Obama Courts GOP On Economic Plan

(CBS/AP)  President-elect Barack Obama wants his first legislative push in office to include significant Republican support, despite Democrats already enjoying majorities in both houses of Congress.

Not only does Mr. Obama want to roll out a multibillion-dollar economic stimulus package soon after he's sworn in on Jan. 20, he also wants it to garner 80 or more Senate votes, according to the Politico. The plan includes tax cuts totaling up to $300 billion for individuals and businesses, which is significantly higher than had been signaled earlier and is believed to placate any Republican unrest at such sizable spending.

After meeting with Mr. Obama on Monday, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he was concerned about the plan's cost, which he said would be "paid for by our kids and grandkids." Republican lawmakers want more details, Boehner said, but he also indicated that the idea of tax cuts "brings excitement to Republicans because it does put money in the economy right away."

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.

Before meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, 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."

On his first full day in Washington after winding up his holiday vacation, Mr. Obama plunged into crisis talks Monday with congressional leaders after indications that the economic recovery plan, which could amount to around $800 billion in new spending, would take longer to enact than he hoped.

Mr. Obama has insisted that bold and quick action is necessary if the United States is to rebound from the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. He also wants the plan to tackle rising unemployment and hopes to create 3 million new jobs.

"The economy is very sick," Mr. Obama said before meeting Reid, a fellow Democrat. "The situation is getting worse. ... We have to act and act now to break the momentum of this recession."

"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 met earlier in the day with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, as he set a tone of urgency for dealing with a financial situation that he described as "precarious."

"We will hit the ground running ... to address the pain being felt by the American people," Pelosi promised as she welcomed Mr. Obama to her office.

"This president-elect has put incredible urgency in front of this proposal. I still think it's gonna take about a month to get it done," former Minnesota Congressman Vin Weber told CBS News.

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.

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.

Meanwhile, the new Congress grappled with its own internal issues. Roland Burris, the choice of scandal-plagued Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to assume Mr. Obama's vacated Senate seat, was refused entry to the Senate because his official letter of appointment was not co-signed by Illinois' secretary of state.

Mr. Obama arrived Sunday night in Washington just hours after 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 Mr. Obama select his Cabinet in record time, largely because of the magnitude of the economic and national security challenges facing the new administration.

Mr. Obama has also decided to fill the top two U.S. intelligence jobs with two men short on direct experience in intelligence gathering, signifying the Democrat's intention to distance himself from such Bush administration policies as harsh interrogations, waterboarding and warrantless wiretapping.

Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, a longtime congressional veteran and administrative expert, is being tapped to head the CIA.

Retired Adm. Dennis Blair, a former chief of the U.S. military's Pacific Command who devised a post-Sept. 11 attacks anti-terrorism effort in southeast Asia, is Mr. Obama's choice to be director of national intelligence, a selection expected for weeks, according to two Democrats who spoke Monday on condition of anonymity because Mr. Obama has not officially announced the choices.

[tibu987]

I want to know where all the money is coming from to support Obama''s grandiose promises.

If the U.S. has to continue to borrow money from foreign countries, I would not support his plans.

[indivthinker]

Posted by irmcvet971 at 03:09 PM : Jan 06, 2009

Oh, you must mean a hybrid of socialism ("redistribution of wealth") and worse-than-Bush deficit spending ("trillion dollar deficits").

Obama wants to tax the upper and the upper middle classes at such high disproportions than the working and the lower classes. Then he wants to instigate programs (like universal healthcare and public jobs) that will only be used by the lower and working classes. So what we have is redistribution of wealth from rich to poor.

Then, Obama wants to spend more money in bailouts, infrastructure, Afghanistan, etc, which will create larger trillion dollar deficits which will be more destructive on the dollar and the economy than Bush ever had wet dreams about.

And the Democrats and the media are using the cover of "evil rich people and corporations" to get the lower and working classes to jump on the bandwagon for their socialism. He and the media have spewed so much propaganda that no liberal these days actually believes that rich people earned their money fairly and with hard work. Instead, liberals all believe that they are victims of a corrupt and racist Republican party that wants to control all of the oil and install an aristocracy of the rich over the poor.

It''s all jargon. Obama has made success out of your lack of success. You NEED his hope, but all you will get is your money taken away, and you will become more dependent on the government (which means you will be more dependent on them).

[indivthinker]

ax cuts? the halfrican wants TAX CUTS???? where''''s the outcry from the bedwetting left?????

Posted by LibH8er at 01:15 PM : Jan 06, 2009

Well, the Messiah wants to "buy" the middle class with tax cuts AND more welfare. Apparently, the Democrats have to outdo Bush and the Republicans on everything.

Instead of a $700 billion bailout (passed last year), they will put out an $800 billion one.

