WASHINGTON, Jan. 5, 2009
Obama Pushes Bipartisan Effort On Stimulus
Urging Speed To Heal "Sick" Economy, President-Elect Proposes $500 Tax Cuts For Most Workers, $100B For Businesses
-
Photo
(CBS)
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Mr. Obama Goes To Washington
Gov. Bill Richardson withdraws his bid for Barack Obama's commerce secretary after a pay-for-play probe surfaces, reports Bill Plante. Bob Schieffer comments on the Obama transition.
-
Video
Obama Pushes Stimulus Plan
President-elect Obama went to Capitol Hill to meet with congressional leaders and urged them to approve another stimulus package. As Chip Reid reports, the plan could run as high as $775 Billion.
-
In-Depth
Obama's Cabinet
The latest names and status of posts within Obama's new administration.
-
Interactive
110th Congress
The balance of power shifts and new leadership takes control as the latest session convenes.
"The economy is very sick," Mr. Obama said before meeting with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "The situation is getting worse. ... We have to act and act now to break the momentum of this recession."
Mr. Obama, whose inauguration is two weeks from Tuesday on Jan. 20, said he expected quick approval of rescue legislation by the new Congress.
"I expect to be able to sign a bill shortly after taking office," he said. Pressed on the timing, he said, "By the end of January or the first of February."
Mr. Obama's proposal to stimulate the economy includes tax cuts of up to $300 billion, including $500 tax cuts for most workers and $1,000 for couples, as well as more than $100 billion for businesses, an Obama transition official said. The total value of the tax cuts would be significantly higher than had been signaled earlier.
New federal spending, also aimed at boosting the moribund economy, could push the overall package to the range of $800 billion or so.
The focus on business tax cuts is sure to make some liberal Democrats unhappy, reports CBS News correspondent Chip Reid. But political analyst Stuart Rothenberg says it's the kind of new politics Mr. Obama has long advocated.
"A package like this as it turns out, is one that reaches out both to Democrats and Republicans ," Rothenberg said.
And with Mr. Obama hoping to pass the stimulus with a large bipartisan majority, Reid reports his team was encouraged by early reactions from Republicans to the idea of tax cuts.
"Clearly it's an area that brings excitement to Republicans because it does put money in the economy right away," Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, said.
Mr. Obama met earlier in the day with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as he set a tone of urgency for dealing with a financial situation that he described as "precarious."
"The reason we are here today is because the people's business cannot wait," Mr. Obama said as he arrived on Capitol Hill for talks with Pelosi. "The speaker and her staff have been extraordinarily helpful in working with our team so we can shape an economic recovery plan and start putting people back to work."
The tax cuts for individuals and couples would be similar to the rebate checks sent out last year by the Bush administration and Congress in a bid at that time to boost the slowing economy. A key difference is that the tax cuts this time around may be awarded through withholding less from worker paychecks. That provision would cost about $140-150 billion over two years.
For businesses, the plan would allow firms incurring losses last year to take a credit against profits dating back five years instead of the two years currently allowed.
Another provision brought to the negotiations by the Obama team would award a one-year tax credit costing $40-50 billion to companies that hire new workers, and would provide other incentives for business investment in new equipment.
"We've got an extraordinary economic challenge ahead of us," Mr. Obama said. "We're expecting a sobering job report at the end of the week."
Said Pelosi: "It is a great honor and personal privilege to welcome you to this office. Tomorrow we will swear in a new Congress and we will hit the ground running on the initiatives ... to ease the pain being felt by the American people."
After the meeting, Mr. Obama left Pelosi's office and was surrounded by tourists hoping for a glimpse of the president-elect, reports CBS News producer Jill Jackson. He waved and wished everyone a Happy New Year before kissing Pelosi goodbye and heading back to his Washington, D.C. transition office.
Before meeting with Reid, the Nevada Democrat, Mr. Obama said, "This is not a Republican problem or a Democratic problem at this stage. It is an American problem and we're going to all have to chip in and do what the American people expect."
