We need to stop and ask whether we can afford to spend $117 billion that the Treasury Department does not have on a program of dubious effectiveness. It simply makes no sense to send out checks to people who have no need for it as some kind of election-year bribe to vote for incumbents of both parties.
No, it doesn’t make any damned sense, but does probably explain the broad bi-partisan support.
I can’t believe I ever fell for the old notion of bi-partisanship. Does anything good ever come of it? Seriously, other than Holidays and award acknowledgements, can anyone think of anything that had broad bi-partisan support and was a good thing?
horatius
Paul Krugman is a secret Obama lover
zmulls
I hope that was a joke — Krugman has been very, very critical of Obama’s economic plans.
The best use of your rebate check would be to travel abroad and spend it in other countries. Though it would be worth a lot less there….
Pb
We still can’t afford it, but we still aren’t getting out of Iraq anytime soon.
Oh, you were talking about the rebate? Seems to me that a lot of people do have a need for it, although it’ll be a drop in the bucket. Still, I’d rather see it go to me than to Bear-Stearns, or to bribe some contractor or militia group in Iraq.
Um, what now? Yeah, that actually doesn’t make any sense. Getting a little more back at tax time from the federal gov’t isn’t going to make me any more or less likely to vote.
BC
No, that bipartisanship is bullshit – it just means splitting so one side gets what they want and the other side what they want. I’m reminded of the welfare debate (actually aid to families with dependent children, meaning to help children in poverty) during Johnson’s terms – liberals wanted to use the level of poverty for ALL families, but conservatives said they damned sure weren’t going to help families that had fathers. So, the upshot is the liberals allowed the conservatives to make AFDC available to families without fathers, then the conservatives used the fact that there were a lot more fatherless families as a stick to beat both the welfare and the liberals with. But, the liberals gave the conservatives the stick by their “bipartisanship.”
Bernie
You could make an argument that The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was, at the time, bipartisan. It was passed with support of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and Rockfeller Republicans (to offset the right-wing Republicans and Dixiecrats). But since the Rockfeller Repubs are now Democrats and the Dixiecrats are now not only Republicans but gained control of the Republican Party 25 years ago, it would probably not be considered bi-partisan in this political era.
Incertus
Yeah, I wondered about that formulation as well. For something to be a bribe, there has to be something you desire in exchange for the money. What exactly is Bartlett saying the federal government is asking for in return for this meager rebate? A vote for Republicans? Or since the Democrats control Congress, a vote for them? It’s all very unclear.
LiberalTarian
You’ve been quite introspective lately John. We’ll make a wonk out of you yet.
Nim, ham hock of liberty
The Do Not Call list?
My quality of life did improve after I stopped getting about 8 calls a day offering me new credit cards.
That’s about the one thing I give W credit for. He signed that into law.
Jake
B-but, people will get their “up to $600” check, go out and buy stuff (they don’t need to pay bills) and that will give the economy a tickle and stimulate Our Great Corporate Masters will reward us by taking that money and opening another factory in China and we’ll get a warm fuzzy knowing that somewhere a 15 year old is making a buck a day.
This chart clearly illustrates the principles behind the rebate.
cbear
Quite possibly the only true statement ever made by Grover Norquist.
joe
I pre-stimulated the economy last December, thank you very much.
But I’m sure that Capital One will appreciate getting their money a little bit sooner.
Sure, it’s going onto the deficit and I’ll have to pay it in taxes later, but the intro rate I transfered the balance to is about to run out anyway.
Zifnab
There was the Pelosi Lobbyist Reforms. Not everything we could have hoped for, but better than the nothing we were living with. Republicans were too chicken shit to vote against it, even if they did scream like raped kittens as it was getting passed.
The CHIP bill was largely bi-partisan in the House and even had solid support in the Senate. It just died under the veto pen. I don’t know if a Bush Veto kills the “bipartisan” label, but if he thinks he’s outside the rule of government, I don’t see why he’s still in the party system.
VA Reforms following the WaPo scandal were also largely bipartisan, although the Republicans were still big on dragging their feet.
Various minor tweaks to the tax code for ’08 – keeping the sales tax credit on the Schedule A alive and extending / expanding the child tax credit – are generally bipartisan affairs.
Not sure what you mean by this “bi-partisan = bad” thing. You basically need legislation to be bipartisan to get it to pass under GOP filibuster-anything-that-moves rules. I think, at this point, what you are saying is that the Congress is so rotten you just hope nothing gets passed.
I can’t really argue with that. I would, however, suggest that a government has work that needs to be done and a government paralyzed by Gingrich-style partisan infighting harms more people than it helps. Imagine if the GOP had run off and filibustered the Katrina aid or roadblocked the Omnibus funding bill. Do you really want to see a full government shutdown until one party obtains a Supermajority?
:p That’s a little extreme, but I think what people miss when the term “bipartisan” gets tossed around is that Congress is generally above partisan politics on the majority of technocratic issues – build this bridge, fund that new courthouse, pay for the other school lunch program – and only gets dragged into the sewer on bullshit issues they probably shouldn’t be voting on in the first place.
The Other Steve
Actually it’s much simpler. Anything Joe Lieberman thinks is a good idea, probably is not.
What I’m still trying to figure out is why the name of the law which makes it hard for me to buy sudafed for my allergies is “THE PATRIOT ACT”.
I thought that was supposed to be about terrorism prevention, but apparently it’s about clear sinus prevention.
jcricket
The divided Senate once voted 70-0 to impanel an investigation into Nixon’s stonewalling re: Watergate. That was while the public still gave Nixon over 55% approval ratings.
Try that bipartisanship on for size when compared to these days – where it mainly means Democrats rolling over and giving Republicans what they want.
The Other Steve
Is the problem bi-partisanship, or the fact that these guys thought about it for all of 5 minutes before deciding it was a good idea?
Jen
Bipartisan, sort-of, pundit-bashing, can be funny.
Not Sadly, No funny, just kind of funny. Perspective-giving funny. I like the “man on the street” interviews.
DougL
My understanding of the “economic stimulus check” is that it would have no actual net effect in that it’s an advance against next year’s tax refund. If you want to think of it as a “bribe”, it’s essentially a “bribe” with money you were going to get anyway, and if the amount of the stimulus check ends up being more than what’d you’d get on next year’s refund, you’d end up owing the difference on next year’s tax bill.
It’s not extra money that I wouldn’t get otherwise. I’m just getting it considerably earlier than I would normally. I’m not really looking for a handout from the government anyway, so I’m sorta meh about the whole thing.
Tsulagi
I’ll go with you there.
Let’s see, for Commander Guy and the Pubs in Congress, bipartisanship is defined as the other guys agreeing to any retarded, soon-to-be-fucked-up-beyond-belief thing they can dream up.
For the Dems in Congress, at least since the mid-terms, bipartisanship equates to being submissives. With the occasional impertinence of not bending over quick enough to please the other guys. They just love to get spanked.
Vincent
Wasn’t FISA bi-partisan?
ThymeZone
The rebate will not cover my cost increases for gasoline, milk, bread, eggs, and baby food for the year.
But, thanks for thinking of me back there in Washington, assholes. Really, I love you guys. Noogies!
TenguPhule
We don’t need Bi-partisanship.
We need a lot of execution of Republicans.
Sasha
Obama’s Illinois legislature bill mandating the videotaping of confessions passed unanimously, but that’s a state measure so that may not count.
Ed Drone
/Johnny Carson/
I had not heard that.
/-Johnny Carson/
I don’t think that’s the case, either. It certainly wasn’t stressed when the act was being debated. What would happen to those who don’t have a refund coming?
Ed
Chris O.
FOIA was bipartisan in Congress and hated by the executive branch.
That said, you might be interested in Matthew Yglesias’s Atlantic piece about how bipartisanship used to work, and why it’s better now to have clear ideological divides between parties.
John S.
Most of the major legislation in American history that really shook up the establishment and changed things for the better was a direct result of partisanship (ending segregation, civil rights, etc.). This is primarily due to the nature of the conservative/liberal political spectrum.
Conservatives want to keep things the same and are regressive in their policies while liberals want to change things and are progressive with their policies. Bipartisanship between conservatives and liberals is always a net win for conservatives because it effectively halts progress.
Just something to think about.
Incertus
If it is the case–and I don’t know either way–then I guess your tax bill next year includes a solid kick in the junk.
marjowil
don’t worry, Clinton is asking Greenspan to help out with the foreclosure crisis:
http://tinyurl.com/2svzt3 (wapo)
who better to fix it than the one wat caused it?
Jared
The great thing about “bi-partisanship” is that it is the one word Joe Lieberman’s wife can possibly use to convince the senator to have sex with her.
Oh, wait…
Incertus
Not just Greenspan, but Richard “Citigroup” Rubin as well, to add insult to injury.
Andrei
This is actually one of the reasons I hope Obama wins. While he talks the “bi-partisanship” game, he talks about it in a way that says, “I’ll listen, and I’ll work with your good ideas, but I won’t take your bad ones.”
Witness the way he approaches his campaign so far to see this in action. And also, the moment he gave that speech in Beaumont, Texas where he didn’t back down to a largely black audience on their treatment of gay issues.
I think Obama will be far more partisan than Hilary, and stick to his more liberal agenda. But he’s willing to listen, if to make sure he doesn’t let a good idea go by. In the end though, he seems to stick his guns far more than other politicians, but he does so in a way that doesn’t back you into a corner if you disagree with him.
I think that’s a good thing.
Jamey
Our rebate will be a nice prepayment applied to my mortgage. Not sure, however, what that’ll do to stimulate the economy.
I don’t need the rebate, and I surely don’t want it. (The policy, not the money.) But I’d be nuts to decline it and let W. piss it away in Mesopotamia.
w vincentz
“Bi-partisanship”..yeah right. Think back, authorization to invade Iraq. If you didn’t go along, you were branded a traitor.
FUCKING ASSHOLES BELIVE LIES. Smart people know better.
Neo
Did anyone posting here give the IRS the authority to look at their 2007 tax information for any purpose other than determining their 2007 tax liability ?
Thought not.
So exactly how are they determining the size of your economic stimulus check ?
Zifnab
It’s not a zero-sum game. Bush already has his Iraq-pissing money. We are already running a deficit. This is like tacking on another $117 billion to the national credit card when we’ve already maxed at $9 trillion.
I’m torn, here. Richer people than me will end up paying this back some time in the future. You can’t get blood from a turnip and you can’t get $9 trillion from my tax bracket. This is a far better tax break than we got under Bush back in ’01, so I have a hard time fighting against it.
On the flip side, it’s that much more money we really can’t afford to spend. Because, you know, a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about a lot of money. If we are heading into a recession, $600 checks aren’t going to plug that geyser for more than a minute. But all the sensible suggestions – extending unemployment and expanding food stamps – get shot down as “socialist” and “anti-business”, and we need some solution to the looming problem.
So I guess the only question to ask is whether this $600 rebate will be a minor improvement, a net zero, or a genuine hit to our economy down the road. It certainly won’t save the country, but I’m still not sure if it won’t at least prop us up long enough to un-Bush ourselves and get some real leadership.
zzyzx
Your understanding is wrong. Your taxes for next year will be reduced by the amount of the check you will receive. A better way of describing this is that your taxes for next year will be lowered, but instead of getting a bigger rebate/owing less next year, you’ll be receiving it soon.
Zifnab
Based on your AGI and your number of dependents.
For Single people without Qualifying Children, for instance:
BH Buck
If you think about it, will we really ever be “un-Bushed”? I mean, look how close we are to getting Bush-II (or is that Bush-III?) in November.
No. We’ll have moments of intelligent voting. But the things that helped elect the worse president of all time are still in place. It’ll be quite some time, if ever, before we’re truly un-Bushed.
Brachiator
The stimulus rebate is an advance, BUT you will not be required to cough up the difference on next year’s tax bill if for 2008 your tax situation varies much from 2007. The law passed specifically tells the IRS to look the other way if you would otherwise have to “pay back” the rebate amount.
By the way, a little bit of discriminatory nonsense that everyone in Congress, Democrat and Republican alike went for: You can be a legal resident of the US and worked your butt off in 2007, but if you do not have a social security number (but instead use a perfectly valid ITIN number), you don’t get a rebate. If you are married and have a SSN, but your spouse does not, no rebate for you. But Congress upped the income threshold so that more upper income people would qualify.
Congress gave the IRS the authority to do so. Despite any blather you here from politicians about the evil IRS, they don’t do anything that has not been authorized by legislation. If you got a problem with that, get a new Congress.
You can also go to the IRS web site and determine the size of your rebate check yourself (Economic Stimulus Payment Calculator).
The Other Steve
But they all had to be dragged kicking and screaming to sign onto it. And then they put in a clause that said your phone # would expire, and we had to drag them kicking and screaming to eliminate that.
You’re right, it was one of the best pieces of legislation put into place in years, it’s just amazing how many argued against it.
ThymeZone
It was heavily and forcefully lobbied against.
The telemarking industry is lucrative.
It’s a case study in how a relatively small, but wealthy and vocal interest can match up against the general public’s interests, and prevail, or nearly so.
Now, taking Big Pharma as an example of a moneyed interest that lobbies aggressisvely, I’d rate them as many many times bigger and more powerful than telemarketing. If you wonder why we don’t have access to healthcare in this country, that’s the answer. You have have best rigged system money can buy.
At this point I think it’s safe to say that moneyed interests and lobbying are a true threat to democracy.
Bigger, I’d say, than …. um … Al Qaeda.
ThymeZone
I don’t think so. The ace in the hole for the American Experiment is the huge bloc of eligible voters who don’t vote. All you have to do is motivate a slice of that bloc to go the polls and you can realign politics in this country.
