Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

MSNBC's First Read: The Stimulus' Six Points of Contention

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-09 05:23 PM
Original message
MSNBC's First Read: The Stimulus' Six Points of Contention
Edited on Tue Feb-10-09 05:25 PM by flpoljunkie
THE STIMULUS' SIX POINTS OF CONTENTION

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:40 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Mike Viqueira

House and Senate leaders are hoping to have the stimulus conference report settled within 24 hours, according to several House Democratic aides.

The points of negotiation, in their view, are as follows:

-- The $15,000 homebuyer credit attached in the Senate. It had a Republican sponsor, Sen. Johnny Isakson, who doesn't support the final product. So why keep it in? With this and other measures that logically could go to make room for some of the things below, it obviously depends on how each of the three Republicans -- Collins, Snowe, and Specter -- feel about it.

-- A provision concerning deductible interest on car loans that was put forward by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D) in the Senate. As with the Isakson measure, Dems reason that this is a poorly targeted provision that can be jettisoned in favor of other priorities.

-- The cut in aid to the states in Collins/Nelson from $79 billion to $39 billion. House Dems want some of that money restored.

-- The House version had $14 billion in school construction funds. The Nelson/Collins version has zero. House Dems are plenty sore about it.

-- The Medicaid allocation formula. The Senate version divides the money evenly, so that high population states like California get the same amount as sparsely populated states like Wyoming. This is a classic House-Senate disagreement.

-- The yearly AMT "fix." This wasn't in the House bill, but it is in the Senate version -- at a price of $70 billion. Its biggest champion in the Senate is Chuck Grassley, who voted "no" on the final bill. Dems will end up doing the fix this year, as they do every year. But they don't want to do it in this bill.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/10/1789505.aspx

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-09 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. They could cut the $70b AMT fix, it gets done every year, add back the $14b
to school construction and the $40b in aid to states and cut the bottom line by the remainder - $16b.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. On follow up, I think the (R) are opposed to school construction on the grounds
that they see it as a local responsibility, not a federal function.

But in the scheme of things it would support construction *jobs*.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Still Sensible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-09 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. If the AMT fix is in fact a given, it can come out
I also don't have a problem with the auto-loan interest provision coming out... but, despite the fact that it is a republican's idea, I think there is probably a lot of merit to the home owner credit. The housing market will be one of the most important bellwethers for some early success of this plan and I think it is important. It is also limited to "primary residence" to keep speculators and the big money folks from gaming the system.

That said, treating the AMT as a slam dunk separate issue would allow to fix most of what is left, including the very important school construction funds and the even more important, IMO, aid to the states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-09 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. The housing provision would definitely help
people like us who are forced to move to a higher cost of living area due to being laid off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-09 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. That's what I'm thinking.
AMT can safely go in exchange for a promise to put it in another bill, and the funds can go into school and state funding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-09 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. so the republicans can use their own money to fund leaking school roofs
if they cut money to people then they should put up some of their own assets
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orangepeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-09 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. put Snow, Collins and Specter on the conference committee to argue against school construction
Edited on Tue Feb-10-09 05:56 PM by Orangepeel
It won't go back to $79 billion, but it would most likely go up.



edited to include necessary words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4lbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-09 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. They should just arm twist (figuratively) them and say that if they want their amendments
in the package, they better vote YEA on it.

Otherwise, it comes out in the combined House-Senate version.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC