TPMDC
So Much For That! Bipartisan Jobs Agreement Falls Apart Almost Instantly
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
Share
Send to a friend!
Bipartisan agreement on jobs lasted all of a few hours. This afternoon, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus announced he'd reached accord with ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). They unveiled what was supposed to be a final jobs package. But the agreement didn't sit well with many Democrats, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pulled it out of their hands, and announced he'd move ahead with a smaller bill.
"I think Reid saw the writing on the wall," said one top Senate Democratic aide. "This was about to get bogged down again so he pulled it back."
Liberal Democrats were not pleased with the Baucus-Grassley compromise. Among other things, Baucus and Grassley said that jobs could only move forward if the Senate agreed to take up a bipartisan "reform" (a.k.a. slashing) of the estate tax. They registered their dissatisfaction at a weekly caucus lunch this afternoon, and when it was over, Reid emerged to make the announcement.
"We're going to move this afternoon to a smaller package than I talked about in the press," he said.
We're going to do a bill that has four things in it: has a Build America bonds, which has been so dramatically successful. We're going to do the highway bill extension for one year, which will save a million jobs. We're going to do the -- Section 179 small-business tax program, which, in effect, allows people to (inaudible). That's going to be in one package, that we're going to move together.And then when we finished that, we'll move on to the tax extenders and all the other stuff.
Reid could file for cloture tonight, before the Senate adjourns for President's day recess, but the first procedural vote wouldn't take place until after Congress returns.
For a bit of background on this, the jobs initiative originally belonged to Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND). But Baucus recently objected, saying that he should be allowed to run certain key elements of it through his powerful committee--that by doing so, he could bring Republicans on board.
So the package went to his committee, where Democrats and Republicans tried to reach agreement on a measure to provide tax incentives for businesses to hire new employees--and on ancillary measures to allow Republicans to sign on to the broader bill.
Looks like Baucus was willing to give them far too much. More soon.
Comments (165) | 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.
Moose49
February 11, 2010 5:13 PM
Wow. Harry Reid actually stood up and did the right thing. Perhaps he finally realizes that everything Baucus touches turns to shit. Hopefully, he also realizes that voters don't really care about bipartisanship -- they just want results.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 5:17 PM in reply to Moose49
Perhaps most on the left will realize that the President and Democratic leaders don't care about bipartisanship either. They just care about getting to 60 votes and looking like they care about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohiomeister
February 11, 2010 5:22 PM in reply to FreeRider
I WISH that was true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 5:31 PM in reply to ohiomeister
It is true. Don't let the fact that they passed the budget and healthcare with NO republican support interfere with your version of reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohiomeister
February 11, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to FreeRider
Then why did Reid let Baucus play footsie w/ the GOP in the Senate Finance Committee for so long over health care? Why hasn't anything been passed through reconciliation with a simple majority?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 6:14 PM in reply to ohiomeister
Read something besides hysterical headlines at HP so you can actually understand how things work.
1. The Committee Chairs are EXTREMELY powerful. The majority leader can't force them to do anything. Baucus kept promising he was on the verge of passing a bill out of committee at any moment. Finally, in September, Reid pulled the plug.
2. A couple of months ago, even liberals like Sanders, Brown and Schumer acknowledged that reconciliation wouldn't really work for HCR so even they stopped calling for that. The fixes to the Senate bill will be done through reconciliation.
3. If the President and Democratic leaders prized bipartisanship above all else, they would have dropped the stimulus and the budget and healthcare since Republicans were dead set against those things.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 11, 2010 6:26 PM in reply to FreeRider
This sounds a lot like how Bush ran his foriegn policy: I won't even talk to you unless you give me everything I want first.
For Republicans, bi-partisane means Dems cave and Repugs call the shots even thought more Dems were elected.
It's all the same BS; Republicans don't care if they destroy the country just so long as they make sure nobody who isn't rich gets a break.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie911
February 11, 2010 8:09 PM in reply to condew
Nail on the head!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tommy Douglas
February 11, 2010 8:18 PM in reply to howie911
I think we need to get rid of Rahm to get over giving Baucus ALL the power.
STOP SHRINKING OUR COJONES RAHM!!
http://dumprahm.wordpress.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 8:25 PM in reply to Tommy Douglas
Since WE didn't hire Rahm, I can't imagine how WE would get rid of Rahm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 12, 2010 12:21 AM in reply to FreeRider
Not to mention that Rahm or the president for that matter has any control over who chairs the committees.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KdNicewanger
February 11, 2010 6:50 PM in reply to FreeRider
"If the President and Democratic leaders prized bipartisanship above all else, they would have dropped the stimulus and the budget and healthcare since Republicans were dead set against those things."
Er, your definition of bipartisanship needs some work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 7:11 PM in reply to KdNicewanger
Your comprehension skills could use some work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
February 11, 2010 6:59 PM in reply to FreeRider
Points 1 and 2 seem good ones.
