Congress Sends Economic Stimulus Bill to White House
Seeking to get tax rebate checks into the hands of consumers who will spend them and stimulate the U.S. economy out of a slowdown, (Not true.) the House on February 7 voted 380 to 34 to approve the Economic Stimulus Package Act of 2008, an amended version of the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008. The House passage of the bipartisan legislation came quickly after Senate lawmakers modified the measure to boost the number of elderly and disabled veterans who would receive assistance. The White House has signaled that President Bush will sign the measure, which was first negotiated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr.. The bill does not contain revenue offsets and will increase the federal budget deficit by $124.5 billion over 10 years, according to Senate estimates.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., said he hopes that, after the slowdown is over, Congress will recognize that millions of poor Americans are having trouble meeting their basic needs, while affluent Americans are unaware that a problem exists. (Are you kidding me? Then why are 90% of America's "poor" severely overweight?) Ranking member Jim McCrery, R-La., said the stimulus bill is an excellent example of the House and Senate working on a bipartisan basis. He noted that the best way to stimulate the economy is to give businesses tax breaks to create jobs that provide paychecks that Americans can spend. (Agreed.)
Senate Passage
Intense negotiations between Senate leaders and the White House on February 7 lead to an agreement on a slightly altered version of the House stimulus package that the Senate quickly approved by a vote of 81 to 16 (Ridiculous) and sent to the House for that chamber's approval. The revised version extends rebate checks to some 22 million low-income senior citizens and 250,000 disabled veterans and denies rebates to illegal immigrants.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared victory despite failing to advance a package that included extended unemployment benefits and low-income home heating assistance. Nonetheless, he vowed that Congress would quickly assemble and pass what he termed a "housing package" that would provide much-needed financial assistance to the troubled mortgage industry. "We were able to make the House bill better, and while I am pleased with that result, there is still more to do," he said. Reid added that lawmakers would continue to monitor the economic downturn and consider developing a second stimulus measure.
Note to reader: Harry Reid is a Communist.
Under the House version, individuals would receive rebate checks up to $600; married couples would receive up to $1,200, and an additional $300 for each child under the age of 17. The minimum rebate amount is $300 ($600 for married filing jointly). Taxpayers will receive this amount if they have at least $1 of tax liability or $3,000 in qualifying income, defined as the sum of earned income, veterans' disability payments (including payments to survivors of disabled veterans) and Social Security benefits. Income eligibility for the rebates is capped at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples. The measure provides employers the opportunity to fully expense equipment up to $250,000 in the year it is purchased with an overall annual investment limit of $800,000. (The only positive out of this bill.) In addition, the measure increases the loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and FHA-approved mortgages.
1 comment:
And you wonder why the Dow has been down 1,000 points over the last month or so.
The debate over this exorbitant and unnecessary boondoggle over the last 5 weeks has caused so much uncertainty among investors. It will also suck $168 billion out of the private economy, all under the false premise that economic growth can be created by redistributing the same dollars.
Taking from Peter and giving to Paul isn't going to help anybody. An environment where politicians constantly debate taking from, giving to, and intervening with the private sector is antithetical, not conducive, to growth. Just look at the 1930's.
Post a Comment