One would think that—if bipartisanship were possible—one issue on which Congress might be able to unite would be jobs creation.
After all, everybody knows jobs are needed, and everyone wants credit for reducing unemployment and helping the economy. What’s more, for quite some time there has been a supposedly bipartisan effort to work on this task, known as the Baucus bill. It was unveiled yesterday and promptly killed by Harry Reid.
The scuttlebutt is that Reid was worried the bill would hurt Democrat incumbents (such as himself?). But it’s hard to see how they could be doing any worse than they already were, just as it’s hard to see how this new move could help them.
Reid’s decision is being reported as a shock to all involved, including the White House:
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) worked for weeks with Reid’s blessing and frequent involvement to craft an $85 billion jobs bill, a measure that seemed destined to break the partisan logjam that has ground the Senate to a halt.
But as Baucus, Grassley and President Barack Obama were preparing to celebrate a rare moment of bipartisan Kumbaya on Thursday, Reid stunned a meeting of Senate Democrats by announcing he was scrapping Baucus-Grassley, replacing it with a much cheaper, more narrowly crafted, $15 billion version.
If this report is true—talk about sucker-punches! Here’s the supposed reasoning behind what Reid did:
“Grassley and three to four Republicans would have voted for it, but all the other Republicans would have beaten the living s—t out of us [during the 2010 midterms], claiming the bill was too bloated,” said a Democrat who supported Reid’s decision, explaining the leader’s logic.
However, this was one of the few bills that would have had some bona fide bipartisan support. So this makes no sense to me. Isn’t that what Reid and company wanted? Some support from the other side? Surely they didn’t expect unanimity.
The following scenario just looks bad from all angles for the Democrats:
Aides to Baucus and Grassley said their bosses didn’t know of Reid’s decision when they unveiled their bill early Thursday – and expected it to have the leader’s support…The White House appeared to be caught off guard.
Oh, that’ll bring the voters round.
Unless Reid is playing some sort of fourth- or perhaps even fifth-dimensional chess, of a nuance and complexity that the rest of us are too stupid to fathom, his move seems designed to offend the largest possible number of people and give the Republicans even more ammunition to criticize him (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Here’s the sort of things Republicans are now free to say:
“Sen. Reid’s announcement sends a message that he wants to go partisan and blame Republicans,” Grassley spokesperson Jill Kozeny said in a statement.
Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who supported the bipartisan effort, said her boss was “deeply disappointed that the majority leader has abandoned a genuine bipartisan compromise only hours after it was unveiled in favor of business-as-usual, partisan gamesmanship.”
In the meantime, the American people continue to suffer greatly from the lack of jobs, and the almost incomprehensible incompetence of these congressional “leaders,” who if nothing else have wasted an unconscionable amount of time. Meanwhile, the public’s approval ratings for Congress continue to tank. And Reid seems determined to see whether he can get them down to zero.
[NOTE: I just had another thought: perhaps Reid's target is Obama? This would not have occurred to me had I not read this article about Pelosi's growing anger towards Obama and "the seething resentment some Democrats feel over what they see as cavalier treatment from a wounded White House." I guess they won't be exchanging any valentines this Sunday.
If you read the whole article about Pelosi, you'll see that she realizes she may lose her coveted Speaker seat come 2010. This would not endear the President to her, or vice versa. He clearly has no idea how to handle Congress, even one with strong majorities of his own party members. But why would he? He's hardly ever managed anything, and his own stint in the Senate was very brief. Congress ain't the Harvard Law Review, and it's a mite more challenging than the Annenberg Challenge. As for his advisers---well, remember this.]
Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely 
February 12th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Jobs bills are, basically, stupid. Reid is right on some level. The republicans would attack the democrats for having a tin ear and passing a second [totally stupid] second stimulus after the first failed.
