More Bipartisanship, Less Stimulus

Determined to pass something in the way of a stimulus package, Senate
Democrats on Friday bartered away key elements of the more robust plan
approved by the House.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and his caucus
colleagues got what will be called a "bipartisan agreement." But this
is not a case of less being more.

The Senate's $780 billion plan is still a budget buster.

However, in order to get two Republican votes (those of Susan
Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania) that were needed to
break a threatened GOP filibuster, Reid surrendered an estimated $110
billion is proposed stimulus spending. In doing so, they cut not just
fat but bone. The plan is now more weighted than before toward tax cuts
(which will account for more than 40 percent of the overall cost of the
package) that will do little or nothing to stimulate job creation for a
country than lost almost 600,000 positions in January alone. As French
President Nicolas Sarkozy, no liberal, said Friday of countries that
opt for tax cuts rather than stimulus: The approach "will bring them
nothing" in the way of economic renewal.

The Senate's increased emphasis on tax cuts comes at the expense of
the sort of aggressive spending that might actually get a stalled
economy moving.

Spending for school construction that would actually have put people
to work -- while at the same time investing in the future -- has been
slashed.

Title I funding increases have been cut.

Supplemental transportation funding has been hacked.

Axed, as well, has been $90 million that was to have been allocated
to plan for and manage a potential flu pandemic that economists and
public health experts worry could shutter remaining businesses, bring
the economy to a complete standstill and throw the country into a deep
depression.

The bottom line is that, under the Senate plan:

* States will get less aid.

* Schools will get less help.

* Job creation programs will be less well funded.

* Preparations to combat potential public health disasters -- which
could put the final nail in the economy's coffin -- will not be made.

In every sense, the Senate plan moves in the wrong direction.

At a time when smart economists are saying that a bigger, bolder
stimulus plan is needed, Senate Democrats and a few moderate
Republicans have agreed to a smaller, weaker initiative.

And Republicans are still delaying passage. It could be Sunday, even
Monday, before a vote is taken. And who knows what more will be lost --
in time and stimulus spending before President Obama signs a bill.

These are the fruits of bipartisan fantasies and the compromises
that follow upon them. President Obama, who should have been on
television addressing the nation and doing everything in his power to
rally support for a sufficient stimulus plan, will be lucky if he gets
anything by the President's Day deadline he set. (Even after the Senate
measure passes, a difficult process of reconciling the very different
House and Senate bills must take place. Then there will be more votes
before any legislation gets to the president's desk.)

The White House still wants to advance this measure, as do Senate
Democratic leaders. And, considering the urgency of the moment, they
are probably right to try to do something.
But if the final "stimulus package" proves to be insufficient to jump
start the economy -- and if what is left of public confidence in the
prospect of turnaround collapses as a result -- this Friday night
compromise will be remembered with pained regret.