Point 3 is pretzel logic: of course Obama does not value bipartisanship "above all else"; how could any thinking person value bipartisanship "above all else"? What's valuable is delivering for the voters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
February 11, 2010 7:01 PM in reply to FreeRider
Your anti-Democratic analysis focuses on the wrong tendencies. It's not that Democrats prize bipartisanship above all else. It is that Republicans prize power above the good of the country and are waging war against democracy. Once you grasp that concept, all other actions become understandable.
The Repugs care more about that power and winning than they do whether this country goes down the well-oiled rathole they created in the first place. They are an obstacle to lifting us out of the recession they created and it's about high time legislators who give one rat's tiny hiney about this country's welfare treat them as such. The Dems should do what the Repug-run congress under Gingrich and Delay did: Hold meetings without even notifying the opposite party members they were taking place and just get things done.
There will be no bipartisanship with the minority demanding 100% of results or no results at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 7:14 PM in reply to TheRealFish
You really shouldn't waste your time arguing with me about points I never made and/or don't believe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 11, 2010 7:35 PM in reply to FreeRider
They can't comprehend is the problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 12, 2010 12:30 AM in reply to FreeRider
Free Rider, I think you are arguing with people who agree with you. Nice avatar upgrade btw. I almost didn't recognize you ;)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 12, 2010 10:19 AM in reply to expat46
No. People are arguing with me because they don't understand what I posted. I was merely responding to the criticism from liberals/Democrats that the President and Democratic leaders are obsessed with bipartianship. I disagree. They talk about bipartianship because it looks good but don't let a lack of bipartianship keep them from moving ahead with their agenda.
That is a good thing, IMO!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
February 11, 2010 8:12 PM in reply to TheRealFish
The trouble is that "bipartisanship" does not exist. It's a word that goes back to the relative comity of the Senate in the past before the Republicans became a losing but rigidly disciplined national political party. The word "bipartisanship" is an effort to describe the myth of the days when the Senate operated almost entirely on the basis of unanimous consent.
The rules of the Senate were designed to let every single Senator know they could clog up the operations of the Senate if they felt their needs were ignored. A Senator like Richard Shelby could put holds on appointees that would last until he felt his concern were being listened to, and then the comity of the Senate would lead to renewal of unanimous consent very quickly.
This power to every Senator was important when the national parties were in fact alliances of a lot of state parties. But the Civil Rights Movement with the Southern conservatives abandoning the Democrats ended that, and the growth of national TV networks gave the party that was willing to create a political brand and run on it through TV added to that change.
That old set of Senate rules cannot work when the minority party sees using them as their route to return to the majority, and the conservatives have no hesitation to misuse those rules. The problem is that the older Senators have a strong investment in understanding those rule and their implications. It's an important basis of the power of Seniority in the Senate. So they won't easily be convinced to abandon them.
The myth of bipartisanship is over, though. Unfortunately the media and the public have not yet gotten the word, and the Senate leadership doesn't want those rules to end because they abandon too much individual power when the rules are gone.
The alternative to the current unworkable Senate rules is giving the majority leadership real power to enforce party discipline.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
February 12, 2010 12:15 AM in reply to Richardxx
Excellent analysis. It's still hard for me to understand why it took Democrats so long to understand that the Republicans had changed the rules of the game. I think it was apparent to me by, say, 1994 or so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 12, 2010 12:46 AM in reply to Richardxx
Exactly. I think that after this meeting on the 25th the writing will be on the wall. Reid should demand an up or down vote or threaten to pull the trigger on the nuclear option. What are the republicans going to do? Bring the business of the Senate to a screeching halt using parliamentary gimmicks. They are already doing that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
February 11, 2010 8:38 PM in reply to FreeRider
Without the Stimulus we wouldn't be in recovery mode. Just look at Europe, they waited and now it's hitting the fan; Greece, Spain and Italy are all in a pretty tough spot. Or Japan, 7 years into it, they're coming around to stimulus dollars.
The multiplier has proven to be there in the USA. Keynes won again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
February 12, 2010 8:50 AM in reply to FreeRider
FreeRider said:
"If the President and Democratic leaders prized bipartisanship above all else, they would have dropped the stimulus and the budget and healthcare since Republicans were dead set against those things."
I agree, but I'd take it further; the Democrats also should have reduced the Estate Tax to Zero, the Corporate Tax to Zero,
reduced investment income to zero, dropped the top tax bracket to 10%, and "reformed" the regulatory agencies covering the business community.
Now THAT would be true bi-partisanship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
February 11, 2010 6:05 PM in reply to FreeRider
Republicans think they are still in power and will not even vote for things they previously supported. That Republicans are sulking like two year olds and biting the hands that reach out to them does not mean that the President has not tried.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
February 11, 2010 8:23 PM in reply to AJM
After they failed so spectacularly during the Bush administration this behavior is the only route they have to return to power.
The conservative political base will not accept the current politicians as leaders if they don't try to regain power any way possible.
Logically, they will use whatever method is possible to regain power. It doesn't hurt that it seems to be working.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davidinnorcal
February 11, 2010 6:16 PM in reply to FreeRider
Republicans won't even vote for things they support now.
You can't work with that.
