After bipartisan rejection of Obama’s latest stimulus, what’s next?

Look on the bright side, Mr. President: At least this time the defeat wasn’t 97-0.

From the Hill:

President Obama received a slap from members of his own party Tuesday as the Senate voted 50-49 to block his $447 billion jobs package.

The jobs plan, which the president has spent much of the last month touting on a cross-country tour, fell well short of the 60 votes it needed to proceed.

The only Democrats to vote against the measure were Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Jon Tester (Mont.), but a number of other centrists in the party indicated they would vote against the package even though they supported launching a debate on the measure.

So, President Obama’s latest stimulus couldn’t even win the support of all Senate Democrats. But don’t worry: The White House no doubt will pin the blame on “obstructionist Republicans.” How inconvenient for them that the GOP-led House didn’t vote it down first.

Now that we’ve dispensed with the political theater of Obama proposing a bill designed chiefly to fire up his base, only to be quickly rejected by Congress, perhaps the debate in Washington can become more substantive.

…And now that you’ve stopped laughing…

To begin, we’ll see how the president and Senate react if/when House members pass those elements of Obama’s bill with which they agree.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

144 comments Add your comment

Tommy Maddox

October 12th, 2011
11:30 am

It was always a tax bill, not a jobs bill.

Don't Tread

October 12th, 2011
11:43 am

Obama has already blamed it on “obstructionist Republicans”, and his base is already eating it up like it’s a Hosea Williams dinner for the homeless.

I’m sure glad the Democrats got their butts handed to them in the last election – who knows what would have passed since then.

CJ

October 12th, 2011
11:53 am

Bi-partisan rejection. I guess that’s factually correct. But it’s worth noting again that the majority of Senators voted yes to move the bill forward. So, yet again, as a result of the abuse of the filibuster, we have a U.S. Senate in which the side that gets the fewest votes is the side that wins. Republicans voted unanimously to block this legislation. All but two Democratic senators voted for it.

So it comes down to this: Senate Republicans, in the midst of a jobs crisis and intense public demand for congressional action, killed a credible jobs bill for no apparent reason. Most Americans support the American Jobs Act’s provisions; it enjoys strong support from economists and business leaders; it includes ideas from both parties; and the CBO found it will even lower the deficit over the next decade.

Kyle Wingfield

October 12th, 2011
11:56 am

CJ: Or maybe their reason for killing the bill was that, in their view, it was not credible.

Kyle Wingfield

October 12th, 2011
12:02 pm

As for the filibuster: Remember, it was to avoid bringing this bill up for a vote last week that Harry Reid and a majority of Dems changed the Senate rules. So, they changed the rules to avoid voting on the bill when they didn’t want to, but not to ensure a vote on the bill when they supposedly did want to.

And you think this is all about Republican machinations?

HDB

October 12th, 2011
12:06 pm

The problem I see is that the GOP wants a SUPERmajority in order for any legislation to pass in the Senate….rather than a SIMPLE majority…which is called for constitutionally!! More action cold have occurrend if this supermajority wasn’t forced upon tha American public!!

CJ

October 12th, 2011
12:07 pm

RE: “…the Senate voted 50-49 to block [President Obama's] $447 billion jobs package…

I don’t think it’s clear from the excerpt above or from the rest of Kyle’s piece, so again, it’s worth highlighting the fact that the 50 votes were FOR the jobs bill (technically, for proceeding with debate on the jobs bill) and the 49 votes were against the jobs bill.

When Kyle reports that the bill was defeated, it was defeated by receiving a minority of the votes–an indication that, given the abuse of the filibuster, the U.S. Senate is dysfunctional.

Also, when The Hill reports that “President Obama received a slap from members of his own party”, they’re talking about 2 out of 52. Nevertheless, 96 percent of Democratic Senators voted FOR the bill and votes for the bill received more votes than votes against. Yet, somehow it was “defeated.” Strange times we live in.

Kyle Wingfield

October 12th, 2011
12:11 pm

Your “technicality” about the motion being procedural undermines your whole argument, CJ. As the story stated, there were fewer Democrats prepared to vote for the bill than there were to proceed to a vote. So, there apparently was not a majority in favor of the bill.

CJ

October 12th, 2011
12:14 pm

Kyle,

If you’re suggesting that the Democrats change the rules to eliminate or, at least, strictly limit the use of the filibuster, then we’re both on the same side. To be sure, if and when Republicans retake the Senate, that’s exactly what they’re going to do anyway. They won’t put up with minority Dems blocking up-and-down votes on their legislation and/or such vote on appointees of a Republican president–not at the same rate that they blocked up-and-down votes on Democratic-supported legislation and appointees of a Democratic president. When Democrats are in charge, its about protecting the rights of the minority. When Republicans are in charge, its about honoring the constitution and the will of the people.