Mr. Obama had meetings with a broad array of House and Senate Democratic leaders and with a bipartisan group of key lawmakers. He had hoped to have Congress enact the recovery plan in time for him to sign when he takes office Jan. 20. But even his spokesman, Robert Gibbs, conceded that was "very, very unlikely."
According to the Politico, Obama strategists say he wants to get 80 or more votes in the 100-member Senate, and the emphasis on tax cuts is a way to defuse conservative criticism and enlist Republican support.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said Sunday he wants the House to approve the plan by the end of the month, sending it to the Senate in time for action before Congress leaves on its mid-February break.
Mr. Obama has insisted that bold and quick action is necessary if the nation is to rebound from the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. He has said repeatedly he wants a plan that will create 3 million new jobs.
"Economists from across the political spectrum agree that if we don't act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment and the American dream slipping further and further out of reach," he said in his Saturday radio and YouTube address.
Mr. Obama arrived Sunday night in Washington - a place he largely has shunned since winning election - just hours after New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew from consideration as commerce secretary amid a grand jury investigation into how some of his political donors won a lucrative state contract.
The Richardson withdrawal marked the first major hiccup in a smooth transition that saw Obama select his Cabinet in record time, largely because of the magnitude of the economic and national security challenges facing the new administration.
Obama aides have said the package Obama has dubbed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan could cost as much as $775 billion. The president-elect has refused to put a price tag to the plan.
Congressional aides briefed on the measure say it is likely to include some $200 billion to help revenue-starved states pay for health care programs for the poor and other operating costs. A large part of the new spending would go for infrastructure projects, blending old-fashioned road and bridge repairs with new programs to advance energy efficiency and rebuild health care information technology systems.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 410 Commentswhat you say to us the unemployed?
Let them eat cake?
I believe they''re also talking about raising and/or extending unemployment benefits (or at least, they were at the end of last year). Even consideration of the unemployed is an improvement over the "Get a ******* job" attitude of the righteous Republicans.
Now he is coming across as dumb as Bush.
Posted by marcodele at 01:37 PM : Jan 05, 2009
LOL Yep afraid so!
what you say to us the unemployed?
Let them eat cake?
Posted by jackobyte at 12:55 PM : Jan 05, 2009
I believe part of the package is an extension of Unemployment benefits as well as a jobs package! Who knows you might end up with a Tax Cut on your NEW job and MORE wages... LOL
Posted by peace4321 at 01:18 PM : Jan 05, 2009
You didn''t say "Sieg Heil". Now you know the Grand Wizard of the Confederate Party, there is NO Republican Party left outside the Fascist South, will NOT like that!! ROFLMAO I guess YOU think we should just stay with "Trickle Down" even though it has NEVER, not ONCE worked! THAT''S INSANE!! To continue a policy that has NEVER not even for ONE MONTH produced ANYTHING but RED INK is completely INSANE!! Trash those Swastika''s and get some mental help... real soon!!
Posted by lady_organs at 01:21 PM : Jan 05, 2009
That''s right! YOU don''t agree with the "Party" and the Fuhrer! You don''t want to continue "Trickle Down" and didn''t elect Mr. De-Regulations so YOU don''t count!! ROFLMAO Can you folks believe these fascist... it''s not good enough that they have us in the WORST economic meltdown since their Hero HOOVER. They must come on here putting down those who were right all along!! Talk about Irrelevant?? LOL You Sparky ARE totally Irrelevant in this discussion!! Sieg Heil Y''all.
The key word here is WORKING!!!
What about all those people on disability, retired, collecting unemployment benefits, and the millions who have "slipped thru the cracks" and are not collecting ANYTHING because they are unemployed and their benefits are used up?
Are these people "NON-PEOPLE"?
And how about kids who are in school? They eat, need clothes, and get sick too!
This sounds like something the Great Emperor Bush II would have thought up like the tax rebates we got last year that had "strings" attached to them!
Besides, what can a person do with $500 today? Maybe have a nice dinner and a movie or afford a week''s worth of groceries. $500 sure isn''t going to "jump start" the economy, not when the corporate execs at places like AIG and Bank of America can get their millions with no questions asked!