And I'm not going to be lectured about bipartisanship by someone defending Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
February 11, 2010 6:51 PM in reply to FreeRider
If the Dems had turned HCR completely over to an all-Republican committee, saying "go ahead. Give us a bill of 100% of the things you want," the moment that the Dems would have said, "Okay. Now we'll pass it" all Republicans would have labeled it a socialist agenda and voted unanimously against it.
That is the reality of "bipartisanship" as it exists in Congress today, and the reality of how much the Repugs care about policy or what is good for their constituents.
The only thing they care about is regaining power, control and turning any-effing-thing sponsored by Dems and the WH into "Waterloo."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 7:19 PM in reply to TheRealFish
You're preaching to the converted, Dude. How you interpreted my post as supportive of republican tactics is beyond me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EriktheRed
February 11, 2010 8:14 PM in reply to FreeRider
Oh, that's quite alright. The GOP's ideas were mostly crap and they never had any intention of cooperating anyway.
IOW, fuck 'em. I'm perfectly OK with these bills passing without them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goshen
February 11, 2010 8:32 PM in reply to EriktheRed
That's fine if you aren't Obama and need independent voters who are concerned greatly over the two parties and their extreme bases engaging in this endless pissing match.
But he can't afford to tick off the independents any more than he already has. He's lost a lot of them, and the GOP sees this as weakness and is pounding away, hoping to erode his support in that important voting group even more.
I don't think we ought to help them. If you really meant what you said, then you don't, either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 8:57 PM in reply to Goshen
Obama isn't losing independents because he's passing bills without Republicans; he's losing independents because he has not delivered!
If he delivers, the independents will come back. They, like everybody else, want results. Period.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BlindBat
February 11, 2010 9:12 PM in reply to FreeRider
Bingo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 11, 2010 9:16 PM in reply to FreeRider
That is an accurate, concise, logical and non-flame throwing post which I happen to agree with. What a shock, we actually agree on something? Amazing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 9:39 PM in reply to Michael A
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 12, 2010 10:25 AM in reply to FreeRider
LOL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bk
February 11, 2010 9:53 PM in reply to Michael A
I totally agree as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
February 11, 2010 10:55 PM in reply to FreeRider
Which is exactly why the Republicans won't go along with anything that that Obama does. The idea is to prevent him from governing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
February 11, 2010 6:02 PM in reply to FreeRider
This guy is such an ultimate FAILURE...He clearly is in the pocket of the donors and the repubs...He needs to go!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 11, 2010 7:36 PM in reply to Docb
Go home troll. Your mother needs you to wipe her butt
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
February 11, 2010 7:39 PM in reply to Docb
agreed.
But it think Obama was relying heavily on the advice from Rahm, who is max baucus's fuck buddy.
Hence the reason why the HCR bill got fucked up.
What Obama SHOULD HAVE DONE is hire Howard Dean INSTEAD of Rahm.
If we did that we'd have a HC bill with public option, Bush and cheney would be in jail, cars would be running off of corn and fart gases, Financial reform would be passed, and republicans would be launching random acts of terrorism under the command of Admiral Glenn beck, and Colonel Palin.
They'd of course plan the attacks, start caring them out then be mavericks and quit right before the attack actually took place.
Then they'd go on every TV show bash the mainstream media, and say the victims are the terrorists and they are preserving freedom.
It would be beautiful
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
biryanifan
February 11, 2010 9:08 PM in reply to 3star2nr
Best comment ever. If only...!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
February 11, 2010 9:19 PM in reply to 3star2nr
I don't know about Howard Deam being Chief of Staff, but Rahm Emanuel was a horrible choice in retrospect. Unfortunately, Obama owes his very political existence to the Chicago Democratic machine, of which Rahm is a big part. If not for them, he's probably still a no-name law professor. So he picked Emanuel at least in part out of gratitude and loyalty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 9:49 PM in reply to jdb316
The Chicago political machine did not support Obama when he ran for State Senate. They backed Alice Palmer.
The Chicago political machine did not support Obama when he challenged Bobby Rush for Congress. They backed Bobby Rush.
The Chicago Political Machine did not support Obama when he entered the primary for US Senate. They split between Blair Hull and Dan Hynes.
In light of that, kinda hard to see how he owes his political career to them. But then again, don't let facts get in the way of a good talking point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
February 11, 2010 10:45 PM in reply to FreeRider
I stand corrected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 9:52 PM in reply to jdb316
By the way, he wasn't doing Rahm any favor by choosing him to be chief-of-staff. Rahm was working 4 days a week and in line to be Speaker of the House.
Rahm did the president a favor by giving all that up to work like a field hand and take shit 24/7.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 11, 2010 6:21 PM in reply to FreeRider
They don't care about jobs or healthcare either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 6:29 PM in reply to bluebell
Hot Chicken Salad
2 cups cooked chicken breast meat, cubed
1 cup diced celery
1/2 cup slivered almonds
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon pepper
2 tablespoons fresh lemon juice
1 cup mayonnaise
1 cup grated sharp Cheddar
2/3 cup crushed potato chips
Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. Spray a 13 by 9-inch baking dish with vegetable oil cooking spray.