The best stimulus will be when people realize the democrats have been restrained and can no longer seize their assets on a whim. Also, that they can no longer squander huge amounts of money (like on jobs bills) which may cause inflation / economic upheaval.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Thomass: I’m not saying this jobs bill was great. But then, don’t lead everyone on to think it will be a go, and pull the plug at the last possible moment. It seems incredibly incompetent.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
It’s almost as if the Democrats care more about their personal re-election chances than about jobs at all.
February 12th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Private sector job growth makes free market capitalism look too functional and beneficial. Can’t have that and stick to their narrative of socialism is whats direly needed.
February 12th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
More evidence of the incompetence and incoherence of the Obama administration and Democratic leadership.
February 12th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
The end note abut Pelosi is fascinating. If a riff develops there, and also between Reid and Obama, this could get Verry Interesting (to quote Arte Johnson from Laugh-In).
I have to go out and buy some popcorn!
February 12th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Meanwhile Obama and the Dem leadership are up to no good — surprise, surprise — on the healthcare summit.
They are not only not ceding the existing bills as the starting point of talks, but they apparently plan to show up with a bill pre-negotiated between the House and Senate.
The Rep leadership is on the case and pushing back:
Republicans better stay on top. Some pundits like Jonah Goldberg “Planned Summit Is Just an Infomercial in Disguise” are far too sanguine about this for my taste.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Fascinating link re-Pelosi’s discontent. I seem to have a character defect which exhibits itself in more & more giddiness, the more & more pi**ed off, frustrated and unhappy The Face is. Petty…? I’ll live with it,’Yo.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
A question that should be asked of President Obama — at his next news conference, perhaps: “Can you name a successful socialist economy?”
February 12th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
neo-neocon Says:
“Thomass: I’m not saying this jobs bill was great. But then, don’t lead everyone on to think it will be a go, and pull the plug at the last possible moment. It seems incredibly incompetent.”
Yeah, but three or four republicans does not “bipartisan” make. I hope another big ‘jobs bill’ is not passed and if it were, I’d attack the democrats… just like Reid said we would….
Reid is a tool… but even stopped clocks…
February 12th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Thomas: I agree that three or four Republicans does not make a bill bipartisan. However, that’s so many more Republicans than they’ve had on board in ages, and they were previously prepared to claim that one Republican voting for a bill represented bipartisanship. And so my guess is that they would make big claims for bipartisanship if three or four managed to come aboard.
February 12th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
That “they would make big claims for bipartisanship” is why Grassley is a fool or a RINO. Whoops! Aren’t they the same?
February 12th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Senator Reid is a very dangerous man – he’s a politician who is so far down in the polls that only a Hail Mary play can save him. He’s going for broke.
He has seen what supporting the President’s strategy does for the Congressional Democrats – there is no upside, only a slippery slope away from power. He has nothing to fear from the President who probably could not get a Kennedy elected as dog catcher in Massachusetts. Therefore, standing up to President and refusing to work with the Republicans is his only hope to get re-elected.
If Senator Reid does not break away from the
February 12th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Pete Wehner over at Commentary notes the same Pelosi article as neo does, and says:
Presidents have bad patches. Bill Clinton’s polls dropped to 36% in June of his first year — although he was back in the fifties soon enough.
With Obama I get the impression we are watching a historic unraveling. Given his stubbornness, inexperience, narcissism and naivete it’s hard for me to imagine that he will make the necessary course corrections as Clinton did.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Somebody splain this to me. Sen. Harry Reid is one senator with one vote in the Senate. Why do the other 99 senators make rules that allow one Senator to determine what bills they can vote on? Is that as… well, damned stupid… as I think it is?
February 13th, 2010 at 10:01 am
As one who has attended a few Tea Parties I believe that the politicians and the pundits (you, too Neo) don’t get it. I haven’t seen one hand made sign nor heard any talk of political party affiliation. It is agreed that it is not appropriate to the movement.
If absolutely nothing gets done before November then things are getting better. The talk about the political effects of partisan or non partisan are meaningless chatter. It’s all part of the dog and pony show that the partiers are rejecting. That kind of talk is a strike against any who utter it – no matter which side.