With almost exactly a year left to try to salvage his legacy and with Congressional approval ratings stuck at 25 percent heading into an election year, President Bush and the U.S. Congress respectively see in the reputed recession an irresistable opportunity to demonstrate relevance and responsiveness, regardless of who is credited -- so desperate are they for a tangible accompishment that both parties may back away from the mutually assured destruction/obstruction budget strategy of 2007. Almost no one disputes the view that a stimulus package should feature a mix of short-term tax cuts and spending measures totaling about $100 billion. And there's a quieter consensus that it's OK to waive PAYGO for these purposes -- so long as the package is temporary (see conclusion of today's Center on Budget paper, eliminating the bogey man of a tax increase hidden in the package. Economic indicators -- to wit, the unemployment rate spike, slumping home and soaring gas prices, the credit and securities markets, the rapid rise in consumer debt delinquency (see graphic, below) and the grim implications for sustained consumer spending, which accounts for roughly two-thirds of the economy -- all appear to confirm daily that we are bound for a recession, if not in one already (per Krugman, today). So a stimulus package out of Washington is a slam dunk, no? Surprisingly, some say no. Speculates Stan Collender, for example, The very poor prospects for a stimulus bill may not be readily apparent at the start of the year. The president will likely announce a specific proposal close to or during his State of the Union Address which will then be included in the fiscal 2009 budget he will release on Feb. 4. Democrats either will try to match the White House plan by revealing their own just before or shortly after the president's announcement, and Congressional Republicans may want to do something separate from what the president proposes. The Bush plan will likely include tax cuts that are anathema to Democrats and the Democratic plan will include provisions the White House won't accept. If, like last year, the White House sees no reason to compromise and this year Congressional Democrats see no value in rushing, nothing will be enacted. The betting here is that the budget battle of 2007 won't be replicated. That, barring an early spring thaw in the economy, Bush will not want to risk the economic legacy of a latter-day Hoover by threatening to veto a congressional stimulus bill under current conditions. And that, in any case, members of Congress with their incumbency on the line will not support a stimulus package veto by a President whose incumbency is not.