In a large mixing bowl combine the chicken, celery, almonds, salt, pepper, lemon juice, mayonnaise, and cheese. Place the mixture in the prepared baking dish. Spread the crushed potato chips on top. Bake for 20 minutes, or until bubbly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
February 11, 2010 6:35 PM in reply to FreeRider
LOL. THAT is funny!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 11, 2010 6:36 PM in reply to FreeRider
Thank you. I'm glad you've decided to be useful. Maybe your hero could co-host with Rachel (Rey. Maddow actually does issues.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to bluebell
Potato Salad
2 1/2 pounds russet potatoes, peeled and diced
1 quart pork or chicken stock (recommended: Kitchen Basics)
1 small bunch scallions, finely chopped
3 to 4 ribs celery with leafy tops, chopped
3 tablespoons white wine vinegar
1 rounded tablespoon sugar
2 tablespoons prepared horseradish
1/3 cup extra-virgin olive oil
1 tablespoon celery seed, optional
A generous handful dill, chopped
Salt and freshly ground black pepper
Cover potatoes with stock and enough water to cover the potatoes by 1-inch. Bring to a boil and cook potatoes 12 to 15 minutes until tender. Drain potatoes and place back in hot pot.
Combine the scallions, celery, vinegar, sugar, horseradish and olive oil in a small bowl. Pour over the hot potatoes to absorb.
Season the salad with celery seed, dill, salt and pepper.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
February 11, 2010 7:11 PM in reply to FreeRider
EPIC WIN!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 11, 2010 7:38 PM in reply to bluebell
All you do is bitch and complain. You have nothing to offer - never had since you started posting here
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 12, 2010 1:14 AM in reply to bluebell
To quote Bluebell February 11, 2010 7:10 PM:
I don't know how to read you Bluebell. How could someone with this much insight be ready to throw in the towel. Change is hard. This fight is not over by a long shot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 12, 2010 10:25 AM in reply to expat46
Bluebell's job is to complain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
February 11, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to FreeRider
So you're saying Obama's a liar when he says he cares about bipartisanship?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
Spinach and Artichoke Dip
1 cup thawed, chopped frozen spinach
11/2 cups thawed, chopped frozen artichoke hearts
6 ounces cream cheese
1/4 cup sour cream
1/4 cup mayonnaise
1/3 cup grated Parmesan
1/2 teaspoon red pepper flakes
1/4 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon garlic powder
Boil spinach and artichokes in 1 cup of water until tender and drain. Discard liquid. Heat cream cheese in microwave for 1 minute or until hot and soft. Stir in rest of ingredients and serve hot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
February 11, 2010 7:29 PM in reply to FreeRider
I'll take that as a 'yes, I am calling Obama a liar'. Thanks
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 7:41 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
Baby Carrots w/Ginger Butter
2 pounds fresh baby carrots, cleaned, tops trimmed to 1/2-inch
Sea salt, or other good finishing salt
3 tablespoons butter
2 tablespoons finely diced crystallized ginger
Freshly ground white pepper
In a shallow saucepan, over low heat, add the carrots and cover with water. Add a pinch of salt and bring the water to a simmer. Cover them with a parchment round set over and touching the simmering water to get a perfect steam. Remove carrots from the water when they are almost fork tender and drain.
In a medium saute pan, over low heat, add the butter and stir in the chopped crystallized ginger. Allow the sugar from the ginger to melt into the butter, and then transfer the steamed carrots to the pan. Toss gently for approximately 2 minutes until the carrots are completely coated with the ginger butter. Finish with a pinch of salt and a crack of freshly ground white pepper. Serve immediately.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
February 11, 2010 7:47 PM in reply to FreeRider
You forgot the arugula.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 8:02 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
Arugula w/Parmesean
1/2 pound fresh arugula (3 large bunches)
Lemon Vinaigrette:
1/4 cup freshly squeezed lemon juice (2 lemons)
1/2 cup good olive oil
1/2 teaspoon kosher salt
1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
1/4-pound chunk very good Parmesan
If the arugula has roots attached, cut them off. Fill the sink with cold water and toss the arugula for a few minutes to clean. Spin-dry the leaves and place them in a large bowl.
In a small bowl, whisk together the lemon juice, olive oil, salt, and pepper. Pour enough dressing on the arugula to moisten. Toss well and place the salad on individual plates.
With a very sharp knife or a vegetable peeler, shave the Parmesan into large shards and arrange them on the arugula.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
February 11, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to Moose49
LMAO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oocman
February 11, 2010 6:52 PM in reply to Moose49
That is so true!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dawn
February 11, 2010 8:07 PM in reply to Moose49
I think extension of unemployment benefits for those going off them at the end of the month should be considered a mandatory part of the "streamlined" bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 5:15 PM
Everything Baucus touches turns into a steaming pile. Why they even let this loser take the lead on anything after his disastrous healthcare debacle is beyond me.
