TPMDC
Dorgan: Baucus Will Have Say Over Part Of Jobs Package
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Share
Send to a friend!
Democrats leading the Senate jobs push will likely unveil their initial package of legislation Thursday, but it will not include a key section, which will likely be adopted separately after action by the Senate Finance Committee, headed by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT).
"Senator Durbin and I will be disclosing the jobs bill that we put together...will probably do something to disclose that on Thursday," said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND).
"Our jobs bill...contains the things that we think represent a consensus in our caucus of what we can do to stimulate the creation of additional jobs," Dorgan added.
But the package will not include a tax credit aimed at stimulating employment.
"What we're doing is leaving room for the creation of a wage tax credit," which, Dorgan noted, will likely be run through the Senate Finance Committee.
Baucus has suggested to Democratic leadership that some aspects of the jobs package be approved by Senate committees first--particularly those elements that might have a hard time getting 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Currently, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT)--both members of the Finance Committee--are working on a bipartisan job tax credit proposal.
They better hurry.
"I think we've got to move quickly on this," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) told me today. "I think that's what the public wants."
So what measures might escape the Finance Committee? At a press conference today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid laid them out.
"We need to extend the highway bill for one year," Reid said. "We're going to do section 179 of the small business tax [code].... We also want to do the Build-America bond," which would extend state and municipal government's ability to issue bonds to finance local projects.
Comments (59) | 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.
Michael A
February 2, 2010 3:53 PM
Oh great. Dorkman?????? Another loser bought and paid for by special interests. Neither dorkman nor bogus should have any say in this at all. They don't care and are paid for shills. F*ck them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
February 2, 2010 3:54 PM
Baucus has suggested to Democratic leadership that some aspects of the jobs package be approved by Senate committees...Currently, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT)--both members of the Finance Committee--are working on a bipartisan job tax credit proposal.
Fooled Again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
February 3, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to Indie Pro
He screwed us on HC reform and now he gets another chance---Call Dorgin and the others -1.866.311.3405...Horrid out dated system!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 2, 2010 4:02 PM
Well, this answers the question whether the Democrats have learned anything from HCR. They have not. And it didn't even take long for them to start fucking up the jobs bill, either. At this rate, the GOP will have a filibuster-proof majority before long. And THEN you will see what a political party means and does. God help the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 2, 2010 6:12 PM in reply to wbgonne
Hey, Wbgonne: Tell me again how NO democrat would have ever defied LBJ on his legislative initiatives, except the 20+ Democrats who voted against Civil Rights, Voting Rights and Medicare.
Tell me again how NO Democrat would have blocked LBJ's initiatives with procedural maneuvers, except for the fact that every filibuster against LBJ's legislatives priorities was led by Democrats.
What's that? OK. Now, you say it doesn't matter if Democrats flipped LBJ the bird because he didn't need those Democrats to pass legislation? Oh, except for the YEARS that they held up and defeated civil rights legislation while LBJ was majority leader, VP and President.
What a dumb fuck illiterate you are!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 3, 2010 7:54 AM in reply to FreeRider
You want to argue that LBJ is the same as Obama when it comes to riding the Senate? Go right ahead. Like I've told again and again: LBJ GOT IT DONE. And THAT is the bottom line. And if you got your history from anyplace other than Wikipedia you too would know that LBJ PERMITTED the DixieCrats to have their NO votes only AFTER he knew he had enough votes to pass civil rights. Oh, and one more thing: Johnson, a Texan, was fighting for civil rights for blacks at a time when racism still ruled much of the South. I'd say that's a bit heavier lift than making sure most Americans have health insurance. One final thing: if LBJ was around today, Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, Bayh and the rest of the Republicrats would be licking his boots because, in the end, they are nothing but cowards and LBJ would have scared the be-jeesus out of them. You think Landrieu had a worry with that Teabag Clown O'Keefe? Hah! LBJ would have had her in prison by now if necessary. Bottom line: LBJ got the job done. What the present Dems fail to recognize is that the American people want results and they only care about the process AFTER things get fucked up.
