by Mark Silva
That economic stimulus check will soon be in the mail.
Or in your direct deposit.
It cost the government some $40 million to mail the letters that went out recently advising everyone of the Economic Stimulus checks that will start arriving in May -- A maximum of $600 for an individual, $1,200 for a couple, and another $300 for every child eligible for a tax credit. And it will cost the government over $100 billion to make good on the checks.
In his radio address today, President Bush touts the checks -- which he proposed this year as a "shot in the arm'' for a slowing economy, and which Congress quickly authorized -- as well as assistance which the government is offering for homeowners struggling with mortgages.
"For many families, the greatest concern with the economy is the downturn in the housing market,'' the president said today. "The problems in the housing market are complicated and there is no easy solution. But by supporting responsible homeowners with wise policies, we'll help them weather a difficult period, we will help get our economy back on track, and we will ensure America remains the most prosperous Nation in the world.''
This is the text of the president's radio address:
"Good morning. It's not every day that Americans look forward to hearing from the Internal Revenue Service, but over the past few weeks many Americans have received a letter from the IRS with some good news. The letters explain that millions of individuals and families will soon be receiving tax rebates, thanks to the economic growth package that Congress passed and I signed into law last month.
" Americans who are eligible for a rebate will get it automatically by simply filing their taxes. If you are not a tax filer, you should visit your local IRS office to fill out the necessary paperwork so you can get your rebate on time.
" The growth package also contains incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment this year. On Wednesday I visited a printing company in Virginia that has decided to use these incentives to purchase new software. As more businesses begin taking advantage of these incentives, investment will pick up and so will job creation. And together with the individual tax rebates, these incentives will help give our economy a shot in the arm.
"For many families, the greatest concern with the economy is the downturn in the housing market. My Administration has taken action to help responsible homeowners keep their homes. In October, we helped bring together a private sector group called the HOPE NOW Alliance. HOPE NOW has helped streamline the process for refinancing and modifying mortgages, and it runs a national hotline to connect struggling homeowners with mortgage counselors.
"On Friday, I visited an impressive mortgage counseling center in New Jersey. At the center, I met with homeowners who have been able to get help, thanks to HOPE NOW. One of them is Danny Cerchiaro. Danny owns a home in New Jersey that also serves as a studio for his movie production company. When Danny and his wife learned that their adjustable rate mortgage was resetting to a higher rate this past summer, they became concerned about their financial security. So Danny called HOPE NOW for help. Less than two months later, he was able to get a more affordable fixed-rate mortgage. And today Danny calls the mortgage counselor who helped him, "the magic lady."
" Theresa Torres from Kansas City is another homeowner who has been helped. Theresa called HOPE NOW after she and her husband fell behind on their mortgage payments in December. A mortgage counselor helped Theresa modify her mortgage. Today she no longer worries about losing her home.
" There are hundreds of thousands of homeowners like Theresa and Danny who could benefit from calling HOPE NOW. If you're a homeowner struggling with your mortgage, please take the first step toward getting help by calling the hotline at 888-995-H-O-P-E. That's 888-995-H-O-P-E.
"HOPE NOW can help homeowners find the right solution for them. One solution for some homeowners is a new program we launched at the Federal Housing Administration called FHASecure. This program has given the FHA greater flexibility to offer struggling homeowners with otherwise good credit histories a chance to refinance. So far this program has helped more than 130,000 families refinance their mortgages. And by the end of the year we expect this program to have reached nearly 300,000 homeowners in all.
"This is a good start, and my Administration is committed to building on it. So we're exploring ways this program can help more qualified homebuyers. The problems in the housing market are complicated and there is no easy solution. But by supporting responsible homeowners with wise policies, we'll help them weather a difficult period, we will help get our economy back on track, and we will ensure America remains the most prosperous Nation in the world.
"Thank you for listening.''
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
and anyone cares what Bush says because???
Posted by: lauren | March 29, 2008 11:10 AM
With less than a year to go until the end of his presidency when he grabs his 10 gallon hat and rides off into the Texas sunset, Pres. Bush gets an epiphany and makes a slight attempt to act politically and finacially responsible to the people he has presided over.
Well I say its seven years and hundreds of thousand of foreclosures as well as to many lost jobs too late!
But thanks for giving us the first recession since the Reagan years. I'm sure Haliburton, Kelly Brown and Root, as well as Exxon Mobile are thanking you for their profits during your presidency. Oh and lets not forget China and India and Saudia Arabia, and the United Arab of Emerates probably wishes to thank you as well.
Posted by: Oh Please | March 29, 2008 11:41 AM
$1200 a couple.... or 3 months gas bills in Chicago. Thanks GW!
Posted by: karl | March 29, 2008 12:05 PM
Hmmm, Mark seems to be knocking the stimulus package because how much it "costs." At a minimum it puts $600 in the pockets of most taxpayers. Yet Jim Tankerley's piece is kiss to Congressman Bill Foster and the Democrats because they are fighting for "real solutions."
Bush gives taxpayers some of their money back, and according to the Left that is a "cost."
Foster and the Dems talk about programs, but the Trib apparently doesn't see them as a "cost."
In other words, more journalism hogwash from the Tribune.
Posted by: John D | March 29, 2008 12:35 PM
While I will take the money, it's hardly the answer to america's problems. Wage stagnation, lost jobs, rising prices, increases taxes are a few things that must be addressed..
Posted by: gary | March 29, 2008 12:41 PM
This may sound like a real dumb question but just "where in the world is this money coming from to give us this 'stimulus' check"? The article says the government needs to "make good" on this 100 billion dollar package. Just how is it going to do that?
Posted by: Michigan Resident | March 29, 2008 12:50 PM
"Oh Please" erroneously mentions "the first recession since the Reagan years." Wrong! The most recent recession began in April, 2000. The president then? Oh yes, the husband of a current candidate for president.
Posted by: Greg | March 29, 2008 12:57 PM
For Lauren, I care what the president says, for I'm looking forward to my rebate check. And I am going to spending it. If you don't want yours, just forward it to me. I'll find a great use for it and toast you in tomato juice while I spend your money.
Posted by: Jamal | March 29, 2008 3:10 PM
"Oh Please" erroneously mentions "the first recession since the Reagan years." Wrong! The most recent recession began in April, 2000. The president then? Oh yes, the husband of a current candidate for president.
Posted by: Greg | March 29, 2008 12:57 PM
False, nice try though.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2003-07-17-recession_x.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) — "The committee that puts official dates on U.S. economic expansions and contractions said Thursday that the economy pulled out of recession in November 2001 and since then has been in a recovery phase.
The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn."
March 2001- November 2001 is the official period of recession. That puts the recession WHOLLY in Bush II territory. Sorry to burst your bubble.
So, just to tally the score here, that would be
Clinton recessions- 0
Bush I + Bush II recessions- 3
Oh, and just to educate you a wee bit more, the economy has performed better under Democratic presidents than it has under Republicans going back to 1960.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29205-2004Jul30.html
"The figures I'm using are from the 43 years 1960 through 2002.This odd stretch of time reflects the years that are included in all of the charts I wanted to use...
It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. Real growth averaged 4.09 percent in Democratic years, 2.75 percent in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44 percent on average under Republican presidents and 5.33 percent under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 19.58 percent), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76 for the Democrats; 14.97 for the Republicans).
What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81 percent on average, compared with 4.85 percent). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans as under Democrats (2.74 percent versus 1.21 percent). Republicans won by a nose on government revenue (i.e., taxes), taking 18.12 percent of GDP compared with 18.39 percent. That, of course, is why they lost on the size of the deficit. Personal income per capita was also a bit higher in Republican years ($16,061) than in Democratic ones ($15,565). But that is because more of the Republican years came later, when the country was more prosperous already.
