Stimulus squabbles

Under the guise of passing an economic-stimulus bill, Senate Democrats and Republicans seemed determined to fight over which group of lobbyists should be rewarded for their campaign generosity. Democrats have certain agricultural interests in mind; Republicans favor some top earners and corporations. The economy benefits, when it does at all, either incidentally or because no stimulus package could entirely leave out some of the easiest means to spur spending.

If this were just one more battle over a budget bill, the political maneuverings would be bad enough. But with the nation’s confidence shaken and the economy receding, the competing bills and the concomitant party lines in the sand over increased federal support for bison-meat purchases (Dems) and three-year tax breaks for corporations when the stimulus is supposed to occur soon (GOP) the deadlock is an embarrassment. And time, in the form of a Thanksgiving break, is running out.

The role for Senate centrists – including Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins – is to put together agreement on issues such as getting money to the states, providing one-time payments to taxpayers and to those too poor to pay taxes, providing health insurance subsidies of at least 75 percent for those laid off after Sept. 11. This is money that would be spent quickly – the poor can’t afford to save a federal windfall; the states need it just as badly. A package smaller that the House’s $100 billion total could also gain White House support – the stimulus began with the administration talking about something between $40 billion and $50 billion in addition to the money spent so far.

Some economists debate whether a $40 billion or even a $100 billion package can make any difference in a $10 trillion economy. No one knows for sure, but short-term, a temporary stimulus aimed at people who will actually spend the money, as opposed to saving it as most apparently did with the last rebate, couldn’t hurt and is preferable to watching Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan drive the lending rate to near zero with little apparent effect.

As a sign that Congress can work together for the best interests of the entire country, the stimulus package carries special meaning. After the Sept. 11 attack, the continuing anthrax scare and the war in Afghanistan leave the nation uncertain about what happens next. Squabbling in the Senate is certainly one way to remind Americans that it’s business as usual in Washington, but a better idea would be to show strong leadership by getting agreement on a package that can be quickly adopted by the House.

This will require bipartisan cooperation and a narrowly focused proposal. It will require Senate Democrats to drop many of the provisions added in the Finance Committee and Republicans to accept more generous proposals for those with moderate incomes and to tell business friends that their breaks will have to wait until the next round. It will require leadership and compromise and a sense that the stimulus package is more important than the typical legislation that passes through Congress.