Now that the House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a $146 billion economic stimulus plan, the U.S. Senate has decided to forge off in another direction. The danger, of course, is the Senate proposal will delay getting checks to taxpayers and slow down any benefits to the economy. The Senate should pass the plan agreed to by President George W. Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
But hold on, says Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana. He's the Senate Finance Committee chairman, and he's got his ego in this fight. He wants to add benefits to the package, guaranteeing a debate over the plan and a delay in it becoming law.
If you're concerned, call Baucus' D.C. office at (202) 224-2651. Here's his Web site.
Baucus may be right in adding Social Security recipients to the program, but not if the president balks, and no package gets approved. There is unusual agreement between the president and the House on this deal. If the Senate holds it up, it could fall apart.
These are the main differences in the plans, according to the New York Times: "The Senate plan would provide $500 to some 20 million Americans over the age of 62 who live only on Social Security benefits and therefore would not have qualified for payments under the House proposal, which requires tax filers to show $3,000 in earned income."
Here's more from the Times' story:
He (Baucus) also said the Senate rebate plan was more straight-forward, providing payments of $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples filing jointly with no income cap for eligibility, and for families an additional $300 a child.The House plan called for minimum stipends of $300 for individuals paying less than that in income tax and rebates of up to $600 for individuals and $1,200 for couples, with the payments phased out for individuals earning more than $75,000 or $150,000 for couples. Those limits would effectively deny rebates to members of Congress.
The addition of payments to Social Security recipients makes sense from the standpoint of the rationale for the stimulus package. Like the poor, the elderly will probably put that money back in circulation quickly.
Eliminating the income cap makes no sense, though. Are billionare hedge-fund managers really looking forward to a check for $600 from the U.S. Treasury? What is the reason for that? Do Senate Republicans insist that we can't do anything for the poor without giving a handout to the rich as well?
First off the idea of putting 146 billion back into a 14 trillion debt hole makes no sense to me. Its just election year gimmickery.
If he wants to start fixing his mess he can pull the troops out and put a 5 dollar tax per gallon of gas on. Half of that money goes into improving public transportation the rest goes into alternative energy sources.
That would leave a mark.
(If anything like that where to happen I would buy stock in bicycle companies. ^^)
Anytime the government gives us back our own money it's a good thing. I am better at determining where my money should go rather than the government.
Yeah, let's put a $5 charge on gas and slow the economy down as Bill Clinton said today in Denver. That'll really help the lower and middle classes as they'll be the first to be laid off. Makes sense to me.
The only thing a $5 tax on gas would do is help polution cause people wouldn't have the money to drive cars and I too would buy stock in bicycle companies. My scooter can go a few miles before the battery goes dead so I would take that to the grocery store providing there was any food there as delivery drivers would also need to park their trucks.