Instead of tax cuts just for the upper and the upper middle classes, the democrats will give income tax cuts to everyone, even those who don''t even pay income taxes, which is a free handout/welfare.

Instead of cutting down on war spending, Obama wants 16 more months (which will end up taking longer) in Iraq, plus an escalation of the war in Afghanistan. In other words, the Democrats will expand war spending.

Instead of creating millions of jobs in the PRIVATE sector like the period of 2000-2006 (when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House), the Democrats will create a greater amount of jobs in the PUBLIC sector.

To summarize everything about Obama and the Democrats, instead of a half a trillion dollar deficit with Bush, they will give us a trillion dollar deficit, year after year, making him worse in four years than Bush was in eight. That''s change we can believe in!

[paidgopshill]

For any Obama supporter to have totally believed that he wouldn''''t have to work with the other party, indicates the naivete of these individuals. Let''''s wait and see how long the honeymoon period will really last and then see who the real flops are.

Posted by Credibility2 a

We''ve seen it before

In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.

Hastert''s position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats'' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year''s intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them.

[credibility2]

For any Obama supporter to have totally believed that he wouldn''t have to work with the other party, indicates the naivete of these individuals. Let''s wait and see how long the honeymoon period will really last and then see who the real flops are.

[irmcvet971]

tax cuts? the halfrican wants TAX CUTS???? where''''s the outcry from the bedwetting left?????

Posted by LibH8er at 01:15 PM : Jan 06, 2009

Poor fascist... totally discredited! Complete FAILURES and NO IDEA where to go from here! I guess this is the best you poor freaks can do but honestly Sparky it is so week it''s not even funny. Can you say Irrelevant? That''s what you are right now... IRRELEVANT! Sieg Heil Y''all.

[irmcvet971]

I was really hoping Obama would implement the change he promised - not just change from irresponsible Republican policies, but change from the tired old Democrat policies that lost them elections. This is starting to look like the bad old Democrats all over again, not something new.


Posted by greeneyes222 at 02:09 PM : Jan 06, 2009

You know in MY 60 plus years on this planet I can NEVER remember a time under ANY democrat as bad as we''ve had under the fascist! Even under Carter things were better... Why? Because we still had our manufacturing base AND we hadn''t Borrowed BILLIONS to give tax cuts to the rich. But that is not my point here. YOU are a liar about wanting to see change that Obama Promised... Obama promised to change the course of this nation AWAY from what doesn''t work, what has NEVER worked. We KNOW what he is attempting to put in place DOES work. IT took us all the way from the Great Depression through 70 years to become the greatest economic power on the planet. THEN we bought into the fascist plan... "Trickle Down". Never worked and boy did we ever give it a try. Now since EVERYONE agrees we made a WRONG turn with Trickle Down, we MUST go in the OTHER direction. Right??

[paidgopshill]

That Nobel prize winner, what''''s his name - it''''s on the tip of my tongue . . . geez, anyway - he''''s got an article out today saying that like wow all the ''''experts'''' were sure they''''d evolved intellectually to master depressions and that even if one were to happen with the lessons of the Great Depression, injections of liquidity were going to make long-term ones a thing of the past. Only the solution didn''''t work - oh snap, you mean to tell me the experts don''''t have as much control and certitude as they would like to believe?

Posted by SamTheTVCat

Only the ones that embraced the maniacal rantings of Milton Friedman and the teachings of supply side economics.

[samthetvcat]

---"you cant read yet sam"---
---"Repukes cant comprehend"---
---"reich wing nutjob failure"---
Posted by stevex47

The hallmark of a medicrity that infects minds across the ideological spectrum. If a plan is ideal, the merits alone will make the case. If concerns can''t be made to go away with merits but only insults like ''you''re either with us or you''re with the terrorists'', ''you can''t read'', etc, then the plans got something wrong with it.

That Nobel prize winner, what''s his name - it''s on the tip of my tongue . . . geez, anyway - he''s got an article out today saying that like wow all the ''experts'' were sure they''d evolved intellectually to master depressions and that even if one were to happen with the lessons of the Great Depression, injections of liquidity were going to make long-term ones a thing of the past. Only the solution didn''t work - oh snap, you mean to tell me the experts don''t have as much control and certitude as they would like to believe?

I think proponents would be better served to elaborate on their conclusory statements such as the fact that the benefits of going large into deficit vastly outweighs the burdens - what exactly needs to happen for that to be true? What could happen to make that turn false? For that belief to be true, does confidence need to change, etc?

[greeneyes222]

This isn''t that great of an economic plan. A few bucks for working folks - or some working folks - over time and more big dollars for business. And of course business is going to get those millions, because the Dems as usual have tied their pork to the little guys.

I was really hoping Obama would implement the change he promised - not just change from irresponsible Republican policies, but change from the tired old Democrat policies that lost them elections. This is starting to look like the bad old Democrats all over again, not something new.