Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS      
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Nothing Stimulating About This Deal
By Robert Bluey
Poll
Will Hillary Clinton fight for the nomination past June 1st?


I wouldn’t want Hank Paulson negotiating on my behalf.

The U.S. treasury secretary did such a poor job representing the White House in negotiations on the economic stimulus deal, it wasn’t clear if Paulson was purposely trying to help House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or simply unaccustomed to how business is done in Washington. If it weren’t for House Minority Leader John Boehner, this deal would be far worse -- and that’s not saying much, given some of the misplaced priorities that made their way into the package.

The episode represented an abysmal failure by the White House to stand firm on conservative principles. After spending much of the last year winning battles with Democrats on everything from Iraq funding to the federal budget, there was no reason to give in to so many demands so quickly. Bipartisanship is honorable, but not when it benefits just one party.

In this case, the problem stemmed from Paulson’s willingness to accept many liberal priorities even before anyone sat down at the table to talk. For instance, the White House floated the idea of giving handouts of $800 for individuals and $1,600 for married couples -- figures significantly higher than what Democrats had proposed.

Sen. Barack Obama, competing against Sen. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards for the most aggressive stimulus package, proposed handouts of only $250. And congressional Democrats put forward a figure of $500.

Given where the White House started in negotiations, it’s not surprising the final figure ended up at $600 for tax-paying individuals and $1,200 for couples. But the real kicker was a concession to Pelosi that will send $300 to Americans who paid no income taxes last year. With Paulson setting the number so high at the start, there was little room to actually negotiate.

Contrast this episode with the fight over the dozen appropriations bills in 2007. Democrats wanted to spend $20 billion more than Bush proposed, but the president held firm on his number. After much rancor, liberal lawmakers finally settled on Bush’s number just weeks before Christmas. The White House walked away with a win when almost everyone in Washington thought it wasn’t possible.

No such luck with the stimulus. Let’s begin with the tax rebates, which amount to government giveaways that will probably have little impact on the economy in the short term. “Tax rebates and similar cash transfers don’t stimulate the economy,” said Rea Hederman of The Heritage Foundation. “The federal government cannot just wish new purchasing power into existence.” Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Robert B. Bluey is director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation and maintains a blog at RobertBluey.com
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Bush engineered the collapse in economy
Real simple. Bush and the Democrats get you in debt and bankrupt you through inflation. The Federal Reserve and foreign central banks come in and buy up cheap US assets that are on "firesale" and claim ownership with foreign currency as the dollar loses purchasing power to the "EURO", "Australian Dollar, New Zealand Dollar", and the "Royal British Pound".

G.W Bush hates your guts. Bush hates US Citizens and hopes that America can become a 3rd world pi*s in the ocean.

bipartisanship?? bend over.
if there's any one thing that's infuriated me about 43, it's the fact he's never figured out when you reach across the aisle to try and work with a democrat, you'll likely pull back a nub. when the senate is done with this it will be just another welfare program.

politicians wring their hands over what taxpayers might do if washington gives them back THEIR MONEY! "we can't give it back to this income level! they might SAVE it!" "yeah, yeah. and if you give it back to those guys over there, they might *gasp* PAY OFF DEBT!" i don't know why they don't just buy everybody a big screen. (thought of that one while i was on the crapper. it's amazing what can be deduced if you're thinking on something other than how wide your stance is and whether the freak in the next stall will notice!)

never doubt it. republican, democrat, independent. OUR MONEY IS THEIR POWER. when you think on doing something as radical as changing the tax code, the only real question is to what lengths are you willing to go to do it.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State: