Suggesting Obama is being hypocritical on "fiscal responsibility and bipartisanship," USA Today ignored $70B AMT amendment added by GOP Senator
SUMMARY: USA Today claimed in an article that the "rising cost" of the economic stimulus bill "could be a challenge" for President Barack Obama, noting that a provision intended to "protect about 24 million Americans from paying higher taxes under the alternative minimum tax [AMT]" constituted the "major Senate addition" that increased the bill's cost. However, USA Today did not point out that the amendment was added by Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley.
In a January 29 USA Today article, Richard Wolf and David Jackson reported that the "cost of President [Barack] Obama's economic stimulus package rose to $888 billion in the Senate on Wednesday" and claimed that the "rising cost and lack of GOP votes could be a challenge for the new president, who has preached fiscal responsibility and bipartisanship." While Wolf and Jackson noted that a provision intended to "protect about 24 million Americans from paying higher taxes under the alternative minimum tax [AMT]" constituted the "major Senate addition" that increased the bill's cost, they did not point out that Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley (IA) proposed the AMT amendment, which was ultimately included in the committee's bill.
Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, proposed the amendment, "AMT One-Year Patch," during the committee's January 27 markup of the recovery bill. The amendment provides a "one-year 'patch' for 2009 to keep the number of individual AMT payers [the] same as 2008" by increasing tax exemption amounts for individuals and joint filers. According to the amendment, which passed in committee, "The estimated cost of this proposal is $69.8 billion over ten years" [emphasis in original].
In a January 28 article, The New York Times reported that the AMT amendment's "cost would drive the overall package's tally to nearly $900 billion" and noted that the AMT provision "was a priority for Senator Charles E. Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, who added it Tuesday."
From USA Today's January 29 article, "Cost of Senate's stimulus plan hits $888B":
The cost of President Obama's economic stimulus package rose to $888 billion in the Senate on Wednesday, even as an $819 billion version passed the House without any Republican support.
The rising cost and lack of GOP votes could be a challenge for the new president, who has preached fiscal responsibility and bipartisanship.
[...]
The Democratic bill includes tax cuts for about 95% of working Americans -- $500 for individuals, $1,000 for couples -- and for small businesses. The major Senate addition: $70 billion to protect about 24 million Americans from paying higher taxes under the alternative minimum tax.
From the Times January 28 article, "House Passes Stimulus Plan Despite G.O.P Opposition":
As Senate Democrats prepare to bring their version of the package to the floor on Monday, House Democrats and the administration indicated they would ultimately accept a provision in the emerging Senate package that would adjust the alternative minimum tax to hold down many middle-class Americans' income taxes for 2009. The provision was not in the House legislation.
Its cost would drive the overall package's tally to nearly $900 billion. That would exceed the roughly $850 billion limit that Mr. Obama has set for Congress, House Democratic leadership aides said, and leave no room for other proposals that senators of both parties are poised to seek during Senate debate next week.
[...]
Democrats' own differences aside, they also are under pressure from the White House to be open to proposals from Senate Republicans who might support the final legislation if their interests are accommodated, and which might draw a few Republican supporters on a final vote next month in the House.
The provision on the alternative minimum tax, for example, was a priority for Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who added it Tuesday in the Finance Committee's work on the legislation.
I wonder if any "journalist" has bothered to question the Republicans when they make the gratuitous assertion that tax cuts are the only "fast-acting" stimulus? That statement seems counterintuitive to me.
Admittedly, I'm not one of the Billionaires the Republicans like to coddle, but I can't imagine changing my spending habits drastically based on the promise of paying a few hundred less in taxes next year.
Now, if they're talking rabate checks, I can see it, but most of them claim that the rebates didn't work.
On what empirical evidence are they basing their assertion that government spending won't stimulate the economy, but tax cuts will?
It's strictly philosophical. There isn't a problem (or even if there is no problem) that can't be solved by TAX CUTS! according to Republicans. They sit back and cherry pick expenditures that are only arguably stimulus related but I have not heard any alternative solutions from the Republican side other than TAX CUTS! And, oh...when Republicans speak of TAX CUTS! who usually gets the lion's share and who gets thrown bones?
A good example of cherry picking is their fit over the $50 million dollars for the National Endowment for the Arts. Okay, maybe the Democrats should have saved it for later, but it's money that would be used to employ musicians, artists, etc. Despite Republican rhetoric, most of it is NOT used to fund controversial projects.
In any case, to put it in perspective, if the total package were $825, the amount alloted to the NEA equals a nickel. Hardly worth squabbling over.
Everybody knows musicians and artists are left-wingers who don't bathe...they're not real Americans. <sarcasm>
Except, of course, country music singers who perform at Sean Hannity's Freedom Concerts. They're all rich and right wing...which makes them Great Americans. ;>)
Well it is the USA Toady -- spelling error intended -- so no one should be surprised.
However, the AMT seems more often than not seems to catch those that it was really not designed to catch. It is a poorly crafted tax and I am not the biggest fan of it.
So Grassley gets a pass. USA Today not.
AMT has been a problem for a long time. Everyone knows it needs to be fixed but this is just a ploy to pump up the price tag on the bill with more tax cuts so they'll have to take out some of the spending. I say scrap the addition and work on reforming AMT after the stimulus package gets passed.
Ok fellow bloggers how does 50 or 70 bn out of 900bn total make this bipartisan? WHy isn't MMFA pointing out the money for the BMX park in California in the bill? KNow how many houses could be given away for 24 million? OOps that would be in Ms Pelosi's district so now I understand.
