Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Will Obama’s Jobs Bill Get Even 50 Votes in the Senate?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has already gone to great lengths to prevent a vote on President Obama’s jobs package in its original form. However, even now that Reid has amendment the bill to include a $5.6 percent “millionaire’s surtax” to cover its $450 billion price tag, it’s looking like Democrats won’t even be able to muster a simply majority in support.

The Senate will vote this evening on the amended package. With all 47 Republicans planning to oppose the measure, Senate Democrats are scrambling to avoid an embarrassing outcome. Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) said Monday that he could lose up to four Democrats, which would amount to a 49 to 51 defeat for the legislation that Obama has repeatedly chastised Republicans for refusing to pass. 

Sens. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.), Joe Manchin (D., W. Va.), and Jon Tester (D., Mont.), all of whom represent conservative states and are facing difficult reelections in 2012, are likely to vote no. Furthermore, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.), a supporter of the bill, has announced a scheduling conflict and may miss the vote. She is scheduled to be in Boston today to receive the “New Englander of the Year” award from a regional business council.

Shaheen’s spokesman said the senator is prepared to return to Washington “if her vote is needed for passage.” But given the 60-vote threshold to end a Republican filibuster, passage is out of the question. It is simply a matter of Democrats and the president hoping to suffer the least amount of political embarrassment before they can immediately begin to blame Republicans for being obstructionists.

UPDATE: The White House is in full spin mode:

“The test is not unanimous support among Democrats,” a senior White House official told reporters Tuesday morning, noting that rarely does the entire Democratic caucus vote in lockstep on any bill.

The focus, the official said, should be on Republicans’ unanimous opposition to the jobs bill — even though they have failed to present an alternative that would create jobs immediately.

“They’re a party in unanimity — voting against things that in normal times” would be considered popular and bipartisan such as extending the payroll tax relief and rebuilding aging roads and bridges, the official said.

“There’s a bigger picture here…,” the official continued. “You’re obsessing about whether we’re going to get 50 or 51.”

More here.

UPDATE II: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I., Ct.) just announced on the Senate floor that while he plans to vote for cloture on the president’s jobs bill, but would vote against final passage.

UPDATE III: Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.), citing objections over the millionaires’ surtax as well as the timing of the bill, said he would be voting no on cloture. Assuming Sen. Shaheen does not cancel her award ceremony, that means we’re now looking at a ceiling of 48 votes for the president’s jobs bill.

UPDATE IV: Webb’s office clarifies, says the senator will vote yes on cloture, but “cannot support final passage of the bill in its current form.”

UPDATE V: The Senate will hold the vote open for Sen. Shaheen, who will return to Washington to support the bill.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   25

EXPAND  

   10/11/11 13:16

I wonder if Reid will nuke the rules again to avoid (another) embarrassment.

OWS was put together as part of Obama's re-election charade. Just like the "jobs bill". If the bill goes down, can the phony protests be far behind?

Obama & Co. have bet the farm on this juvenile and obvious strategy. Where do they go if it fails?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
shilenda
   10/11/11 13:16

So if even all 53 Dems voted for this, they still need 7 republican votes for it to pass. How are the Republicans not being obstructionist?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 13:51

if all 53 dems vote for it ... which is not going to happen ...

obstructing this bill is actually what America wants ...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Bruce Berger
   10/11/11 14:11

Shilenda,

How about the Dems in the Senate not passsing the House-passed budget? Aren't the Dems being obstructionist?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Wbruce
   10/11/11 15:16

Don't bother with rational explanations like that. They'll just make her head explode ...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
torlan
   10/11/11 15:20

no. you need 60 votes to break a filibuster. If the Republicans let it come to a vote it can pass with 50 plus VP.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 NK
   10/11/11 13:20

Barry O = EPIC FAIL. We are stuck with this con man for 15 more months.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 13:22

If all 47 GOP Senators vote against it, and all but 4 Dem Senators vote for it, rest assured that the Dems and their cheerleaders in the media will still blame the GOP for its defeat.

