non-stimulative. The Census spending is likely non-stimulative as well, but you have to include the money anyway somewhere, since its constitutionally mandated to begin with.

[Daniel]

Of those bolded items you've marked.. which ones are supposed to immediately cause the stimulation of the economy again? I mean.. it's called a "Stimulus Package" for a reason.. I thought the reason was to stimulate the economy.

I see so very little in ways of stimulation of the economy and so very much in ways of stimulating the 2010/2012 election cycle.

I don't look at this bill as being something that should only effect "immediate" change", but rather do a combination of that and setting up the neccessary long term solutions that are so badly needed right now. Otherwise, it's just a band aid fix that does not address some of the systemic issues we are facing.

[Parkbandit]

Any construction/renovation project brings jobs. Any infrastructure dev. or repair project brings jobs. (I bet the DC sewer system is in really really bad shape, for example. Of course, that amount could be 20% less if they were allowed to use foreign-made product for certain parts of it, but whatever.)

A lot of these projects bring in a lot of short-term temporary spending that has a multiplier effect, which is what's needed.

I'd knock off the smoking cessation, polar icebreaker, tribal substance abuse reduction programs, lead-based paint, canal inspection, Hollywood tax break, and Smithsonian facilities off at first glance as non-stimulative. The Census spending is likely non-stimulative as well, but you have to include the money anyway somewhere, since its constitutionally mandated to begin with.

Here's a faster way to get real economic stimulus... it's pretty easy:

1) Slash the corporate tax rate.

2) Slash the capital gains tax rate.

3) Make the Bush (OMG WE R GOING 2 RENAME THEM BECAUSE BUSH R EVIL!) tax cuts permanent.

3) Give money to infrastructure.. ie roads, energy grid, water/sewer, etc.. Give the unemployed people a shovel and have them get back to work.

The amount of money would be far less than the 900 BILLION dollars they currently have earmarked for economic "stimulus" that has very little chance of actually stimulating the economy.

[Parkbandit]

I don't look at this bill as being something that should only effect "immediate" change", but rather do a combination of that and setting up the neccessary long term solutions that are so badly needed right now. Otherwise, it's just a band aid fix that does not address some of the systemic issues we are facing.

Have our government stop their social engineering experiements and let the free market fix itself.

[Daniel]

Have our government stop their social engineering experiements and let the free market fix itself.

I'd rather rely on god for my hope and prayers.

He has a better track record.

Thanks though.

[Khariz]

I'd rather rely on god for my hope and prayers.

He has a better track record.

Thanks though.

ROFL. The natural market is the only thing that ALWAYS fixes itself. It's almost like the Law of Gravity (or any other Law). If we don't muck with it, it will fix itself. The longer we hold off on the market fixing itself, the worse it's going to be when it chooses to correct anyway :)

Lots of people don't get this. It's true though. Better to go ahead and get it over with, than to keep holding it back at arm's length. All we are doing is making what's coming in the future harder on ourselves.

[Daniel]

ROFL. The natural market is the only thing that ALWAYS fixes itself. It's almost like the Law of Gravity (or any other Law). If we don't muck with it, it will fix itself. The longer we hold off on the market fixing itself, the worse it's going to be when it chooses to correct anyway :)

Lots of people don't get this. It's true though. Better to go ahead and get it over with, than to keep holding it back at arm's length. All we are doing is making what's coming in the future harder on ourselves.


Can you give me an example?

[Khariz]

Can you give me an example?

I don't even understand the question. The normal ebb and flow of the market IS the example. Supply and Demand economics IS the example. Prices determined by costs and wages that businesses set for themselves based on what the marketplace naturally demands IS the example.

You know what is NOT the example? An artificial housing bubble created by government intervention into an otherwise stable marketplace. But guess what? When that bubble pops, if you leave it alone, the market will re-stabilize itself. Foreclosures will occur, companies will go out of business, people that can't afford houses will lose houses, and all you will have left is people who CAN pay for houses, and lenders giving loans only to people who pose a reasonable amount of risk.

When you decide that a lender is "too big to fail" and pump a bunch of someone else's money into it, you are artificially reinforcing the walls of the bubble. You are erecting new drywall to hide the leak that has wet the old drywall. You can't contain water though. Soon enough, it'll break through the new drywall too, only this time it won't trickle, it'll flood.

[BigWorm]

beg the question much?

[Khariz]

beg the question much?

