What About the Needy?

The Washington Post editorial board writes: "Many in the Democratic coalition, especially labor unions, wish [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi had secured an extension in unemployment benefits and an increase in food stamps. Either action would have been a worthy step that could have quickly helped the most cash-strapped Americans. But both would have been deal-breakers for the White House."

And yet the Post is understanding: "Critics of yesterday's deal overlook how far Ms. Pelosi did move the Bush administration: The president gave up extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts; he agreed to supply $28 billion of the proposed tax relief to lower-income individuals and households that were not included in his own proposal; and he accepted an income cap to prevent the richest Americans from getting a handout. This is what economists call a 'second-best solution.' But, as stimulus packages go, it's defensible."

Taking the position that Bush gave up way too much, Kimberly A. Strassel writes in her Wall Street Journal opinion column: "This was Mr. Bush's chance to explain to voters the stark economic choice they will face this November. They can choose another Republican who is committed to preserving the Bush tax cuts that have done so much over the past five years for economic growth -- plus more. Or they can vote for a Democrat who will raise their taxes at a time of economic uncertainty, causing untold harm.

"Instead, the administration abandoned the economic high ground before even a popgun was fired. . . .

"The administration quickly deserted any principled demands for pro-growth policies, say extending the Bush tax cuts or cutting capital gains. The White House and Republican congressional leaders were left yesterday spinning conservative victory out of the fact that 'most' of the non-stimulating rebates would go to people who currently pay income taxes (ooh!), and that businesses will get a depreciation break (ahh!)."

The Deal

Jonathan Weisman and Peter Baker write in The Washington Post: "The deal, announced by House leaders and President Bush after arduous, late-night negotiations, was a work of difficult compromise, and the fight will continue in the Senate."

They note that workers who earned at least $3,000 last year -- but not enough to pay income taxes -- would be eligible for $300 -- half as much as their wealthier fellow citizens. And: "Under the compromise, retirees whose income from retirement plans and Social Security is not enough to qualify them for income taxes would receive nothing."

David M. Herszenhorn writes in the New York Times: "Republicans expressed satisfaction that they had forced House Democrats to show fiscal restraint, by agreeing to a plan focused mostly on tax cuts.

"'I have always believed that allowing people to keep more of their own money and use it as they see fit is the best way to help our economy grow,' Mr. Bush said. 'I'm also pleased that this agreement does not include any tax increases, as well as unnecessary spending projects.'"

Peter S. Goodman and Louis Uchitelle write in the New York Times: "The Bush administration insisted on rebates alone, and House Democrats relented in exchange for adding payments to people who do not pay income taxes.

"'They gave up pieces of the package that were more effective,' said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute in Washington, who blamed the Bush administration for blocking the expansion of benefits. 'It's a political choice, and a bad one. It's an ideology that says, "I can get a lot more credit for tax cuts than I can for expanding unemployment insurance." '

"Unemployment among blacks and Hispanics has been rising at triple the rate for whites, while the time it takes for people to find new jobs has been lengthening, according to government data. Some experts argue that by failing to expand unemployment benefits, the plan leaves minority groups most vulnerable to a recession.