SIG HEIL, I KNEW OBAMA WOULD START THINKING LIKE ME!!!, BUSH!!!
Will there be a tax increase on those making more than $250,000 AS PROMISED?
What about the windfall tax on oil companies AS PROMISED?
What about the increase on capital gains tax AS PROMISED?
The excuse will be that conditions have changed. The economy was well in the tank before the election. At first glance, this looks like previous Bush plans.
AND HE IS WORKING WITH ONE OF THE IDIOTS WHO BROUGHT ON THE ECONOMIC MESS - NANCY P
Looks like we got the same old *** in a shiny but more expensive package. So far this guy seems to be nothing but government as usual.
GOD PLEASE HELP US GET WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE VOTING FOR.
We voted for? Sounds like you didn''t vote for him.
If you''ve got complaints...take to the CURRENT president.
Oh, I forgot, Republicans don''t blame Bush for anything.
Now he is coming across as dumb as Bush.
Posted by jjp735i at 01:28 PM : Jan 05, 2009
Agreed ! We just tried a stimulus package last year, and people were making fun of Bush then for doing it. Obama, where''s the big rescue plan ??
Reagan/Bush I/Bush II (and to a certain extent Clinton with his New Democrat BS) created a huge economic hole CALLED TRICKLE-DOWN and it will take time to get out of this mess.
You should direct your complaints with the people who came before him...if you believe in putting personal responsibilities WHERE they belong.
In 2008, the average worker makes $34K.
In 1982, a CEO made 42 times an average worker.
In 2004, a CEO made 431 times an average worker.
30 years of TRICKLE-DOWN and still many people want more.
Just keep letting them rob you blind with those wedge issues....guns, race, gay marriages, abortion, welfare, etc.
Posted by brannigon at 02:00 PM : Jan 05, 2009
-------------
Whatever BS he might have been full of, it''s going to be 10,000 times less caustic than the trainloads of BS George and his cronies dumped all over this country.
I wish this man would start living in our world. Reality is not what you declare it to be. It doesn''t conveniently change according to your whims.
We had a Repub. in office the last 8 years that acted more like a Dem than a Repub(Big Gov.spending). Now we have a Dem in office acting more like a Repub than a Dem. (Big tax breaks for business).
The only bottom-feeding banshees I''ve heard screeching on here for the last few months are all you snivelers who still can''t grasp the fact that your old boy McCorpse lost the election by a landslide.
Whatever. You sound like you''re about due for another midol. Run along now and don''t let the Kleenex box hit you in theass on your way out.
The schmucks who had to pay each get 500.00? To do what? Make a partial payment on a mortgage? Pay the gas and electric bill for Jan? What the FVCK?
Then we bail out the auto industry for 13.5 BILLION--they too will give out bonuses to their upper mgmt while forcing the factory workers to take pay cuts, layoffs, early retirements and cut benefits--and they get the 500.00 bonus too?
Word to the wise to Obama--don''t be a fvcking idiot. The rebates did NOT work for Bush, they sure as hell will NOT work for you either and 500.00 when BILLIONS are being misspent in tax money and SS taxes is like pizzing and *********** in our fvcking faces.
allowed to use the rest to stimulate the economy by spending it on what they need, including purchasing stock if they so chose. For those who choose to quit/retire because of their windwall and debt elimination, that''s fine! This will create more jobs out for the unemployed! At least this way US citizens won''t have to wait for money to trickle down or suffer
any longer while big business figures out how make $$ off their windfall from us.
Posted by Mcliar at 01:10 PM : Jan 05, 2009
Hello, here''s a clue: What do you imagine the 500.00 rebate checks will do for the economy? What is the difference between Obama''s new 500.00 check to the middle class and
Bush''s 300.00 checks (in 2001) and 1500.00 - 3000.00 checks just delivered in July of this year?