Look, if you're really interested in LBJ, I could recommend a couple of books. But they ARE a bit longer than the Wikipedia entry which might interfere with your non-stop nonsense spout.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 3, 2010 10:41 AM in reply to wbgonne
Oooohhhh! Trying to change the subject, are you?! First, I've read all three of Caro's books on LBJ, plus DK Goodwin's. That's why I was able to call you out on your bullshit lies.
You claim that LBJ gave the go-ahead for the racist democrats filibuster his bill. You claim that LBJ gave the go-ahead for racist Democrats to stand on the senate floor for 56 days and rail against desegregation and civil rights?
LMAO! Absurd beyond belief.
LBJ did NOT have the votes to end the filibuster on civil rights for NEARLY A DECADE, asshole! So the notion that he gave Democrats a pass is ridiculous. He only got the bills through when he was able to convince enough Republicans to go along with him. His own party gave him the middle finger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
February 2, 2010 4:17 PM
Why - he didn't burn them enough with health care?
Why do we even bother to vote? It's all decided before we know who is running. Is there any way Congress can be forced to adjourn? Can't we just tell them they can keep the money if they will just go away? Oh, and they lose their health insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
February 2, 2010 4:19 PM
This would be laugh out loud funny if it weren't so important.
They simply cannot be that stupid, so it is becoming increasingly obvious that Dems in the Senate are just as satisfied with doing nothing as Republicans are.
Only problem with that is that Dems simply aren't getting the political mileage out of this that Republicans do.
As usual.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 2, 2010 4:22 PM in reply to CT Voter
Oh, they aren't stupid. They know who they work for. It's not the american people by the way. They will sh*t on them as much as possible so their corporate bosses and the super rich make a mint off the backs of the american taxpayers.
Time for a constitutional convention. These are desperate times that need desperate measures. No more f*cking around.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
February 2, 2010 5:02 PM in reply to Michael A
You are exactly right. They work for the corporations, not us. The supreme court has just made it official.
Of course, the issue around the supreme court ruling which invalidates our election system, chokes our our voices for good gets zero coverage!
How many people understand how deep and serious that ruling is? The rest is noise, we can do nothing against billions in corporate money and candidates. They will run all candidates who will do what they want.
WHY DOESN'T ANYONE SPEAK UP ABOUT THIS???????????????????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 2, 2010 5:09 PM in reply to goldiera
Same reason no one speaks up about the outrageous supreme court decisions over the last ten years or so. Corporate media controls what is disseminated to the mushrooms, that's us by the way. There are a host of really, really terrible decisions in favor of corporations and against the people and you don't hear sh*t about it.
The system is totally f*cked up and needs some radical changes. The status quo is unacceptable in the 21st Century. The mere fact that some buffoons like dorkman, nelson and bogus have so much power is an outrage. I would rather have the mayor of mesa arizona or memphis in the senate. They have more people they answer to and have zero power. This system is completely f*cked up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 3, 2010 8:03 AM in reply to Michael A
I agree. Corporatization of mass media has been terribly destructive to our democracy. That kind of de-regulation MUST be reversed ASAP. Re-regulation is what we need from Congress. And I'd really like to know what Obama's Justice Department is doing about anti-trust. I see they just approved the Ticketmaster-Live Nation merger which doesn't bode well for anti-conglomeration. Or concert ticket prices.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
concerned parent
February 2, 2010 4:34 PM in reply to CT Voter
Dems lack any real leader, have no real direction, and make me want to pull out my hair. I think we progressives need to start our own party, because unless someone steps up to the plate this party is going down in flames. Reform means change, and change will not happen with the same hapless people pretending to be leaders. Reid should do us all a favor and resign from the senate today. He is responsible for this train wreck of a senate and should take responsibility.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 2, 2010 4:44 PM in reply to concerned parent
Yes, I am inclined toward a third party as well. However, as it appears the Republicrats are about to go extinct maybe -- VERY BIG MAYBE -- the Dems will realize their future is in progressivism not conservatism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 2, 2010 9:21 PM in reply to wbgonne
Before you leave the party, fill us in on how LBJ was personally orchestrating those Democratic filibusters that held civil rights hostage for years.
