Reading the fine print

Ever wonder what exactly is going into the stimulus bill? Taxpayers and legislative voyeurs are strongly encouraged to visit and contribute to http://www.readthestimulus.org/, an admirable effort to engage the public and shine some light into this massive spending effort.

As of this morning, it appears that the swing-vote trifecta of Sens. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter have leveraged their new-found power and crafted a legislative compromise that will allow passage of the stimulus package. On Thursday evening, Sen. Specter (R-PA) spoke on PBS' NewsHour with reporter Ray Suarez. Sen. Specter was surprisingly diplomatic and gracious- surprising for a curmudgeonly old lawyer who has consistently been ranked as one of the "meanest" senators in Washingtonian Magazine's annual poll of capitol hill staffers. He brought up an excellent point that crystallizes the debate about this stimulus bill

RAY SUAREZ: We just heard from the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Orszag, who told my colleague, Jeff Brown, that they've been wrestling all along with the balance between tax cuts that get into people's hands right away, but sometimes aren't very stimulative, versus spending that rolls out over a longer period of time, but you get a good bang for the buck.Are you close? In the package that's being presented by the bipartisan group, are you close to striking a balance that you can support?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Well, I think we'd be better off with more tax cuts. They are more immediate. And there are many items in this stimulus package which do not go to stimulate the economy.I think -- and I've been on the Appropriations Committee for all of my 28 years -- a lot of these items ought to be taken up in regular order in Appropriations. And we ought to be directing the stimulus package to things that will stimulate the economy now.When we are burdening the taxpayers with this tremendous additional burden, we ought to be very, very sharply focused. We ought to have a lot more in that on highways and bridges and mass transit, high-speed rail. We ought to be looking to energy items.But there's a great deal of this bill on items I have long supported, but that ought to be in the regular appropriations process.

Many supporters of the bill have argued that the package should include long-term investment items that will not necessarily stimulate now, but will benefit the economy greatly in the long term. Spector's argument- which seems quite reasonable- is that if those are long-term investment items that won't serve as short-term economic stimulants, why not take them up in the normal appropriations process?

The budget is going to be hashed out in the next 3-6 months anyway, so why not utilize the more thorough process it entails? This would insure that Congress properly prioritizes whatever spending level is eventually authorized. The risk of pursuing this shotgun wedding approach is that many deserving yet underrepresented spending opportunities might get passed over, while inefficient yet well-represented pork projects gobble up all the funds.

From a political perspective, one has to question President Obama's decision to let Congress drive this process from the outset. In the last week he has belatedly stepped in to shepherd the bill's passage, leveraging his popularity and rhetorical skills. But during the last month, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's mismanagement of the process galvanized the Republicans and allowed them to build a unified front of opposition. Two months after receiving an electoral drubbing, congressional Republicans seem to have more momentum than the victorious Democrats.

On the flip side, Obama stands to gain from Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi's mistakes. As a relative newcomer to Washington, one of Obama's biggest weaknesses is his lack of power within his own party. The existence of a consistent, well-reasoned and occasionally victorious Republican opposition could prevent the kinds of excesses that we saw in 2002-2006, when a completely ineffective Democratic opposition and a weak president allowed power-crazed Republicans to run amok, eventually destroying their own majority.