Kyle Wingfield

October 12th, 2011
12:19 pm

No, CJ, that’s not what I’m suggesting at all. As is often the case, you’ve deliberately twisted or misinterpreted my words to try to bolster your case.

My point was that Senate Democrats have gone to great lengths not to pass Obama’s bill — and, now, to blame Republicans for it.

saywhat?

October 12th, 2011
12:20 pm

Prediction:If Republicans ever win the Senate in the near future (next 2-4 years) and especially if they win the presidency in 2012 (A really big if), and if Democrats vote en masse against all Republican sponsored legislation a la current Republicans, the Republicans will change Senate rules regarding the filibuster so as to require only a simple majority vote for all procedures/legislation they want passed.

saywhat?

October 12th, 2011
12:22 pm

CJ beat me to my prediction- CURSE MY SLOW TYPING!!!!!!

CJ

October 12th, 2011
12:23 pm

Kyle @12:11,

My argument hasn’t been undermined. The fact is, that with this filibuster, the side that got the least number of votes won…again. Full stop.

We’ll never know whether there was a majority in favor of the actual legislation, of course, since debate on the bill was blocked with this filibuster (as I recall, you recently argued that the filibuster was necessary to extend debate in the Senate–in this case, the filibuster accomplished the opposite). Recall that just yesterday, much of the media was reporting that support for even proceeding wouldn’t get a majority either. Those reports were wrong.

CJ

October 12th, 2011
12:28 pm

Kyle @12:19. I did deliberately misinterpret your words, but I did so to be sarcastic. Sorry.

Junior Samples

October 12th, 2011
12:29 pm

Yes, because trickle down has worked in the past, right? Isn’t that the House GOP plan? Tax cuts for the higher earners, hoping that alone will spur demand for more jobs? Or will the higher earners bring back the jobs they outsourced overseas? Better yet… the higher earners will just toss their new gains from the tax cuts out from the window onto the masses?

Is that the House GOP plan?

hsn

October 12th, 2011
12:34 pm

It wasn’t a “bipartisan rejection” of the bill. Change the title of your entry. It is irresponsible and you know it! 2 out of 52 ???

What the Republikans are doing in the Congress and to this country is unconscionable!

Junior Samples

October 12th, 2011
12:36 pm

hsn, stop bringing simple math into the conversation. It doesn’t fit the narrative.

@@

October 12th, 2011
12:37 pm

The Senate confirmed something last night that most people in Washington already knew:

President Obama’s $447 billion jobs bill won’t pass Congress, at least not in its current form.

But the bill is certainly not dead politically. Obama pledged to bring it back up piece-by-piece in the weeks ahead — presumably rolling right into the election year of 2012.

Presumably!!??!! Howz’bout definitely. It’s been his game plan all along. Toss his lapdogs a bone here…a bone there…just enough to keep ‘em scramblin’ for change.

Does Chris Matthews’ leg still tingle at the mere thought of a bone?

schnirt

SBinF

October 12th, 2011
12:39 pm

What next?

I assume the GOP will continue to vote no and disagree with anything the president suggests. After all, they have admitted that their top priority is ensuring that Obama is a one term president. I’m sure that is quite settling for the millions of unemployed folk out there.

resno2

October 12th, 2011
12:42 pm

After the bridges are rebuilt, what will happen to the jobs this bill would have created? Will they go the way of the census takers?

Kyle Wingfield

October 12th, 2011
12:49 pm

hsn: That’s infinitely more bipartisan than was support for the bill.

Stevie Ray

October 12th, 2011
12:53 pm

Kyle,

Like Wall Streets history of hedging political contributions (generally balanced equally between parties), Congress is betting that the sole purpose of being, getting re-elected, is better if not attached to more ridiculously wasteful spending that can’t be justified objectively (say the publication of 3,000,000 new or “saved” W-2’s…

resno2

October 12th, 2011
12:57 pm

with all of the wasted taxpayer money wasted on ‘Green Jobs’ recently by the obama administration, isn’t it even the least bit conceivable that he is wrong about what this 4oo+ billion will do?

