Soccer Dad

One lump or two?

The NYT outlines some of the provisions of the Senate bill that passed:

The multiple tax breaks, called extenders in the Capitol because they renew or extend expiring tax benefits, appeal to many lawmakers and could provide a political argument for backing a bill that has otherwise been very unpopular.

Instead of siding with a $700 billion bailout, lawmakers could now say they voted for increased protection for deposits at the neighborhood bank, income tax relief for middle-class taxpayers and aid for schools in rural areas where the federal government owns much of the land.

Despite the fact that some of these are tax breaks, I'm hard pressed to call these "conservative" changes. No these are sweeteners. Consider the provision of aid for schools in rural areas. Jay Cost explains why that provision would be included.

Opposition was very stiff in the Midwest, where ten of ten Republican caucuses voted in the negative. There was unanimous opposition in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska. Even in Ohio, home state of Republican leader John Boehner, seven Republicans voted against the bill.

Republican support in the West was split: there was opposition in Arizona, Colorado, and Montana, but more favorable results in California, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah.

Those are the states known for their rural areas aren't they?

I think that Instapundit's observation is apt.

Before it's all over, we'll probably wish that Monday's bill had passed instead -- giving Congress more time to add their gimmes probably hasn't produced a better bill.

Of course this gives McCain a focus for his campaign.

If McCain were smart, he'd be running against Congress in general, and Pelosi and Reid in particular.

And at this point, he really could use a focus.

But then, all these sweeteners are rather artificial aren't they?