NONE OF THEM WORK. The reason why is 500.00 and 3000.00 spending money ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. Businesses do not need people spending money TODAY to get out of trouble, they need them spending money EVERYDAY, the only way to invest in new companies/create jobs is to show a desire and need for a product everyday--The gov. present rationale (like yours) is to assume that a one time payment is enough for businesses to count on for years. That is funny.
It is like you getting 20K and thinking it is so much that you can buy a house a yacht, a car, go to Europe, buy jewelry, invest in the stock market, go to college and still have 20K in the bank at the same time. It is pure delusional idiocy.
Outsourced jobs do not sustain businesses. Insourced jobs do not sustain businesses. Laid off workers do not buy things. None shopping people do not sustain retail markets. The stimulus "checks" only buy small amounts of time for a dying economy and the more time goes buy, the less time these "checks" pay for.
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 02:18 PM : Jan 05, 2009"
Except this time, we are all becoming slaves.
The only bottom-feeding banshees I''''ve heard screeching on here for the last few months are all you snivelers who still can''''t grasp the fact that your old boy McCorpse lost the election by a landslide.
Posted by shanev137 at 02:16 PM : Jan 05, 2009
I don''t see that post, so I guess that means another name change, huh?
Posted by Questionnews at 02:16 PM : Jan 05, 2009"
Hate to break you out of your fantasy, but Republicans have ALWAYS been big government spenders AND never balanced a budget...not Reagan, not Bush I and certainly not Bush II.
It''s time for us to move past the rhetoric and look at the facts.
In 2008, the average worker makes $34K.
In 1982, a CEO made 42 times an average worker.
In 2004, a CEO made 431 times an average worker.
30 years of TRICKLE-DOWN and still many people want more.
Just keep letting them rob you blind with those wedge issues....guns, race, gay marriages, abortion, welfare, etc.
Posted by whatithink10 at 02:06 PM : Jan 05, 2009
What drugs are you on? In 1980, the avg new home cost 45K and the avg salary was 19K/year for those that were working. Where was the avg worker making 39K? New York? Even now, the median salary for a 2 parent family is about 49K. For one person, the amount is less. Where did you get such high salary figures from? It was NOT from most jobs available in the US
Do you know what INFLATION ADJUSTED means?
You shouldn''t have dropped out of the 5th grade!
Posted by txgrouch2008 at 02:18 PM : Jan 05, 2009
This is incorrect. 100 Years ago, the most powerful nation was Great Britain and their empire. The prominence and status of America only changed after both World wars and only changed because America entered both world wars late and was never bombed on our home soil (Hawaii was not a state when bomb but was disputed by both America and Japan:
So we became the new uber power due to luck, circumstances, the atom bomb, and being the only ones to still have factories and resources to help rebuild everywhere else. Due to everyone owing us for rebuilding --THAT is when America gained its status as the #1 super power--before that, like many former English colonies, we basically satellited and kowtowed to England. America did not even have a viable industry of any sort (except slaves and agriculture) until about 1870 and even then, it could not rival or compete with Europe--it took 2 WW that devastated Europe to take us to the #1 spot--we always entered the WWs after the allies and their enemies had been fighting and exhausting their countries and resources for YEARS. Pretty smart, eh?
Posted by notblue at 02:41 PM : Jan 05, 2009"
When the tax cut creates a deficit, it is not a tax cut but a loan with interest.
If you are happy with that form of tax cuts, ask your employer not to give you a raise this year but a loan with a 10% a year payment to China.
You should also learn more about the social security trust fund. It''s been raided since Reagan to make it seem like somebody was giving somebody a tax cut...when they were stealing from Peter to give to Peter.
Posted by armydog2 at 02:34 PM : Jan 05, 2009
Bush has already been there and done this--
rebate check of 300.00 or 600 for marrieds--done in 2003?
rebate check for 600.00 or 1200.00 for marrieds done in 2008
So this rebate check (and that is what it is) is just more of the same--we can all see that this is a dumb idea--when people are losing their homes, and have bills and the gov is letting banks dole out billions in bonuses to employees--the 500.00 is another bad joke.
What, pray tell is the cut off this time for who gets these checks? So far, we never qualified for the rebates as we made too much money--this is just more of the same--the rotten egg does not smell like roses, just because Obama and the Dems are trying to lay it AGAIN--this time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by notblue at 02:47 PM : Jan 05, 2009"
This coming from somebody who thinks Bush gave you a tax cut. Have you seen how the dollar has depreciated since that tax cut? There are more ways than one to skin a cat, especially when all the cat does is cry tax cuts.
Do you know what INFLATION ADJUSTED means?
You shouldn''''t have dropped out of the 5th grade!
Posted by whatithink10 at 02:38 PM : Jan 05, 2009
You cannot readjust inflation for the past because the denominators for inflation were already in effect and higher than they are now. So the idea of factoring inflation into the equation does not work. In 1980, inflation was already at over 9%, it is less than 6% now not counting food and gas. So you cannot adjust it.
I actually think BEFORE I post and therefore recognize that trying to equate what we make now with what was made in 1980 is trying to compare two depressed economic models but failing to recognize other factors such as the continual drain in resources, jobs, mfg facilities and financial institutions which is a new paradigm for now--there is NO comparison--unless you reach further back to the Depression. And no need to get ugly--the fact is--Obama''s rebate scheme was stupid when Bush did it--and it remains stupid when Obama does it.
Posted by harbinger09 "
That is absolutely not true. If you made a salary in 1982 and just received inflation level pay increases (meaning your salary kept up with the increase in the price of goods), you''d be technically better off than somebody who started working in 2005.
Fact is, REAL wages have been declining since the early 1970s for everyone except for a small few. If minimum wage kept up with the wage increases to the top 5%, minimum wage today would be $23 an hour.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by guyfrompa50 at 02:59 PM : Jan 05, 2009"
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn''t Obama vote FOR Bush''s stimulus package????? Where is that comment coming from?
Posted by distressed2 at 02:48 PM : Jan 05, 2009
I''m very sorry, but how exactly did you innocently end up owing $216,000 to the IRS?
No matter what The Dear Leader, Peloozy, and Reed are saying, the fact is that you will end up paying more in taxes under their Regime.
Count on it.
That''s your Change.
Fact is, REAL wages have been declining since the early 1970s for everyone except for a small few.
Posted by whatithink10 at 02:56 PM : Jan 05, 2009
Real wages have been declining in America since the 1970s--true as has the value of the dollar--but you are wrong. In 1980, there were few to NO wage increases as we were in a severe recession. I actually was working during that time and remember the lines for jobs and when lawyers waited in lines like the rest of us , to work as cab drivers or flipping burgers. What I wrote is that it makes no sense to compare the salaries of people working today with the salaries of people working in 1980 when BOTH were under the auspices of high inflation and so neither reflected a true and stable baseline. I stand by that and anyone who was working in 1980 knows this--when inflation for most goods is 9 to 23% and over 10% of most towns is unemployed, such a scenario is NOT a stable marker to compare anything today to. It would have been more appropos to compare the value of today''s dollar with the decline in the value of the dollar since it is no longer backed--this would be a true and more stable marker as a dollar is still a dollar though the value of a dollar has steadily declined for years. What you have done is like comparing what you weigh now and what size you wear to what people wore and weighed over 20 years ago--which makes no sense, since statures have changed significantly since then as has how we categorize sizes for clothes.
Have you seen our budget deficit? This was not under "their regime." This was actually the consequence of 6 years of Republican rule in the white house and Congress.
Fantasy is Republicans are not big spenders.
Fantasy.
And there is nothing in history that proves, otherwise.
Especially over the last 40 years when the Republican party became tainted by Demoncrats.
Posted by harbinger09 at 03:06 PM : Jan 05, 2009"
That''s even more telling as you would expect salaries to have depressed as well in such an environment, but people during this time STILL had a greater purchasing power than we do today...on average.
What I compared is what humans compare. People compare themselves to how their parents lived or their grandparents. I also stand by what I said...
The purchasing power in 1980 was much HIGHER than the purchasing power of today.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 410 Comments