Stevie Ray

October 12th, 2011
12:58 pm

HSN, why not find another way to form your opinions that falling into the “information-based bias” herd? Research the delta between what portion the top 1% paid in total taxes versus the next 95% in 1897 versus 2007. If you take time to research both positions without simply listening to that data that supports your idealogical positions, you may be in position to post something that isn’t more of the same. For example, the Democrats in the minority didn’t need to vote against the stimulus since they knew the republicans plus 2 already committed to nay. Are you naive enough to think this is fortuitous? It’s all about re-election baby!

Stevie Ray

October 12th, 2011
12:59 pm

Correction HSN, compare the total tax collected in the 20 years between 1987 (not 1897 which may be interesting as well) versus 2007.

Stevie Ray

October 12th, 2011
1:03 pm

Resno2, I’m confused as to why the first (worthless) stimulus didn’t address infrastructure spending…if not, given the time it takes to plow thru regulatory tape (3 to 5 years minimum)now we’ve pushed back any traction by a couple years….don’t you also wonder what credibility the feds have in actually accounting for inflows and outflows in the trillions? I know they can count that high but can they accurately account that high. Like you posts.

resno2

October 12th, 2011
1:15 pm

the feds and credibility is an oxymoron

Junior Samples

October 12th, 2011
1:15 pm

No wait, it’s those evil regulations that are preventing the higher earners from hiring more people. You know, the regulations that allow us to breathe air instead of smog. Or those ones that prevent us from fouling our waterways with spilled oil. When was the last time anyone bought seafood from our Gulf? Not to mention how many jobs were lost in the fishing industries. So let’s start drilling! Our higher earners are waiting!

Is that the House GOP plan?

Rafe Hollister

October 12th, 2011
1:17 pm

We probably would not have half the problems we have if not for the Dems using the filibuster to block bills during the Bush/Lott/Hastert days. Daschle was the filibuster king. Quit your whinning it works both ways.

@@

October 12th, 2011
1:18 pm

Off-topic!

I’m beginning to think that Ron Paul’s perpetual candidacy is his attempt to gain extended vacation, not to mention, youthful adulation.

Sad to say, I’m in agreement with most of what he says. Most, not all. The fact remains he’s served 10 terms in Congress with little to show for it. I’m glad he’s decided not to seek re-election. He deserves a rest.

In last night’s debate he accused Cain of referring to those who seek an audit of the Fed as loons or some such. Everything I’ve seen showed no such evidence. Cain has said he doesn’t know what advocates seek to gain but they’re welcome to go for it. Cain doesn’t think a commission is necessary…Congress should do so with Paul leading the way.

Paul’s becoming a bit thin-skinned…humorless

I’m thinkin’ a lot of folks don’t get Cain’s sarcastic deliveries.

I saw where ragnar danneskjold used the phrase “panties in a wad”. Made me laugh. It’s so unlike ragnar. He (ragnar) shares Cain’s scathing wit.

joe

October 12th, 2011
1:25 pm

stimulus, bailouts, entitlements should be added to George Karlin’s 7 dirty words you can’t say on TV. Only these 3 are the worst ones…

I remember when...

October 12th, 2011
1:25 pm

Ah, the Bush/Lott/Hastert days. Is that what we’re reduced to pining for, the B/L/H days? Wow. That’s sad. We really have sunk to a new low.
Tommy Maddox is right, it was a tax bill to a large extent. But isn’t that supposed to be the cure-all for this economy, according to the GOP? Lower taxes and get out of the way. Who could be against the sound logic of this argument? Actually, it’s the people who have been making the argument who are against it. Obama could have proposed a bill that would pay each American $10K out of his own pocket and they would voted against it.

UGA 1999

October 12th, 2011
1:29 pm

What’s next??? FIRE HIM!

resno2

October 12th, 2011
1:30 pm

“Obama could have proposed a bill that would pay each American $10K out of his own pocket and they would voted against it.”

It would be just another stupid scheme of his, so of course they would have voted against it. But remember, he would have only conceived that idea right before an election.

carlosgvv

October 12th, 2011
1:33 pm

It would be interesting to know just what those Democrats who voted against this bill think Obama should do. Or, do they have some agenda which mandates they vote against EVERY job bill he submits?

WditW

October 12th, 2011
1:36 pm

Republicans are holding out on principles. Obama’s holding out for re-election.

UGA 1999

October 12th, 2011
1:43 pm

Carlos…you do realize you are talking about Obama’s democrats right? This should tell you and Obama just how far out of touch he really is.

Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!

October 12th, 2011
1:54 pm

I don’t usually watch Fox & Friends in the a.m., but Mika B. was being unusually whiny today on Morning Joe. Thus, I got to watch Steve Doocy eviscerate Debbie Wasserman-Schultz with a simple question.

