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

[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

[pinto]

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.

[pinto]

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*.

[Still Sensible]

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.

[Dappleganger]

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.

[backscatter712]

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.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

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

[Orangepeel]

6. put Snow, Collins and Specter on the conference committee to argue against school construction

It won't go back to $79 billion, but it would most likely go up.



edited to include necessary words.

[4lbs]

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.