He continues to prove what a shitty senator he is.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33420
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 11, 2010 5:16 PM
Hey free rider. Looking mighty handsome there. Nice picture.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Riesz Fischer
February 11, 2010 10:45 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Dang, lousgirl, you are such a flirt. But you've never complimented me on my picture.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 12, 2010 8:28 AM in reply to Riesz Fischer
Get a room for yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 12, 2010 10:21 AM in reply to Riesz Fischer
Marinus is very handsome and I like his style. Have you looked at your picture lately. You will never catch the girls looking like that (LOL)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
alkali
February 11, 2010 5:21 PM
I urge Al Franken to switch parties and become a Republican, so Max Baucus can make concessions to him instead of Chuck Grassley. (I can see it now: "That's a decent bill you've got there, but in the spirit of my ideological hero Ronald Reagan, I urge you to put in some money to support family planning and inner-city education.")
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rockridge
February 11, 2010 5:24 PM in reply to alkali
Terrific idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FellowAmerican
February 11, 2010 6:18 PM in reply to alkali
I vote for this idea too. EXCELLENT!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
February 11, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to alkali
Put me down as well!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BlindBat
February 11, 2010 9:14 PM in reply to alkali
Bing Bing Bing Bing! A Winner!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Given Up
February 11, 2010 9:14 PM in reply to alkali
+1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
February 11, 2010 5:22 PM
Because nothing creates jobs like cutting the estate tax?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
February 11, 2010 5:28 PM in reply to mcc
Or extending the Patriot Act...which is also in there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 11, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to mcc
Did you not notice the tremendous burst of economic activity when the inheritance tax was reduced in 2002? That's one of the reasons we're enjoying such prosperity today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
February 11, 2010 5:52 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Uh. . . Are you sure that didn't have anything to do with the Stupendous increase in goverment spending that goes along with starting a war. . . Just saying.
Or should I refer you back to the tremendous and sustained economic growth that came in the wake of the deficit reduction (aka tax increase) bill in the early 90's.
Eliminating estate taxes is the surest way to see that money is hoarded - not spent -- That people are rewarded for heridity, and not work or productivity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 11, 2010 5:56 PM in reply to mcrose68
He was being sarcastic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
February 11, 2010 5:58 PM in reply to mcrose68
Wooooosh! Somebody needs to get their sarcasm detector recalibrated... :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
February 22, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to mcrose68
It's tough, I have too many conversations with Bush apologists - and everytime I *think* they're being sarcastic it turns out it was wishful thinking.
That leaves me a little off balance when I find myself engaged with people who are living in the "real" world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
February 11, 2010 5:29 PM
Here's the thing, while we've all been (rightfully) griping about killing the Filibuster, Cloture votes and holds...there's another rule I think should be thrown out the window, Senate Seniority.
The reason Max Baucus is chair of the Finance Committee has nothing to do with his legislative skill (lacking) or his management skill (mega-lacking), or his ability to reach out to Republicans (child, please!), it has to do with the fact that he's been on the Committee the longest, therefore it's his turn.
Well, good fer you, Max. Let's see what longevity allows you to screw up next. I can hardly wait.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
February 11, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to admiralmpj
Did the Republicans assign chairmanships by seniority when they controlled the Senate? I know they had this system in the House of constantly rotating committee chairs (a system which had its own problems, but at least kept someone inappropriate from getting to control a committee just by coincidence...)
I think we should follow Tom Harkin's proposal of having a secret ballot "no confidence" vote on committee chairmen every two years. There was attention around that for a while last year and I hope it doesn't just get forgotten.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
February 11, 2010 5:30 PM
Baucus shouldn't have been allowed to run this thing in the first place! He's not just useless, he's harmful -- wasting a lotta time just to produce a pile of crap. Why is it still not obvious to the Dems?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pgbach
February 11, 2010 5:30 PM
Could it be possible that Harry Reid is growing some balls?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 11, 2010 5:34 PM
Baucus and Grassley: the Death Panel for Congressional legislation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to slb
LMAO!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
February 11, 2010 6:10 PM in reply to FreeRider
I agree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ethan
February 11, 2010 5:50 PM in reply to slb
You win "Comment of the Day."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Miss Drea
February 11, 2010 5:37 PM
Mad Max was on the lose again! Thanks Sen. Reid for snatching the jobs bill out of the jaws of defeat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
newsdoctor
February 11, 2010 5:40 PM
i dont know if he's growing balls as much as he's running scared of losing his senate seat this year, and baucus could really help that happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lono65
February 11, 2010 5:40 PM
Paging Claude Raines...I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, to hear that Max and Chuck worked in a bipartisan fashion to fuck up the jobs bill. I mean, it's not like they've ever done anything like this before. Right?
Kudos to Harry for stepping in and taking it back, but why did he give it to them in the first place?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Miss Drea
February 11, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to Lono65
Because Mad Max complained that it should run through his committee first. He loves his committee and the idea of bringing the party of NO on board.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 11, 2010 5:46 PM in reply to Lono65
At least they didn't sit on it for six months. Counting down to some dickhead insisting we wait for CBO scoring.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Resistance
February 11, 2010 5:48 PM
Can the Dems ever take away his Chairmanship.