In case anyone wonders why we strive to get Barack Obama nominated, that’s a big reason. He talks to those people.
I think a lot of people are going to be surprised this November, but I think Republicans are the ones who really know what’s coming. A collossal train wreck for their party.
bootlegger
The final versions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were bipartisan in that there were easily definable sides and they compromised. Bipartisanship can work, but its not always the best medicine. So I don’t discount the idea of working “across the aisle” but I also don’t see it as a panacea.
And our kids will be paying for this rebate instead of taking us to iHop for the senior special.
horatius
I was channeling Pluk and myiqnonexistent for a few minutes there.
ThymeZone
Franken.
BH Buck
I just read that Krugman article Horatius linked to, and have a small problem with it:
There are a hell of a lot of differences between this war and the Vietnam war, especially in the way of spending. Remember this little gem?:
Asti
By George, I think he’s got it!
I was just told that my healthcare is going to cost twice as much as it did if I were on my current employer’s plan last year, and the best way to fix that is to buy into a Health Savings Account, which has a $3,000 deductible, but that’s the best option for someone who uses doctor’s services only intermittently, as I do. Hmmmm, why would I want to purchase a plan like that? Oh, yeah… I get it, the HSA is sort of like a roll-over, so I can take it anywhere, but, if I don’t use it, all I’m doing is paying money into a system I’ll never benefit from… (hmmm, they didn’t mention that part!).
ThymeZone
Bill Frist likey!
Asti
He duz indeed!
ThymeZone
I think HSA is a great idea for people who never get sick, as long as they can afford to throw away the HSA money.
It’s anti-insurance, in that it doesn’t work for sick people, and takes healthy people, the bedrock of a fiscally viable insurance scheme, out of the scheme, thereby defunding the insurance model.
Asti
So, correct me if I’m wrong. Most of the people in my office got their first education lesson in HSA’s today. Seems most of them have never heard of one before. When I was living back east, people were talking about HSA’s two years ago, but, it was a new concept then, and apparently still getting first exposure… so, is this the Republican ideal for changing healthcare? It sure seems to me that the system smells Republican, as I get to pay into a system I will not be able to really use. Am I wrong?
Asti
But, isn’t the idea of health insurance to have a way to pay for services IF/WHEN someone gets sick? I don’t have a crystal ball that says I’m never going to have a car accident, get ill, etc… Aren’t I gambling against myself my own best interests in that case?
Asti
I make 24k a year, they’re expecting me to throw away an eighth of my income, that’s insane.
Jesse Ewiak
To be fair, until the Republicans went bugfuck crazy (ca. 1980-ish), there was broad bipartisan consensus that most of the social safety net needed to be well-funded.
Welfare, because it went to blacks and poor whites didn’t count but stuff like Medicare and Social Security were truly third rails because no one was dumb enough to touch them.
ThymeZone
Being Republican ain’t all a bed of roses, dear.
dbrown
What repubics are really doing:
And Michael Massing writes in the New York Review of Books about his visit to Fort Drum, N.Y., in an attempt to find out who today’s soldier’s really are and what led them to volunteer.
“There are some 17,000 soldiers based at Drum (four thousand of whom are currently deployed in Iraq) . . . Among the first I approached was Jason Thomas Adams, a slender young man dressed in a cook’s white uniform. A twenty-five-year-old private from Brooklyn, Adams had joined the Army only nine months earlier. He had never really expected to, he told me–he’d wanted to be a police officer. After graduating from high school, he had enrolled in the John Jay School of Criminal Justice. To help pay the tuition, he worked at two jobs–Paragon Sports and a restaurant on Second Avenue–but quickly went into debt.
“Meanwhile, he got married, his wife got pregnant, and he had no health care. From a brother in the military, he had learned of the Army’s many benefits, and, visiting a recruiter, he heard about Tricare, the military’s generous health plan. He also learned that the Army would repay his education loans. And so he signed up. When I asked about September 11 and service to the country, he said flatly that it had had nothing to do with his decision. . . .
“Over and over, I heard soldiers talk about being hard-pressed to pay the rent, of having a child and being without health care, of yearning to escape a depressing town or oppressive family, of wanting to get out and see the world.”
So by making sure the poor have no health care, are in debts that they can’t escape and education loans we have the military! Learn to die for the rich and you too can get middle class benifits (for a short while … )
Asti
Being Republican… that is to say because I live in a society that is emanating Republican aspects that makes my life Republican?
You, of all people, know I am certainly NO Republican! ;)
Them’s fighting words sweetheart!
Asti
The Have-Mores will always make the Have-Nots expendable.