No, because only people who don't understand basic economics could think the premise was wrong. Most of us understand how natural economic principals work. I'm advocating that we let those natural economic principals take over, and stop artificially screwing with things.

I'm only "begging the question" if you live in a fantasy world where basic economic principals don't apply.

[Warriorbird]

You're definitely functioning under some very basic economic ideals if you believe in the market as some sort of two dimensional graph, Khariz.

I'm not particularly a fan of either party's 'solutions.' Your attempt to lay it all on Democratic Senators is pretty standard Republican dogma though.

Financial institutions (which the Republicans miraculously don't object to handouts to, despite their piss poor performance) wrote paper on anybody. Every idiot and their brother borrowed as much as they could. Bunches and bunches of investors profited off these actions.

Ah, the market.

See... corporations, people in an economic sense, and the market are all completely amoral. They don't always do what is best for them.

Energy companies... went on a track that has been tremendously detrimental to car companies.

Unions priced themselves out of the marketplace. People try to lay the blame for the whole car issue on them. Car companies that consistently fail to innovate and run themselves in a fiscally sound matter deserve a whole hell of a lot of blame to.

This is hardly a tiny little 'market correction' situation.

In the Democratic corner... this is the wrong bill to inject all the spending for all the vital things that the Republican Congress was spending on defense and non tax-generating energy/construction contracts into or Bush was vetoing. They ought to step the fuck off.

Democrats need to do something proactive regarding the union issue. If the unions want to be a factor they ought to be using their bloated pension plans to try to BUY auto companies, not wrangle for loans to idiots who clearly can't hack it. Alternately they should be starting their own companies.

I bet they'd end up cutting their wages but be more effective due to employee ownership.

I appreciate the tax cuts to those of us the Republicans consider poor (IE, people who make under 250k.) Stimulus checks are an absolutely fucktarded idea though, unless you own stock in Gamespot.

I think we need to let companies close.

The transportation and energy project don't belong in this bill.

[Khariz]

I'm not particularly a fan of either party's 'solutions.' Your attempt to lay it all on Democratic Senators is pretty standard Republican dogma though, Khariz.



I'm sorry, where did I do this?

[Khariz]

Ah, the market.

. . .

This is hardly a tiny little 'market correction' situation.

. . .

I think we need to let companies close.



Thank you. That's exactly my point.

[Warriorbird]

An artificial housing bubble created by government intervention into an otherwise stable marketplace.
-Khariz

Subtle... but there. WAAAY narrowing the causes of it.

[Khariz]

Subtle... but there. WAAAY narrowing the causes of it.

That has what to do with the current stimulus package? Right, nothing. Sorry man, you are just grasping. I repeat: I'm not a Republican. My complaining about current attempts to fix it, is not me spouting republican rhetoric.

Want to know what I think of the topic of THIS thread, which is "GOP senators draft stimulus alternative"? I think the GOP are pussies for trying to compromise and work with the democrats. I think they should do what the House Republicans did, say "No how, no way, I vote No", and walk away from it period.

Like you said: Let the businesses close.

That, and so much more. Let people lose their jobs, let inflation occur, let the market forces do their thing. Then, when the situation auto-equalizes, we can get back to business as usual, and use normal economic principals to "fix" the situation. Artificial influxes of MY cash to help THEM, is nothing but economic bullshit, and something that has never worked in the past, and won't work now.

[Warriorbird]

It's tough to separate politics from people's analysis when I see statements that oversimplify the housing crisis like that. My apologies. I think the housing issue is a big part of our current problems.

Right now I'm not thrilled by Democratic support for the first stimulus package and shenanigans (pork) on this.

Republican wise their willingness to bail out financial institutions at the drop of a hat yet BAW about this makes them look hypocritical to the core.

We're stuck with them representing us though, so I guess the best thing to do is speak to your local Congresspeople (the ones which will actually listen, which is limited).

If we're going to do this stupid thing we need to focus on the actual portions which will realistically have a chance of some effect. I think the only potential upside is a confidence boost and partisan wrangling won't help with that. Congress never stops partisan wrangling though.

[Khariz]

It's tough to separate politics from people's analysis when I see statements that oversimplify the housing crisis like that. My apologies.

Right now...I'm not thrilled by Democratic support for the first stimulus package and shenanigans (pork) on this.

Republican wise... their willingness to bail out financial institutions at the drop of a hat yet BAW about this makes them look hypocritical to the core.

We're stuck with them representing us though, so I guess the best thing to do is speak to your local Congresspeople (the ones which will actually listen, which is limited).