Please explain how LBJ gave Strom Thurmand and Robert Byrd and Richard Russell the green light to protect Jim Crow while he was pretending to push for Civil Rights.
Since, according to you, no Democrat EVER defied LBJ, those Democrats who tried to deny racial equality had LBJ's blessings, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 3, 2010 7:56 AM in reply to FreeRider
OMG! You and LBJ again?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 3, 2010 7:58 AM in reply to wbgonne
Oh yeah, and please tell me again when the Dirksen Building was opened. Because that is absolutely CRUCIAL to whether Obama and the Dems succeed or fail. You are a fool. And a nasty fool, at that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 3, 2010 8:05 AM in reply to wbgonne
Er, I meant to insult The Whale Tail, not myself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 3, 2010 10:43 AM in reply to wbgonne
My, my, my! Look at the resident asshole whine and cry "you're being mean to me." That's what happens when a punkass like you is outed as a nothing.
FYI, that Senate building was opened in 1958 but it was not the Dirksen building until 1972. Just bitch slapping your ignorant ass with some facts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
February 2, 2010 4:20 PM
but it will not include a key section, which will likely be adopted separately after action by the Senate Finance Committee, headed by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT).
Ok, so that means the jobs bill will be ready at some point in August?
Fierce urgency of ineptitude. . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
February 2, 2010 4:28 PM
FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK
And Reid - what kind of crappy response about what's in the bill mentions sections of the tax code and other little shit? Have some balls, man - make a big bold statement people who don't know the tax code might understand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
February 2, 2010 4:34 PM
Is it not now apparent that the Democrats are deliberately sabotaging what they claim is their primary legislative interest for the year? They don't really want to do anything and certainly don't have the balls to fight the Republicans on anything since they'd be outvoted 41-59. They are going to give this to Baucus and let him be the bad guy so that nobody notices that all of the Democratic leadership is culpable for this bait and switch policy of theirs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wilson
February 2, 2010 4:35 PM
Our side is so fucked. I want all their heads on a pike in front of the capitol.
This is so freaking tiring. No cap and trade, no jobs bill, no health care bill, nothing from this god damn senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dumdedumdum
February 2, 2010 4:40 PM
Dorgan? Baucus? Reid? No one lives in their states!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
February 2, 2010 5:09 PM in reply to dumdedumdum
Exactly! The genius of our system just went bankrupt! The idea that Wyoming with 600K people gets the same votes in the Senate as California with 38 Million is why we are in this mess. The small redneck states are so slow to evolve that we are doomed in an ever quicker moving world. We all had better start speaking Chinese because they know how to move quickly.
USA RIP!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
February 2, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to hollywood
Our legislative branch was created this way because the smaller colonies refused to go along with a system where they would be at a disadvantage. The house of representatives has proportional representation based on population to balance the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 2, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to jdb316
Yes, but: the disparity between the sizes of the largest and smallest states is much greater now than it was then. The disporportionate representation in the Senate has become more problematic over the last 200+ years, not less.
In 1790, the largest state was Virginia, with a population of 747,610. The smallest state was Delaware, with a population of 59,096. The ratio of largest to smallest was 12.65:1.
As of 2008, the largest state is California, with a population of 36,756,666; the smallest is Wyoming, with a population of 532,668. The ratio of largest to smallest now is 69.00:1.
Wyoming has a smaller population than the city of Washington, DC. And Washington, DC is not allowed any representation in the Senate at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
For Want of a Nail
February 2, 2010 4:42 PM
...and the second party of the status quo strikes again. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans have any interests in serving the American people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Allbiz
February 2, 2010 4:46 PM
Everybody is again falling for the Obama rhetoric. There never was any intention to create jobs.
"jobs" is now the new catch phrase for "Obama photo ops".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
February 2, 2010 4:48 PM
Why are we bothering with Baucus?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
February 2, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to Maritza
Because Senate rules are sacrosanct, policy and constituents be damned.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
February 2, 2010 5:17 PM in reply to ericf
Yep. The RULES are more important to these assholes than any RESULTS!
The Republicans screw you every chance they get and the Dems do not want to offend anyone by bending the rules ....... so everyone is fucked!
AMERICANS DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT SENATE RULES! GET IT?!?!
AMERICANS CARE ABOUT JOBS! AMERICANS CARE ABOUT HEALTHCARE!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
solerso68
February 2, 2010 5:55 PM in reply to hollywood
but the senate rules are their cover to enable lobbyists to loot whats left of our once great country. its never their fault, its always the rules! of course for some reason the conversation never really gets to "why not change the rules" ..from their they always say well we'd like to change the rules, but the rules forbif it! and we morons let them get away with it year after year after year. its like the whole phony deficit "crisis" all of the sudden, as soon as their is momentum for "change" the deficit monster needs to be killed again. we don't need to cut defense spending at all to kill the deficit monster, its not that bad, we just need to gut all other spending. then when the dems have been thrown out, and there's a surplus again, the repubs will come in and say, well we need to cut taxes now the deficit monster is gone! then they slash taxes for millionaires and corporations, then the deficit grows cause there's no more revenue, then the democrats get elected again promising to do something foe the people and BAM! the deficit monster comes back! this is how wal st theives and scum bags and sociopaths go on looting the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 3, 2010 8:08 AM in reply to solerso68
And so are you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 3, 2010 8:07 AM in reply to hollywood
You are right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ariseatex
February 2, 2010 5:02 PM
Worst part is the only real solution to this is to get rid of the incredibly undemocratic Senate, which won't happen without the Senate's (and small states') approval.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 2, 2010 6:42 PM in reply to ariseatex
I don't think we need to get rid of it; I think we just need to re-structure it. But that, of course, runs into the same problem: you need to get the Senate to go along UNLESS you can manage to get a sufficient number of states to call for a Constitutional Convention. And smaller states might go along if the convention were not for a single change, but for a number of changes, some of which might be to their liking.
Short of that, getting rid of the filibuster would help make the Senate at least a little more democratic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
amazona
February 2, 2010 5:06 PM
Max Baucus? Oh Noes!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
February 2, 2010 5:15 PM
There is no difference between the parties; they all serve the same corporate interests. The supreme court made it offical last month, they gave unfettered unlimited power to corporations to spend billions to buy and sell candidates of every office from president to city representative.
We have lost our voice, our voting process is now officially a sham. Unless the supreme court decision is overturned, (and nobody is even discussing it) the congress will do as they are told.
There is no our side or their side....it is corporate interests only. Jobs? It is cheaper to use overseas labor. It doesn't matter what player they put in front of the camera, they keep passing the bad guy image around like a basketball.....next week it will be Lieberman's turn, the following....ad infinitum.
Where are our so-called speakers? Even Olberman and Maddow are caught up in the political theatre again. With that court ruling, it doesn't matter much. As usual, nothing will be done.
We are finished.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
salame
February 2, 2010 5:42 PM
jesus, mary and joseph!!
Why are the dems begging to get mugged in November?
How inept is this white house and senate?
Why don't we just cancel the elections and give the whole damn thing over to the crazies? They're going to take it anyway - alot in Nov., more in 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
solerso68
February 2, 2010 5:47 PM
Is THAT what they're calling ol mad max now? i have a few better, more descriptive nicknames for the old boy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chisholm
February 2, 2010 5:48 PM
I don't see why primarying is so "f*cking retarded."
I mean, how would anyone know if it is or not, seeing as it's done so rarely?
Would it really be worse than the current disaster of Democratic governance?
Seems to me that those who "support incumbents, no matter what" own the collapse of health care reform -- which I feel, down to my bones, is a body-blow to the Democratic Party.
I don't know. I don't get it. The people who say "primarying is f*cking retarded" are in charge, and they're driving the party straight into a ditch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
February 2, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to Chisholm
Primarying would be great in some of these races. In others, it would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Primary people like Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu or even Baucus, and the Republicans will take those seats and never give them back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 2, 2010 6:26 PM in reply to jdb316
Stop buying that b.s. Vote the bums out!! If nothing else, it might put some fear in the guts of the remaining bums.