With friends like Baucus who needs enemies?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
February 11, 2010 5:54 PM
Baucus is a huge disappointment. Why they let a dude from tiny Montana put a strangle hold on legislation that will affect the entire country boggles the mind. If they're going to do this, I'd hope they'd at least pick someone from a more populous state that has a better idea what's going on in the real world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ESK
February 11, 2010 5:55 PM
Misleading headline, misleading headline, misleading headline! I'm so tired of misleading headlines. The Daily Beast has it right...."Harry Reid to Rewrite Jobs Bill."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 11, 2010 5:59 PM
They should put this bozo out to pasture. He shouldn't be involved in one GD thing. He just f*ks everything up and probably intentionally. It doesn't cost much to buy a senator from a state with a population smaller than san jose cali. Couple hundred k and you own him. What a joke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
February 11, 2010 7:32 PM in reply to Michael A
It goes beyond that. The entire Senate has become a gangrenous limb and needs to be gotten rid of.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RyanWV
February 11, 2010 6:02 PM
Baucus is aiming for that coveted ranking member spot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 11, 2010 6:03 PM
Oh my god, so bipartisanship is to pair an underfunded jobs bill which might reduce employment by .1% with a unfunded tax cut that only directly benefits the children of multimillionares.
Reid's been sounding a wee bit aggressive lately, such as when he publicly advised the president to seat every single unfilled position in the executive branch with recess appointments. That would be upping the ante from anything Bush ever did, although I think at this point that is exactly the correct choice. Comity does not exist in the Senate, and Obama needs to balance bipartisan gestures with aggressive exercise of his constitutional powers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jbentley4
February 11, 2010 6:06 PM
In the immortal words of the immortal Casey Stengel - "Can't anybody here play this game?!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
February 11, 2010 6:09 PM
Did Harry finally realize that you can bargain with people who just make sh*t up? Max Baucus represents few than 1 million people - only the insane rules of the US Senate would allow him to have this kind of power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dannyluv
February 11, 2010 6:11 PM
seriously, with Baucus and Grassley, what did you expect? These are two of the lamest people on the planet. Baucsus is in it for the kickbacks, thats the only reason he wants anything to do with work to begin with, and Grassley has a running bet on the right side of the isle about how far he can shove it up Baucus's rear before he figures it out
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 6:17 PM in reply to dannyluv
I don't believe Baucus is in it for the kickbacks. I think he's just lame and a quasi-Republican at heart.
But you've nailed Grassley. I bet he and his colleagues are laughing their asses off at how often he punks Baucus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Resistance
February 11, 2010 6:24 PM in reply to FreeRider
A Montana Democrat is a Republican-lite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to Resistance
Generalize much? John Tester and Brian Schweitzer are Montana Democrats. They are not Republican-lite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
February 11, 2010 6:31 PM
Gee, what a fucking surprise! Baucus came up with a piece of crap intended to scuttle the whole effort. Who woulda thunk it huh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
February 11, 2010 6:36 PM in reply to oleeb
Never would have predicted that in a million years ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 11, 2010 6:36 PM
Since the reward for hireing the unemployed was to let employers not pay the employer's share of the Social Security tax, I was sure Republicans would love this; it's a tax cut and it defunds Social Security. For Republicans, what's not to like? The Democratic death wish strikes again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
February 11, 2010 6:36 PM
Wow. You folks really don't get it, do you? We're broke. The gravy train has fallen off the tracks.
Ticktock, ticktock.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 11, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to Silence
Yeh, well, putting two wars on the credit card will do that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
February 11, 2010 6:44 PM in reply to condew
It was much more than two wars.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 6:50 PM in reply to Silence
You're right. It was also the prescription drug bill and those huge tax cuts for millionaires and big business. They went on the credit card too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
February 11, 2010 6:57 PM in reply to FreeRider
Throw in the Social Security and Medicare program.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
February 11, 2010 7:00 PM in reply to Silence
That's right: It was also two rounds of massive tax cuts for the rich -- passed through reconciliation.
And a prescription drug bill barring bulk purchases or reimportantion -- passed through reconciliation.
Borrow & spend = the GOP way since Reagan
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
February 11, 2010 7:10 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
How much do you think the "wealthy" should pay to support your worthless ass? The govt could confiscate every dime of those earning over 250K and it still wouldn't be enough.
The fat lady is singing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
February 11, 2010 7:22 PM in reply to Silence
Nice non sequitor. Tax cuts created the deficits, not the other way around.
Fact: Ike & Nixon each had higher top tax rates than Obama. Were they Marxist fascist socialists?
Fact: Reagan tripled the national debt accumulated by all presidents Washington to Carter combined. How? Tax cuts and military spending.
Fact: GWB doubled the national debt. How? Tax cuts and military spending.
But 'facts are stupid things,' right? LOL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
February 11, 2010 7:29 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
So, you're saying that reckless spending, on credit, has no effect on financial stability. The real culprit is income that does not rise to the same level as the reckless spending?
O-o-o-K.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
February 11, 2010 7:45 PM in reply to Silence
Spending on credit? That's exactly the GOP platform since Reagan: Borrow & spend.
Why are you so surprised? Didn't you cheer every day St Gipper was in office?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
February 11, 2010 7:57 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
When the house is falling, what is to be gained by sitting around arguing over who or what introduced the termites?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 8:08 PM in reply to Silence
If you believe that, why are you bringing up Medicare and Social Security?