If we're going to do this stupid thing... we need to focus on the actual portions which will realistically have a chance of some effect.

I agree with everything you said here.

1. I grossly oversimplified because the time and effort it would take to write a proper treatise on the topic both I don't have and would go to waste on this forum.

2. Yes, the mostly pork bill, is more of a general budget than a "stimulus". I honestly don't even understand how it can be CALLED a "stimulus" in good faith.

3. Yes, the republicans have totally lost touch with reality and are "hypocritical to the core".

4. Yes, if we are going to spend a bunch of money (directly or indirectly) let's at least put it toward something that will cause an actual and immediate effect. I still suggest tax cuts in lieu of direct stimulus, but whatever. I can explain why too, but I think I'm going to go watch American Idol instead (hahahahahahaah).

Oh, and WB . . . :hug2:

[Warriorbird]

One of the reasons I went for Obama was the theoretical 'low income' (below 250k) taxcut. We'll see if he lives up to it.

[Parkbandit]

I'd rather rely on god for my hope and prayers.

He has a better track record.

Thanks though.

If you say so. I'll disagree.. since I have no need to believe in some alien entity to explain the unknown to me.. but to each their own I suppose.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sorry, where did I do this?


Now now.. you know better than to have WB back up his posts with facts. If you didn't post it persay, you MEANT to post it and you know it.

[Daniel]

I'm sorry, where did I do this?

You've said it numerous times in numerous threads. You're inability to look critically at the problems is a part of the problem. Social Engineering is one factor in this crises, so is an unregulated market. To suggest that the market will correct itself, without know the consequences or timing of that correction is extremely short sighted and absolutely unproductive.

There's a reason why several nations and regions have "lost decades", which is something that America can ill afford right now.

[Khariz]

You've said it numerous times in numerous threads. You're inability to look critically at the problems is a part of the problem. Social Engineering is one factor in this crises, so is an unregulated market. To suggest that the market will correct itself, without know the consequences or timing of that correction is extremely short sighted and absolutely unproductive.

There's a reason why several nations and regions have "lost decades", which is something that America can ill afford right now.

Daniel, I understand what you are saying, I really do. But from moment one you and I have disagreed on one fundamental tenant of this discussion which always causes us to not be able to even HAVE a discussion with one another, without it quickly devolving into ad hominem arguments (usually on my end first). I have long since realized that you are not *actually* stupid, like I pretend you are.

This fundamental disagreement is on the need/usefulness/potential of market regulation, and whether or not any good comes from it. I say it never does. I say market regulation is precisely HOW we got into any economic mess we have in the first place. Market regulation led to the housing bubble (yes other factors contributed AFTER the regulation was put into place, but keep that in mind). Continued market regulation NOW will lead to an even bigger, broader bubble that WILL burst from natural market forces sooner or, more likely, later.

Your argument that we should/can *do something* to the market to keep this from happening doesn't work in my brain, because it's not really possible. We can influence the market to case NumberA to lower and NumberB to rise in the short term, but in the end, the market factors are going to equalize along the lines that basic market principals have always shown us that they will.

Did you hear that news story yesterday about some country, maybe Zimbabwe, that "decided to take 12 zeroes off of their currency". Talk about runaway inflation with a new decision to artificially inflate.

I suppose here is where I will HAVE to defer to you, though:

The most complicated part of the mess we face right now is the fact the for first time, we are in a mess than involves less than just us, and possibly impacts other countries just as directly as us for the first time. We are in the unique position to have other countries say "the United States is too big to fail" (like China). This means that even other countries can help us hold back natural economic principals by ignoring a devaluing dollar, by pretending inflation won't occur, but ignoring the fact that we've left the Gold Standard behind and print as much money as we want to, pretending that it still has the same value.

And unfortunately, if our failures are linked to the failures of other countries, and we start interrelated based on our debts to one another, sending each other aid, and relief, and generally all turning into this one huge world market that all thinks we are all "too big to fail", then we will have taken more steps to becoming a world just like the one in "Atlas Shrugged" than I ever thought was possible.

:)

[Warriorbird]

Not quite the first time... but one of the few times. The so-called 'Great Depression' also had serious worldwide effects.

[Khariz]

Not quite the first time... but one of the few times. The so-called 'Great Depression' also had serious worldwide effects.

Eh, I think you'd agree that the Great Depression effected significantly less of the total world then, compared to how something similar would now. I mean, at the time we were intermingled with little more than Europe(as far as major players went). Now it would just be ridiculous.