My view of bipartisan is more than a 95/5 split!!
You are assuming that Republicans object to rest of the entire package. They must not object to spending on infrastructure because I read somewhere this morning that Republican Senators want MORE money allocated for infrastructure.
Didn't they say just the other day that the only stimulus package they would support was tax cuts?
I read somewhere this morning (sorry, can't provide a link) that we might expect the approach of Republican Senators (who don't have to run for office every two years and are less beholden to their Rush Limbaugh - The Entertainer, Rush Limbaugh - dittohead constituents) to be different from their House counterparts. One item I recall is that although they will object to arguably non-stimulus expenditures they go along with the infrastructure idea and think more of the money should go to infrastructure. Keep in mind the Senate bill have to go back to the House and by the time it's all over I'll bet there will be some Republican support.
Will they be able to dilute it sufficiently to insure its failure though. I'd give them an even chance of doing so.
Worldly, I finally get what you are saying. It is sad that whenever the intrastructure is being repaired that the only people working on it will be Democrats. And when a bridge or road in your area is completed that only Democrats will be permitted to drive on it. Heck, all the Republicans boys are off fighting the wars so the Democrat boys are just sitting home waiting to work. Talk about partisan. Gee whiz.
...so the Democrat boys are just sitting home waiting to work.
I thought Democrrats didn't want to work...just collect food stamps. <sarcasm>
My comments go to the manner in which the argument was presented by MMFA. It was MMFA that said the presence of the AMT reduction was 'proof' that the USA Today had 'erred' in their reporting. That is BS journalism - that many of the Lemmings on here just eat up without thinking.
And yes I accept that Reps will drive on the bridges just as Dems get extra money in the pay envelope from tax cuts. Most of us are not so naive as to not notice what we are being served.
To reiterate a past posting, I am concerned for where we are headed. Most "experts" on all sides are now talking 3 to 5 years to recovery and for us old farts - that is a wee bit too long.
or sensationlism
Umm, 95% of ALL Americans will be getting extra money in their pay envelopes. That would include a fair amount of republicans if I'm not mistaken.
3-5 years from possibly the worst economic situation we've been in ever, is not that long for recovery. It's not going to happen over night, and I'd be surprised if it happens in less than 2 years.
At this point, who cares what republicans want? The house voted in lockstep against the package even after Obama made concessions they demanded. From now on Obama should tell the republicans to go screw themselves and not solicit any input from them on anything else. Republicans met bipartisanship with party line partisanship, now they can reap what they sewed.
Exactly. I hope that Obama goes back and changes everything that the Republicans wanted changed in the bill and passes it that way--why bother to try to work with them when they repeatedly show that they're not interested in bipartisanship?
The Alternative Minimum Tax has a lot of problems. It definitely needs fixing.
On a side note, with Democrats controlling everything, this bill seems to be tilted quite a bit more towards the conservative solutions than I would have expected. Perhaps you all should question exactly what Obama and the Democrats are doing, considering this bill will go a long ways towards determing the success or failure of Democratic leadership.
Shouldn't you try to actually implement what you believe will work? Republicans are out of the game, of course they will vote against you no matter what. Voting with you cannot help them politically.
To be honest, I think all parties are playing CYA. I don't think any of them are totally confident that anything will work. The Republicans can afford to stand by their 100% Tax Cuts position because they know they won't get it.
The Democrats have all the power right now, plus all the responsibility. If this thing doesn't work, it will be on their heads, and totally rejecting Republican proposals would only make it worse down the road.
I think they're all scared sh*tless that nothing they do will save us from a depression.
People are questioning that, Bruce. Perhaps you should question why Republicans chose to do what they felt would "help them politically" by voting against a stimulus bill that most economists say is necessary and has many features in it that should appeal to them.
Also, does it really help them politically to be seen taking their lead from a divisive, bomb-throwing talk show host and standing against a popular new President? Maybe it does if, as some hope, that new President fails.
Probably because they knew the bill would pass without them and they are just hedging their bets.
Really, Democrats should just ignore Republicans as Republicans did to them. Run the country the way you want to and see how it works out. It's your show.
There is the truth.
They are betting on the stimulus to fail or at least not to take hold good and tight for two years so they can run against it. Meanwhile, Obama held out an olive branch and gave them some of what they want. If it does they'll claim it was the tax cuts that did it and with the help of Rush and those like him try to convince the public his is a "bigger failure than FDR's New Deal". In the end they will club him over the head with with this bill. Good for them (the GOP Congress), bad for the country. Ergo, proving my point the GOP hates the US.
We'll see how it plays out in the Senate, where Republicans still have the ability to obstruct.
It does seem that House Republicans are saying, as Limbaugh did after the election, that their problem was that they were too moderate, and I don't think it's a good thing for them or for the country.
Republicans certainly spent too much for true conservative tastes. Republicans are probably better as the minority party, when they don't actually have their fingers on the purse strings because they cannot practice what they preach.
Although they did pretty well when Clinton was in office, they lost their minds under Bush. And therefore they have been defeated.
Good points. I've heard that Greenspan was also important in promoting fiscal responsibility during Clinton's Presidency.
I do worry that mischaracterizing the stimulus bill as a liberal boondoggle, when so many think that the stimulus is needed and when specific objections have been addressed, poisons public perception and debate.