Why didn’t Obama consult even once with House and Senate Republican leaders before, during or after his speech on this jobs bill to see which parts were acceptable to them and which weren’t?

Proves that this was a political exercise from the very beginning. Create something you know won’t pass, and blame the other side when it doesn’t. You can claim all day long that the GOP is playing politics, but if you don’t do the same for the Dems and this President, you’re only telling half the story.

Dusty

October 12th, 2011
1:59 pm

Dear liberals,

Now please listen, children.

The USA has a huge debt in the trillions. Republicans do not want more TRILLIONS added in the name of stimulus. Such borrowed money creates nothing but more debt and little or no jobs.

Remember now: with a huge debt, NO MORE SPENDING. If you want a stimulus, give yourself a pinch. That is the only kind we can afford at this time. Even most of congress know it. And…. no sneaking it in later! We, the citizens, are watching.

UGA 1999

October 12th, 2011
2:00 pm

Warren Buffett made $62million last year. Good for him, great job!

Politi Cal

October 12th, 2011
2:09 pm

The Senate has 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans, and the vote was 50 to 49. Betcha the Reps get all the blame and the Dems none. Wanna’ bet?

UGA 1999

October 12th, 2011
2:13 pm

Politi Cal….I agree.

Intown

October 12th, 2011
2:13 pm

We need a new Congress that is back in the hands of adult leaders. Sweep out the rightwing nutjobs!

Also: Favorite soundbyte from Republic Presidential Debate comes from Michele Bachmann: “When you take the 999 plan & turn it upside down…the devil’s in the details” What?! There is so much wrong with not only this statement but, the silly plan it intends to criticize I’m not sure where to begin (hopefully Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert will help). I’m also not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Unfortunately, I think she is so stupid that she actually makes Cain seem more credible and intellectually robust. Good lord!

UGA 1999

October 12th, 2011
2:16 pm

Intown…..”makes Cain seem more credible and intellectually robust” you mean kind of like Obama?

Truth Squad

October 12th, 2011
2:16 pm

What this demonstrates is that the Republicans, along with two spineless Democrats, do not yet get the gravity of the jobs crisis.

The items in the American Jobs Act are all quite popular with Democrats and Republicans polled. President Obama’s numbers have been slowly creeping up. As long as he continues to fight the good fight against the Republicans and the spineless in his party on behalf of those hit hard by the economy, he will win. Playing obstructionist might have worked in 2010, but it will not work in 2012.

Watching the Republican debate last night, it is very hard to see any of those out of touch people winning the presidency. When Mitt “Multiple Choice” Romney is the great hope for victory, you are in trouble and the Republicans know it and that is why they’re still looking for someone better.

In the end, President Obama’s American Jobs Act was but a mere step in the right direction. He too is scared to tell the people the truth which is that it is going to take a lot more money, which means more revenue and larger short-term deficits in order to stimulate demand, address underwater mortgages, and fully address the infrastructure needs that are all necessary to bring unemployment down over the next few years. Lucky for him that the other side can only offer something called “9-9-9″ or some slick 59-point plan that apparently can’t be explained or reduced to a bumper sticker.

wallbanger

October 12th, 2011
2:18 pm

It is nice to know that at least a couple of Democrats can learn something from the first failed stimulus bill. This kind of government give away just doesn’t work to create jobs. They would do better to tackle the myriad of new gov’t regulations and anticipated costs for healthcare and the like that are causing business to hunker down and not invest.

Junior Samples

October 12th, 2011
2:20 pm

Dear Dusty,

Does NO MORE SPENDING include the military? Can we finally bring our troops home?

DixieDemons

October 12th, 2011
2:21 pm

Stop trying to prop up this house of cards called America. Let EVERYTHING go and then we may be able to rebuild with common sense and integrity. If that does not work they are always hiring in China and they have a functional guest worker program. This is class warfare …. the haves vs the have nots …every man for himself

Fast and Furious Spending

October 12th, 2011
2:22 pm

Truth Squad,

“What this demonstrates is that the Republicans, along with two spineless Democrats, do not yet get the gravity of the jobs crisis…………..He too is scared to tell the people the truth which is that it is going to take a lot more money, which means more revenue and larger short-term deficits in order to stimulate demand, address underwater mortgages, and fully address the infrastructure needs that are all necessary to bring unemployment down over the next few years.

LoL…..

Sorry….

Still can’t function after reading that passage.

LoL…

UGA 1999

October 12th, 2011
2:22 pm

Truth Squad…”two spineless democrats”….you must be talking about Obama and Pelosi, but what about Reid?