You prefer to focus on how long it's taking the exterminator to get rid of the termites the previous occupant introduced and let breed for 8 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
February 11, 2010 8:17 PM in reply to FreeRider
I'm simply identifying a major fault in the structure..not who or what caused the fault.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 8:28 PM in reply to Silence
NOT!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
February 11, 2010 8:45 PM in reply to Silence
in fact, studies have shown that if you eliminated all the tax cuts for the ultra-rich since Reagan, we'd be sitting on a healthy surplus right now. And don't give me the GOP canard about the richest 5% paying 30% of all taxes. They do, but they make over 50% of all wealth.
And Social Security - just eliminate the income cap, now about %105,000 a year, and make the rich pay SS taxes on all their income, and, viola, no more financing problem as far as the eye can see. Economist have extrapolated out 75 years and no deficts were found.
It's just not true that the wealthy don't have enough wealth. It's just that they have too much political power with the current Congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
February 12, 2010 3:04 AM in reply to Silence
This isn't termites or rot. This was shoddy (and deliberate) borrow-and-spend construction.
So-called 'conservative' 'big govt off our backs' design.
I don't hire back shoddy workmen to fix something they built wrong the first time. Do you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 7:32 PM in reply to Silence
Standing up for the wealthy's right to keep and spend their money how they see fit while simultaneously expressing outrage that Michelle Obama chose to spend her own money for some expensive shoes.
Ironic? Hypocrite? Asswipe? Hater?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
February 11, 2010 7:46 PM in reply to FreeRider
She can spend her money anyway she likes. Although, I do find it odd that one would wear such apparel to a soup kitchen.
The word "disconnected" comes to mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 8:05 PM in reply to Silence
Your disconnect comes because you can't imagine any wealthy Republican GOING TO a soup kitchen in the first place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
February 11, 2010 7:34 PM in reply to Silence
Go ahead...take away every government assistance program and let everyone keep every penny they make.
All the walls you could build with that 250k+ annual salary wouldn't be enough to keep out the plebs.
I'm not saying it's right, but it's the truth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
February 11, 2010 7:43 PM in reply to Forrest
What will happen to the plebs when there is no one left to rob?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustbunny44
February 11, 2010 7:59 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
bring back the 90% tax rate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
February 11, 2010 8:10 PM in reply to dustbunny44
Good Gawd. You're proposing slavery to solve the problem? lol
And, what will you do with the slaves when they fail to produce?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustbunny44
February 11, 2010 8:39 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
bring back the 90% tax rate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 11, 2010 7:00 PM in reply to Silence
Ok, two wars and a big tax cut for the wealthy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IndyLinda
February 11, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to Silence
Yet somehow, in spite of claiming to stand for fiscal responsibility, the GOP can always get excited about tax cuts. Why is that? Could it be they're just speaking for a bunch of rich people who don't want to pay taxes, rather than actually caring about balancing the budget?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve Vokers
February 11, 2010 6:37 PM
Fer crying out loud, it's a JOBS bill, and we're in the middle of a period of high unemployment. The Dems should craft the package they want and dare the Republicans to vote against it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
February 11, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to Steve Vokers
Absolutely; if you can't get anything passed cloture, start padding the list of popular legislation Republicans scuttled. We need a whole series of simple, easy to understand fixes to important problems that the Republicans won't let come to an up-or-down vote.
It's the only reason I like the health care summit; I kind of figured Republicans would chicken out, and now we have a perfect comeback every time they whine about not doing everything in a "bi-partisan" and public way; they were invited to participate in a public forum and wimped out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
follow the money
February 11, 2010 6:40 PM
Jobs and the GOP...
"George Will Displays Core GOP Value: Cheap, Disposable Labor"
susie madrak/crooks and liars.com
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/george-will-displays-core-gop-value-c
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ottis
February 11, 2010 6:47 PM
Why do they need to go on vacation next week? Not because they have accomplished anything so far this year. I don't get it. Millions of people without jobs and the bums have to go on vacation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
neesy08
February 11, 2010 6:49 PM
baucus and grassley? you have GOT to be kidding
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dougom
February 11, 2010 6:50 PM
Baucus shouldn't be allowed to run a vacuum cleaner, let alone a powerful committee. Can somebody please stuff a sock in that guys mouth, zip his hands together, and stick him in a closet until, say, June or so? Please?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
February 11, 2010 6:55 PM
I'm glad that Baucus really knows how to negotiate from a position of strength.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
February 11, 2010 7:19 PM
how many times is charlie brown going to let lucy hold that ball? if what supposedly divides this country is more to do with education; then how is we have elected such stupid democrats?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jim43
February 11, 2010 7:37 PM
Wonder if there will be White House pushback on Reid's decision given that the president approved the Baucus/Grassley and cheered it as a bipartisan victory. Will Reid get iced out?
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
February 11, 2010 7:49 PM in reply to jim43
I hope not. It will be a really sad indictment of Obama if he makes Harry Reid look courageous and strong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
February 11, 2010 10:34 PM in reply to jim43
Harry Reid and Pelosi are O's biggest allies in Congress. Any moron would know not to stab them in the back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thepeoplechoose
February 11, 2010 7:55 PM
It just isn't realistic to have these things in the hands of someone like Baucus or any other senator from such a small state representing so few citizens who is subject to outside pressure for campaign dollars. We got a real good close up view with HCR of how that works and it clearly stinks. In fact, what we got was still another perspective of how seriously broken campaign finace is. Of all the things that are broken in this country, that one thing is more in need of fixing than nay other.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dawn
February 11, 2010 8:14 PM
One thing missing from Harry's announced "streamlined" plan is extension of unemployment benefits for those about to lose them at the end of the month. I don't know the exact number but there are quite a few who will lose their benefits and not be eligible for the extension signed in December because of the date of their intial claim (the first 6 month threshold).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
February 11, 2010 8:25 PM
Is everyone enjoying the show?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aikbay
February 11, 2010 9:00 PM
Okay, WTF is wrong with the Dem. message machine or is this on purpose? Why is the WH out there praising the Bupkus/Grassfed bill and then Reid comes in and tells them rightly to FOAD?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
amber
February 11, 2010 9:18 PM
Free Rider:
1 cup Ironic
1 cup Hypocrite
1 cup Asswipe
1 cup Hater
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 11, 2010 9:41 PM in reply to amber
Amber:
4 cups Dumbass MoFo--Straight Up, No Chaser.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moindie
February 11, 2010 10:00 PM
So what parts of this bill were the liberal dems against? The only thing mentioned was the estate tax (one tax which I would really love to see removed), but if their only opposistion is that it isn't exactly what they wanted, then get over it. The vast majority of ideas and things in this bill came from Dems anyways.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
February 12, 2010 1:05 AM in reply to Moindie
Are you planning on inheriting millions anytime soon? Then why the fucking hell would you wish to further burden middle class and working class taxpayers with a BIGGER tax bill to give a big fat freebie to millionaires? When the super rich do not pay taxes who do you think pays more to make up the difference? How god damn stupid do you think we all are? The super rich are accumulating wealth at a rate never before seen in history and everyone else is standing still or sinking like a rock. This is the underlying problem of all the economic misery in this country and the biggest obstacle to getting this country moving into the future.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moindie
February 12, 2010 8:46 AM in reply to hollywood
The estate tax will be one of the toughest challenges I face as a young farmer when my father passes on. Many small businesses like farms, are assest rich and cash poor. Between the value of farmland and the equipment necessary to raise crops and livestock, it doesn't take a very big operation to eclipse the threshhold and instantly run a very large tax bill. Suddenly the heir is faced with a tax bill that the only way they can pay is by liquidating assests and poof, the ability to continue on with the family business is gone.
The smaller operator, like me, gets swallowed up by a larger operator who has the capital available to expand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 12, 2010 10:29 AM in reply to hollywood
Amen!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 12, 2010 1:41 AM in reply to Moindie
It's not for nothing that we refer to it as the Paris Hilton tax. Why are the Republicans tacking it onto a JOBS bill? Could it be their idea is to make it unpalatable to Dems?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
February 11, 2010 10:10 PM
"Looks like Baucus was willing to give them far too much."
Only Reid and Obama couldn't or, more likely, wouldn't see this coming.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chitowner
February 12, 2010 5:22 AM
Well, Harry, could've told you that was going to happen. The health care debacle should have shown you that 'bend over' Baucus gives the store away before the doors even open. He's a tool - and you were a fool to give this to him in the first place. Good luck in November, Mr. Mumbles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tduff
February 12, 2010 8:37 AM
So instead of a jobs bill, we get a smaller package that will do nothing. What has this Congress done well?
http://randomthoughtstd.blogspot.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pmb50
February 12, 2010 10:21 AM
Shocking. Obama seems doomed to repeat the same mistakes hoping for better outcomes. Baucus gave us a shit healthcare bill and now an even worse jobs bills. I wouldn’t put Baucus in charge of wiping his own ass
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 12, 2010 10:23 AM
The latest b/s - This was on The Hill website
Drudge Report
By Tony Romm - 02/12/10 07:56 AM ET
Drudge links to an AP story that explains why Senate Democratic leaders rejected a bipartisan jobs bill compromise between Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Conn.) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The original bill had won support from across the political spectrum, from President Barack Obama as well as conservative Republicans in the Senate, offering the promise of a rare bipartisan package in a Congress that has been gripped by partisan fights," the AP reported. "To get that support, however, the package had morphed into a 361-page grab bag of provisions that included extending benefits to the unemployed and tax breaks for businesses."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 8:09 PM
Here's the thing, while we've all been (rightfully) griping about killing the Filibuster, Cloture votes and holds...there's another rule I think should be thrown out the window, Senate Seniority.
The reason Max Baucus is chair of the Finance Committee has nothing to do with his legislative skill (lacking) or his management skill (mega-lacking), or his ability to reach out to Republicans (child, please!), it has to do with the fact that he's been on the Committee the longest, therefore it's his turn.
Well, good fer you, Max. Let's see what longevity allows you to screw up next. I can hardly wait.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?