But maybe we are taking too long a view. The Republican Party considers itself born again in 1981, when Ronald Reagan became president. That's when Republicans got serious about cutting taxes, reducing the size of government and making the country prosperous. Allegedly. But doing all the same calculations for the years 1982 through 2002, and giving each president's policies a year to take effect, changes only one result: The Democrats pull ahead of the Republicans on per capita personal income."
Posted by: Jones | March 29, 2008 4:33 PM
The money is a gift from you to you. Well, not really a gift since you'll have to pay it back with mucho interest. After the "act of kindness" the US will be in further debt and raise taxes or i'm sure come up with something really creative. So maybe you ought to save that money some where it can collect interest.... that way when you have to pay it back you might actually have a quarter of what you'll actually owe.
Posted by: to good to be true | March 29, 2008 6:49 PM
Jones, Ok, let's say the first "Bush" recession started in March 2001 as you cite. Let's see, then, GW had been president all of five to six weeks by then. Sorry to inform you, but an economy doesn't turn in just a few weeks. The reality is the economy began to sour in 2000 when the stock market, and in particular the NASDAQ and tech stocks crashed in March 2000. Unemployment was already on the rise by the time Bush became prez,and the economy approaching recession by the time he became prez.
Posted by: John D | March 30, 2008 12:35 AM
I sympathize with people who have lost their job and can't afford their mortgage, but that is not a new problem. The new problem is the idiot who takes out an ARM when interest rates are at historic lows, reaps the benefits of lower payments in the short term, then acts surprised when their rate adjusts upwards. That is not a mortgage crisis. That is a stupidity crisis. If you are going to take out a six figure loan, you may want to take a look at the interest rate, and what interest rates have done historically. In this situation, I really wish Bush wouldn't cave into the classic liberal mind set of: Nothing is my fault, I am a victim, the situation is hopeless, and only the federal government can help me.
Posted by: Herbie H. | March 30, 2008 11:06 AM
Herbie H, There was no shortage of stupidity and greed in the banks and investment firms who ignored the risks and issued all the sub-prime loans they could get people to sign up for either. Sadly, most of the officers in those firms will avoid jail time and won't end up broke like so many of their customers. Instead they're getting the Federal bailout.
Posted by: Tom O | March 30, 2008 3:13 PM
JOnes,
Interesting data - interesting correlations.
How about an explanation for you theory other the correlation. I can make a correlation with the two Chicago Bulls three-year championship runs and the tax increases of Bush41 and Clinton, it doesn't mean cause and effect.
Obviously time-series analysis was never part of your (or the writers of the article's you quote) econmic training. You are close when you state the Reagan years. Remember what each President inherits - Reagan inherited a mess from Carter, Bush41 inherited a good economy from Reagan, Clinton inherited a recovering economy Bush41, and Bush43 inherited an economy on the brink of recession from Clinton.
Then you use the time period of of 1981 to the present, when there was only one democratic president - Bill Clinton who happened to sit in the oval office during the technology revolution of the 1990's. Start you nalysis in 1977 when Jimmy Peanut Farmer was in White House.
You have presented data that better economies happen under democratic administration, but you don't explain why. So please why this happens and not just state that "it happens". I'm waiting to here you great theory on this.
Posted by: Terry | March 30, 2008 8:05 PM
It always bothers me to hear these Red vs. Blue discussions...think of the people AND the people working them--separately from the parties they represent sometimes.
I heard the Kansas 08 NCAA championship team referred to as "they know championship games...they were in one in.." the 1960's! (I think was the era) My god! Same colors, but clearly a different team with different players.
Open your eyes, please! You don't have to like a team (party) if the players suck.. Even if they happen to be wearing your colors..
Posted by: kevin | April 10, 2008 6:03 PM
It always bothers me to hear these Red vs. Blue discussions...think of the people AND the people working them--separately from the parties they represent sometimes.
I heard the Kansas 08 NCAA championship team referred to as "they know championship games...they were in one in.." the 1960's! (I think was the era) My god! Same colors, but clearly a different team with different players.
Open your eyes, please! You don't have to like a team (party) if the players suck.. Even if they happen to be wearing your colors..
Posted by: kevin | April 10, 2008 6:03 PM