The biggest and silliest difference, as I've written elsewhere, is that the Senate version of the bill has a $70 billion one-year extension of the Alternative Minimum Tax patch. Everyone more or less acknowledges that the AMT patch is not stimulus, and everyone outright acknowledges that the patch would pass anyway were it not stapled frantically to this particular piece of legislation. So why is it being included in the stimulus package? The answer seems to be (1) So that Democrats can trick Republicans into thinking the stimulus is chock full of tax cuts; (2) So that Republicans can trick their constituents into thinking the stimulus is chock full of tax cuts; and (3) So that everyone can trick themselves into thinking the stimulus pays out in a timely fashion, since a one-year extension of the AMT patch is by definition something that takes place next year.
None of these reasons is any good, and I had high hopes that the conference process would scrap the AMT patch and add $70 billion of something plausbily worthwhile. But I now see that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says the AMT patch will probably stay:
The AMT patch was tacked on by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who didn't vote for the bill.
Hoyer acknowledged that the AMT patch won't provide much economic stimulus, but it will help garner Republican support for the overall package -- or at least give Democrats political ammunition to use against Republicans, who have overwhelmingly opposed the stimulus legislation. "I think there are a lot of Republicans that like the AMT [patch] and have voted overwhelmingly for it unpaid-for in the past," Hoyer said.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/02/hoyer-says-amt-patch-stays-in-the-stimulus/498/
