Bruce… presuming that article is correct, and not biased, there may actually be some good reasons to say no to the bill. The below excerpts made me think that Reid might have had a pretty honest reason.
“Reid, D-Nev., put forward the pared-back plan after Senate Democrats balked at a broader bill stuffed with unrelated provisions sought by lobbyists for business groups and doctors. ”
” 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.”
“The bigger bill got a decidedly mixed reception at a luncheon meeting of Democrats, many of whom were uncomfortable with supporting a bill containing so many provisions unrelated to creating jobs, including loans for chicken producers and aid to catfish farmers.
The provisions also included a $31 billion package of tax breaks for individuals and businesses, an extension of several parts of the USA Patriot Act and higher payments for doctors facing Medicare payment cuts.”
And:
“The centerpiece of Reid’s new bill is a $13 billion payroll tax credit for companies that hire unemployed workers. The idea, by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would exempt businesses hiring unemployed workers in 2010 from the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax for those hires.”
So basically the original bill is laden with goodies for everyone - full of the pork everyone so ardently opposes (when it’s OTHER states getting them). It included things as related to job creation as the Patriot act. Gee whiz, who would oppose that? The centerpiece of the Reid bill - tax credits for companis hiring unemployed workers - is pretty much the same as the old one.
So basically Reid’s staff, from what I can tell, shaved the bill of a bucketful of pork (about which politicians on both sides, especially the GOP, complain), and now the GOP complains it’s not bipartisan enough.
Bruce… presuming that article is correct, and not biased, there may actually be some good reasons to say no to the bill. The below excerpts made me think that Reid might have had a pretty honest reason.
“Reid, D-Nev., put forward the pared-back plan after Senate Democrats balked at a broader bill stuffed with unrelated provisions sought by lobbyists for business groups and doctors. ”
” 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.”
“The bigger bill got a decidedly mixed reception at a luncheon meeting of Democrats, many of whom were uncomfortable with supporting a bill containing so many provisions unrelated to creating jobs, including loans for chicken producers and aid to catfish farmers.
The provisions also included a $31 billion package of tax breaks for individuals and businesses, an extension of several parts of the USA Patriot Act and higher payments for doctors facing Medicare payment cuts.”
And:
“The centerpiece of Reid’s new bill is a $13 billion payroll tax credit for companies that hire unemployed workers. The idea, by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would exempt businesses hiring unemployed workers in 2010 from the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax for those hires.”
So basically the original bill is laden with goodies for everyone - full of the pork everyone so ardently opposes (when it’s OTHER states getting them). It included things as related to job creation as the Patriot act. Gee whiz, who would oppose that? The centerpiece of the Reid bill - tax credits for companis hiring unemployed workers - is pretty much the same as the old one.
So basically Reid’s staff, from what I can tell, shaved the bill of a bucketful of pork (about which politicians on both sides, especially the GOP, complain), and now the GOP complains it’s not bipartisan enough.
Ironic, isn’t it?