Find better Democrats. Heck, find better Republicans.
Stop buying the centrist spin. It's a con.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chisholm
February 2, 2010 8:51 PM in reply to jdb316
"Primary people like Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu or even Baucus, and the Republicans will take those seats and never give them back."
My first reaction is, "So what? How different is a Landrieu or a Nelson from a Republican?"
Nevetheless, I think the bigger point I want to make here is that your point of view on the matter is in charge.
It's in charge in the sense that the Democratic Establishment's position is to support all incumbents, always. (I realize you selectively support primaries.)
People like me, who think primary challenges might be a good idea, are far removed from the decision-making apparatus.
So in essence, the Establishment mindset *owns* the current party disaster. I certainly don't: The collapse of health care reform (which I think will turn out to be a mortal blow to the party), for example, or soon-to-be-emasculated regulatory reform, or the abandonment of cap-and-trade, or an ineffective jobs bill, is not due to primary challenges.
So since the Establishment mindset owns the current mess, which I think will be fatal, another approach -- using primaries to scare the crap out of Nelsons and Landrieus, etc. -- is worth a shot.
Maybe I'm wrong. But I'm pretty sure the Establishment way isn't working.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 3, 2010 9:40 AM in reply to jdb316
Dead wrong. The Dems have to re-build their brand. These phonies undermine the party's core message. The Republicrats subscribe to the GOP view that government is the problem; Dems (ostensibly) believe that government is how civilized people come together to solve problems. The Republicrats hurt more than they help. Good-bye and good riddance. Addition by subtraction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
monstruss
February 2, 2010 5:54 PM
oh great, he's going to fuck that up too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wilson
February 2, 2010 5:54 PM
Now I understand why Chaney would strong arm crap through. otherwise NOTHING would get done ever in this senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ariseatex
February 2, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to wilson
That's the scariest thing I've read all day, and it's true, too. Now if Biden can just strong-arm the senate without all the evilness mixed in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
February 2, 2010 5:55 PM
Once again Obama and the Senate Democrats put their incompetence on parade by needlessly handing this asshole Baucus an outsized say in critical national legislation.
They are hopelessly weak.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dannyluv
February 2, 2010 10:19 PM in reply to tommyo
agreed!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drwu
February 2, 2010 5:59 PM
The Dems won't create jobs; we need 10 million new jobs to make up what we lost and and for the new job entrants to the market. So we blithely march ahead; no jobs in hand. If the place implodes, the DC pols, having no skin in the labor market game, still have their pensions and health plans. Outside of these folks, the Wall Streeters and the military--the rest of us are f**ked.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Radhika
February 2, 2010 7:15 PM
Perhaps we could institute a TPM Board Pool on the metrics of the Baucus Process. How many months would it drag on? How much money/perks get funnelled to Repugs and/or Lieberman in exchange for a non-vote. How many filibusters....you get the drift.
The winner - in terms of guessing the most correctly - will get a Press Pass for President Palin's 2012 Inauguration.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 2, 2010 7:28 PM in reply to Radhika
Rambo's inauguration. That is a frightening thought. A year ago that would have been impossible. Today, it is definitely a possiblity. My how things have changed. What a nightmare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Thomas Fisher
February 2, 2010 7:43 PM
I think this is a good deal for the House Democrats and Senate Democrats.
The House Democrats get to propose lots of parts to Jobs BIll that would be effective and affordable. Then the Senate Democrats get to take all those good parts out. The House Dems tell their constituents they took bold stands on Jobs, and the Senate Dems get to tell their constituents they're reducing spending.
Everyone wins! Except America and people who have no jobs, or crappy jobs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dannyluv
February 2, 2010 10:18 PM
Baccus is a F__king A__hole. Why would anyone want this ahole to work on anything of importance?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Friction
February 3, 2010 2:57 AM
Oh god are we going to trust that clown again.....
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Decider
February 3, 2010 10:38 AM
You guys sure have a funny way of doing business in your party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?