TPMDC
Democrats Get Down To Brass Tacks On Jobs Bill
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Share
Send to a friend!
A forthcoming Senate jobs bill will likely focus on four main sources of growth, according to a Senate leadership aide: Small business job creation, infrastructure jobs, green jobs, and public sector jobs.
As I noted earlier this week, Senate Democrats have made, and continue to make progress on a jobs package--likely to be their top legislative priority once health care reform is completely off their plate--and they've begun to winnow down a wide range of options into a package they could potentially expedite through the Senate.
Back in late summer, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tasked his deputy, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Sen. Byron Dorgan with putting together a bill meant to address rising unemployment.
"Reid and Durbin were taking the longview, looking at a number of months of pretty dismal job news," the aide said. "They started taking a look at job numbers, anticipating that job numbers wouldn't be getting a whole lot better."
In the months since then, Durbin and Dorgan have hosted about 10 meetings with members from across the Democratic spectrum.
"Any member of the caucus was invited, and everyone was asked to bring a series of policy ideas," the aide said. "Nothing was considered too crazy."
At least 40 members of the caucus attended at least one of these meetings. We collected 121 policy ideas, and since about December--beginning of December--we've really started focusing on winnowing that list down to something more manageable--stuff that really gives us the most bang for the buck.
The work continues, but leadership believes it has the basis for a package.
"We've identified four main areas: small-business job creation, infrastructure jobs, green jobs, and public sector jobs, the last of which is more of going to be a job-preservation--giving aid to states to retain teachers and firefighters," the aide said. "Small business, infrastructure, green areas are where we think we can really create some jobs."
Soon after the Senate return, leadership hopes to present members with an ideas package, outlining what they hope the yet-to-be written legislative package will look like. Yet to be decided, though, is whether the bill will have to pass through all the slow-moving channels of the Senate, or whether leadership will leapfrog most of them.
"Whether this goes through the normal committee process, or whether we...do this all on the floor is the big question," said the aide.
Comments (41) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
shooter242
January 8, 2010 7:03 PM
Right. Get a bunch of people together that probably have never had a real job in their life, much less met a payroll, and I'll guarantee two things. Higher taxes and union payoffs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 8, 2010 7:30 PM in reply to shooter242
Don't worry. The Blue Dogs will not let them pass the bill until they fund it with a tax on union wages.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
January 8, 2010 10:07 PM in reply to bluebell
Nah, they will implement a tax on womens right to choose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
January 9, 2010 3:45 AM in reply to shooter242
Do you ever get tired being a fright-wing bullshit catpulter?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
January 9, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Shooter and Sailormanlove may be two names for the same troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
January 9, 2010 12:12 PM in reply to shooter242
much less met a payroll
Thanks for reminding me about the trope that business experience makes for better governance.
They're not the same thing. Different rules, different responsibilities, and different structures make it difficult to make the transition. There have been many good elected officials drawn from the private sector - and many many bad ones. You're better off making a governor a CEO than vice versa.
To illustrate - physicists and mathematicians both use complex equations that are sometimes identical - but you can't swap one of each into the other's job and expect productive results. Sure, given a couple years and on-the-job training, they could grow into the role, but you will have wasted time you may not be able to afford.
To suggest that a business person will be a better legislator or member of the executive or judicial branches is as wise as requiring that the Fire Chief be hired from a pool of Registered Nurses, who have no firefighting experience.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 9, 2010 3:29 PM in reply to kenga
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mamiller
January 9, 2010 4:29 PM in reply to shooter242
If you first response was as thoughtful as this one, it would have met with greater appreciation. The first is insulting, the presumption that they have never held a real job. Do you think governance is a no-brainer? That mythology is what gave traction to the unfortunate term-limit movement, and Sarah Palin. The belief that any one "with a little common sense, and no knowledge" can run things as well as a seasoned politician...
with your a lib or a conservative, crafting legistlation is an arduous process...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
maxd
January 9, 2010 6:14 PM in reply to shooter242
I'll give Shooter the benefit of the doubt, and assume he's had to "meet a payroll" in his obviously unhappy life. I've been "meeting a payroll" for 12 years, and I can confidently say the LAST thing somebody of Shooter's political persuasion really wants is a bunch of people who have had to meet a payroll running his government, because Shooter believes in one thing and one thing only: Tax Cuts. And anyone who's had to meet a payroll KNOWS that tax cuts don't create jobs. We hire people because we have work that needs to get done, not because we have extra money. Maybe Shooter is a stupid businessman, has some extra money in the bank, and decides to give it away by hiring someone. That's not how we run our business. It's clear that when Shooter talks about people who have to "meet a payroll" he really means people who have to "meet their hedge fund manager"... Here's a little inside tip for you, Shooter: Those heroes of yours, the titans of industry - they don't "meet a payroll." They cash bonus checks, and "slash payrolls."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 9, 2010 7:02 PM in reply to maxd
The reality is that I haven't called for lower income taxes, I'd be happy if they stayed right where they are. But they aren't. Cap gains will rise, and depreciation allowances will likely become onerous. Are you small enough to escape healthcare penalties? How about cap and trade taxes? Does the dollar affect your customers? More importantly how do you see your business in the next year? How do your customers see it?
My point is that politicians don't think about of this, and have no problem throwing all the game pieces in the air, without understanding how tight margins can get. Economies are a product of expectations, and the only rational expectation right now is that Government is bigfooting business, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. I wouldn't hire until the rules of the game come to some some resolution.
If your business is good enough to hire, good on you. If not, you can second my objections.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
inokeah
January 10, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to maxd
SideBare maxd, where are you paddeling out at in your pic. I would guess Nor Cal by the thickness of that non-carbon friendly rubber suit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
January 10, 2010 9:54 AM in reply to shooter242
Silly - I don't know if you deliberately misunderstood my analogy or if it was accidental, but
putting business people in government is more akin to putting architects on health panels. The proper analogy for putting doctors on health panels would be to have people educated in public administration and law working in government. The opposite of what you'd like us to believe.
MBA does not prepare one to deal with the reality of governance or responsibility thereof. (I would like to add that this applies to both public and business governance. Witness the rending of garments over Sarbanes-Oxley and similar regulations, and the economy over the past decade.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
January 10, 2010 10:48 AM in reply to shooter242
Silly - I don't know if you deliberately misunderstood my analogy or if it was accidental, but
putting business people in government is more akin to putting architects on health panels. The proper analogy for putting doctors on health panels would be to have people educated in public administration and law working in government. The opposite of what you'd like us to believe.
MBA does not prepare one to deal with the reality of governance or responsibility thereof. (I would like to add that this applies to both public and business governance. Witness the rending of garments over Sarbanes-Oxley and similar regulations, and the economy over the past decade.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 10, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to kenga
No, I didn't misunderstand. You want to be governed by people that know nothing but governing. How foolish.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
January 10, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to shooter242
There are many many many different kinds of businesses. Please refrain from assuming you know everything about everything. I assume you read Lord of the Flies and got the point of the story completely ass backward. Many people are very very very good at governance. Kind of like being a good Judge, sorting out competing interests and finding equitable workable solutions. Running the local 7-11 is not necessarily prerequisite to being a God.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
s9
January 10, 2010 11:56 AM in reply to shooter242
I don't see any downsides there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Cassidy
January 8, 2010 7:23 PM
That didn't take long. I assumed that any attempt by the Democrats to get people working again would meet with right-wing obstruction and union bashing. Shooter here jumps on it like...well, like a dog on a bone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
January 8, 2010 8:03 PM
I don't what he's worried about, I doubt shooter pays any taxes anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 9, 2010 8:37 AM in reply to markg8
Not to worry, I pay all my share and quite a bit of yours too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill57
January 9, 2010 11:08 AM in reply to shooter242
Shut up fool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
a Mary Queen of Scott
January 8, 2010 8:12 PM
"You f@*&ers can make conflict out of anything! If it rained cookies, the headlines would read, 'Democrats leave millions milkless!'" - Jon Stewart
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 8, 2010 9:25 PM in reply to a Mary Queen of Scott
Subhead: Women and minorities hardest hit
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
January 9, 2010 8:36 AM in reply to a Mary Queen of Scott
acon;
Glenn Beck; Obama wore loafers today as a signal to the shoe lace industry that he wants to destroy them!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
inokeah
January 8, 2010 8:46 PM
Sen. Durbin has been playing the fiddle for; Bank Failure, Insurence coverage on bad loans, Stimulus millions sent to non-existent zip codes and now he is getting real serious??!!??
CNN and now Network ABC covering storys that where hidden last year at this time.
The lip stick is coming off the pig.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
January 8, 2010 9:40 PM
I smell a filibuster ...
Wait, first let's shrink it a little and then water it down with ineffective tax cuts. The republicans and blue dogs will have to like it then! If not, we'll just shrink it more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weeferdog
January 8, 2010 10:23 PM
Shooter, I don't know why i even bother, but here goes: for 80 freaking years, Democratic administrations have created more jobs and greater GDP than Republicans. Fact. Undeniable, black-and-white fact. Not even close. Not arguable in any way. Look it up (yeah right). And by 2016, it will have happened again.
Weeferdog
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 9, 2010 8:32 AM in reply to Weeferdog
Would that be Democrat Presidents or Congresses? Therein lies the complexity of political economies. But more to your point, what's holding up the Democrat miracle this time? Heh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill57
January 9, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to shooter242
Shut up fool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
January 8, 2010 11:43 PM
$ 3,400,000,000 for the financial industry (no wonder they're paying themselves bonuses !)
Divided by $55,000 per year salary for each job created.
Equals 61,800,000 jobs at $55,000 per year.
61,800,000 jobs !
Gosh, if they'd made American workers and families as important as the financial industry, we'd be voting Democratic this November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
January 9, 2010 12:20 AM in reply to bill
you do realize that not all money that goes to job creation doesn't actually go to salaries, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 9, 2010 9:11 AM in reply to bill
bill, I think you left off three zeros on your initial figure. I'm assuming you meant $3.4 trillion not $3.4 billion. The adjusted math should be even more interesting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill57
January 9, 2010 11:11 AM in reply to shooter242
Shut up fool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
January 9, 2010 8:45 AM
I don't like it when Democrats say they're helping the states or local Govts keep from laying off teachers, cops and firemen. It smells of pandering, scare tactics. What's wrong with also saying they're helping states keep from laying off road crews or the Depts of Health, EPA, prisons, state universities, etc.?
Too complicated?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
January 9, 2010 9:49 AM
Great. I suppose this means we're going to be 'forced' to buy over-priced solar panels that we can't afford and don't want. Of course, these items could be installed 'cheaply' by prison inmates casing our homes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
January 9, 2010 10:20 AM in reply to Silence
Yup. That's the plan. Residing in places like Chicago, Detroit, NYC or NJ teaches you a few things about wise guys named, 'deadfish' .
http://www.michnews.org/2009/12/prisoners-taking-work-from-private-sector/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
January 9, 2010 12:21 PM in reply to Silence
So, if I understand you, you are opposed to programs which can reduce imprisonment costs paid by taxpayers, and reduce recidivism?
I certainly think there are some serious problems with those programs, and mandatory sourcing rules. But if inmates are making wages they can defray some of the costs of incarceration. And
job training makes it much less likely that they will wind up back in prison.
Which saves a lot of taxpayer dollars, especially over the long run.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
January 9, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to kenga
Once again, failure is used as a measure for reward.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
par4
January 9, 2010 4:36 PM
It's only class warfare when you start taxing the useless rich.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
January 10, 2010 7:30 PM in reply to par4
If you watch the percentage of national wealth held by the top 1% steadily increase year by year you can understand that the "class war" is being won by the super rich and everyone else is getting screwed. Productivity has been going up up up and yet the average worker is left standing still or loosing ground. The super rich however have been getting richer by leaps and bounds. The simple sad fact is that the "class war" is being won by the greedy assholes and 99% of Americans are the losers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
inokeah
January 10, 2010 2:26 PM
Tell me how you go from rubber stamp to brass tacks (in the real world spelled, TAX).
When you stomp on a catapiller you cant expect it to turn into a butterfly afterword.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
peterfeng
August 16, 2010 9:49 PM
I don't like it when Democrats say they're helping the states or local Govts keep from laying off teachers, cops and firemen.
Trisodium Phosphate suppliers
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?