In fact, that's probably why the vote has been scheduled in the first place. So, be prepared. And unsurprised.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Will_Collier
   10/11/11 13:26

Pardon me if this is a dumb fly-over country question, but if Reed doesn't even have a simple majority for this joke of a bill, why would McConnell even bother filibustering it? The GOP ought to vote for cloture and force the thing to a vote. If it fails, huge egg on Obama's face. If it passes, it'd dead anyway thanks to the House, and all those vulnerable Dem senators will have a poison-pill vote on their records.

What's not to love?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 13:46

You are exactly right, and this is why Democrats are so very angry with Obama. This "jobs bill" thing was concocted as part of Obama's re-election strategery. The bill is as incoherent as a sober OWS protester, and does not even bother to consider the downsteam affects on Congress in the 2012 elections.

All of this so Obama can "run" against a "do nothing" Congress. For all the trouble he has gone through, he could have sent nothing to the Senate, and still railed against a "do nothing" Congress. Now, he gets to run against a "do nothing" Congress while simultaneously taking 4-5 (D) Senators down in flames with him.

The man is a strategic dunce.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 16:03

hokkoda --

"The bill is as incoherent as a sober OWS protester . . ."

Once again, you prove yourself the class of The Corner. Another simile for the books. Thanks!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 23:44

thanks! I appreciate it.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 13:29

Ah yes, the plan is falling into place!

First, the "partisan gimme" bill will die in congress, despite all the hard work Obama has been doing to be reasonable & moderate & bipartisan (this apparently involves rallying Democrat voters in swing states, but not speaking with Republicans in congress.)

Next, the media will carry Obama's water by pretending this actually was 1) a bipartisan bill, that would 2) actually create jobs, and 3) it was surely going to pass until Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and Koch Brothers unleashed dark powers from beyond the grave to stop it on behalf of their 1% billionaire friends and Haliburton.

Finally, the Republicans will nominate Rick Perry to play the role of "George Bush III" (and for insurance Ron Paul will be enlisted to run as "Ross Perot II"). Thus Obama's reelection strategy will be complete.

It only requires magical luck, wishful thinking, and the utter stupidity of 51% of American voters!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Keith Yount
   10/11/11 13:47

Is this bill constitutional? How can Harry Reid add more new money to this bill? A bill dealing with money needs to start in the House of Representatives. This new bill has never been through the House. It is unconstitutional.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 19:33

I was thinking the same thing, the Senate can't originate a tax. There isn't even a grey area here, this is flat unconstitutional.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 Tom
   10/11/11 14:05

If it includes taxes, raising revenue, why is it being voted on in the Senate at all?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 16:08

--Because they don't care. They overrule the Senate Parliamentarian if the going gets sticky. Can't do that in the House.

--Remember how the Republicans were told to ride in the backseat?

--Harken back to Christmas eve and the passage of Obamacare.

Now ask yourself that question again.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Philster
   10/11/11 14:13

If it's got less than 50 votes, it might make sense NOT to filibuster it. Let it come up for a vote and fail. Then let the Senate Dems take the blame (or credit, for those Dems seeking re-election.) We know it's not going to pass the House, and we know Obama is going to blame Republicans no matter what.

So I say have a vote and let it fail.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 14:19

As usual, Obama and the Democrats claim that unless the Republicans back whatever the Dems are offering at the moment, then the Repubs aren't "doing anything".

It doesn't matter how many plans the Repubs propose, if they get killed by the Dems, then the plan didn't exist.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   10/11/11 14:29

Wait a second. Haven't we been hearing for months that bipartisanship is a good thing? There is bipartisan opposition to both Obama's original bill and to the Reid version, and there is not bipartisan support for either. So isn't this what the President has been asking for - something that can "cross the aisle" to unite the parties?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact