Now we know the price tag of the stimulus plan - at least to start: $825 billion. That's the number Nancy Pelosi put before the House today in unveiling a stimulus plan which she called "a first step along the way" in getting the economy back on the road to recovery.

John Boehner's response? "OMG."

President-elect Obama's response?

"I am pleased that the House of Representatives has acted with urgency on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will save or create over three million jobs, provide tax relief to struggling families and businesses that create jobs, and invest in priorities like health care, education, and energy that will make America strong and competitive in the 21st century.  This plan is a significant downpayment on our most urgent challenges, and it will contain the kind of strict, independent oversight that will allow the American people to hold Washington accountable for how and where their tax dollars are spent."

"Significant downpayment" probably sounds a lot more palatable to some Republicans than "a first step along the way," but that won't stop them from making a huge stink about the size and scope of the stimulus package.

Greg Bobrinskoy has the latest.

In his second letter to Congress this week, Larry Summers lays out the Obama administration's plans in implementing the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.  Click on the image below to read the full 3-page letter:

Yesterday I wrote about the Quinnipiac poll showing a rather dramatic slide in public opinion for Caroline Kennedy.  New York Governor David Paterson brushed off the survey ("There is no body of work that the public is necessarily considering," Paterson told Newsday, adding, "These are popularity contests."). At the same time, Paterson  signaled that  a decision on Hillary Clinton's replacement may be imminent because her confirmation as Secretary of State is now a foregone conclusion after breezing through the Foreign Relations Committee earlier in the week.

Chris Cillizza reports the same this today: that Paterson is VERY close to making a decision, but that he's playing it very close to the vest.

Yet today we also received still more polling data, this time from Marist, showing that Caroline Kennedy's standing among the public in New York has taken a very serious hit.  Some bullet points from the poll's write up:

> In a little more than a month, Caroline Kennedy's rating has plummeted among registered voters in New York State.  46% say they have a positive impression of Kennedy today. That's a 16 percentage point drop from a Marist Poll conducted just last month.

>62% say Cuomo would do either an excellent or good job as Hillary Clinton's replacement while just 10% think he would do poorly.  Registered voters across the state are less confident in Caroline Kennedy's ability.  41% feel she would do an above average job while 20% report she would perform poorly.

> 40% of registered voters in New York State say Governor David Paterson should appoint New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to the position while 25% believe Caroline Kennedy should assume the role.  That's a marked difference for Cuomo from just one month ago when the Marist Poll showed him and Kennedy in a tie with each receiving 25% of New Yorkers' support.  Kennedy's backing remains at a standstill.

The question is, will these last minute polls influence Paterson to choose someone other than Kennedy? Or does he believe that once appointed she'll be able to recover her standing with the public after she goes to the Senate?

Incidentally, the Newsday piece cited above contained this historical nugget:

Only twice before have New York governors named a Senate replacement, and both later were rejected at the polls. They were Republicans John Foster Dulles, who was voted out in 1949, and Charles Goodell, who lost in 1970.

Just, you know, for the record.

Republican David Vitter of Louisiana is the only Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee to vote against approving Hillary Clinton's nomination to be the next Secretary of State.

That's the headline of the new Pew Research survey released today:

Public confidence in Barack Obama to deal with the nation's most pressing problems is quite high, with about seven-in-ten saying they have at least a fair amount of confidence that he will do the right thing when it comes to mending the economy, preventing terrorism, and in dealing with Iraq. Notably, many Americans not only see the president-elect as a problem-solver, but as a “uniter” as well.

For the first time in several years, there has been a sharp decline in the proportion of Americans who say the country is more politically divided than in the past. Fewer than half (46%) now see the country as more divided, down 20 points from January 2007 (66%).

Moreover, the percentage saying that Republicans and Democrats in Washington will work together more to solve problems, rather than bicker and oppose each other, is markedly higher than it was at the start of either of President Bush's two terms. Currently, 50% say the two parties will work together more to solve problems, while 39% expect more partisan bickering. Four years ago, just 30% said the two parties would work cooperatively while nearly twice as many (59%) said they anticipated more partisan bickering. Public expectations for partisan cooperation are now as great as in January 2002, amid the mood of national unity that prevailed after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Obama always rose to meet the incredibly high expectations during the big moments of the campaign. Continuing to do so while in office and attempting to govern and solve some of the stickiest problems will be one of his biggest challenges.

Via the NYT's Economix Blog, United Van Lines recently released their 32nd Annual "Migration Study" tracking moving patterns in the United States.  Here's the data overlayed on a map of the US, with yellow states depicting "high outbound" movement (more than 55% of moves exiting the state ) and blue states representing "high inbound" movement (more than 55% of moves entering the state). The majority of states in white were considered "balanced" - meaning they had roughly the same number of people moving into the state as moving out during the course of the year:

As you can see, the Mid-Atlantic and Western states had increased migration at the expense of the Midwest and the Northeast. For the third year running Michigan holds the distinction of being the highest outbound state in the country (not surprising given their acute economic woes) with 67.1% of moves exiting the Wolverine State.

What conclusions can we draw from this data? Nothing concrete, of course, but Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan, offers one possible conclusion:

8 out of 9 states (all except ND) with high outbound shipments are Forced-Unionism states, and 6 out of 7 states (all except OR) with high inbound shipments are Right to Work states.

Assuming that household migration is largely based on Americans moving from states with declining or poor job opportunities to states with better job opportunities, one could argue that the states with the best employment opportunities are currently in RTW states.

Statement from President-elect Obama on the passage of SCHIP in the House:

“In this moment of crisis, ensuring that every child in America has access to affordable health care is not just good economic policy, but a moral obligation we hold as parents and citizens.  That is why I'm so pleased that Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives came together to provide health insurance to over ten million children whose families have been hurt most by this downturn.  This coverage is critical, it is fully paid for, and I hope that the Senate acts with the same sense of urgency so that it can be one of the first measures I sign into law when I am President.”

A new PPP poll in Missouri finds Sec. of State Robin Carnahan (D) leading three Republican candidates (Rep. Roy Blunt, former Sen. Jim Talent, former Treas. Sarah Steelman) in a hypothetical 2010 Senate general election matchup (Jan. 10-11, 867 RV, MoE +/- 3.3%).

Carnahan 47
Talent 43
Und 10

Carnahan 45
Blunt 44
Und 11

Carnahan 47
Steelman 36
Und 17

Caroline Kennedy's less than spectacular entrance into the political fray - including a series of "you know"-filled interviews which drew criticism and ridicule in the press - has taken its toll on public opinion. A new Quinnipiac poll shows that voters in New York state now prefer Andrew Cuomo over Caroline Kennedy as the appointee to take Hillary Clinton's soon-to-be vacated Senate seat, though a plurality of New Yorkers believe Governor David Paterson will choose Kennedy anyway.

In the latest survey Kennedy trails Cuomo by seven points, 24% to 31%. This represents an eleven-point net swing against her from the last survey three weeks ago when she led Cuomo 33% to 29%.

Kennedy's favorable ratings have also taken a hit, dropping a net of 19 points in the last 21 days. On December 23 Kennedy's net favorable rating was +29 (46% favorable, 17% unfavorable), in the current survey it's down to +10 (39% favorable, 29% unfavorable).

Meanwhile, Cuomo's job approval rating remains high (69% approve, 16% disapprove) as do his favorable ratings (57% favorable, 10% unfavorable).

Nearly half (48%) now say Kennedy is not qualified to be a United States Senator, and 40% say she would not be a "good" Senator, while 37% say she would be.

Despite these less than stellar ratings, 38% of New Yorkers still believe Governor Paterson will choose Kennedy for the seat, while 33% think he will not. Even these numbers have dropped dramatically: three weeks ago 48% said they thought Paterson would choose Kennedy.