So, what's going to happen with the jobs bill?

[Drunken Irishman]

This isn't what you want to happen, but what actually will happen.

Does it have a prayer of passing the House? If it doesn't, what's the next step?

[There Is No Spoon]

Congressional process expert Lawrence O'Donnell just explained it about as good as it can be explained.

1. The different parts of the bill are covered by different committees, so it would take a lot of cooperation by Republicans to keep it together. Yes, this is highly unlikely and yes, the Obama administration knew this going in.

2. The Senate passing a bill to put pressure on the House has little meaning since the House MUST by Constitutional mandate initiate all bills involving taxes/revenues.

So, he claims that it will quickly change from "pass the bill" to "pass the rest of this bill" after the first major part of the bill is passed - likely the payroll tax cut. This is as it was planned anyway according to L O'D.

[RoyGBiv]

(09-13-2011 06:55 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  So, he claims that it will quickly change from "pass the bill" to "pass the rest of this bill" after the first major part of the bill is passed - likely the payroll tax cut. This is as it was planned anyway according to L O'D.

I've read commentary elsewhere that is generally in line with this.

One emerging theme seems to be that the Obama administration has decided than in order to get one thing done, they have to loudly demand 50 things packaged in such a way as to create huge public pressure.

This is not a way to run a government, but it's about all Obama has left to him when dealing with Congress at this point.

[There Is No Spoon]

(09-13-2011 07:05 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  ...

One emerging theme seems to be that the Obama administration has decided than in order to get one thing done, they have to loudly demand 50 things packaged in such a way as to create huge public pressure.

This is not a way to run a government, but it's about all Obama has left to him when dealing with Congress at this point.

I agree, but disagree. I think Obama is finally learning how to get things done with an intransigent Congress - i.e., don't ask for what you want, ask for what you want + 10 additional things. Getting what you want (and maybe a bit more) is a lot easier in this case. Of course all of his proposals were common sense and easy to argue for, so there's also the advantage of being able to point out that "Republicans favor tax cuts for the rich, versus fixing a failing bridge in their own district" (Sen. McConnell) or "Republicans would rather give oil companies a tax break than hire more teachers to educate our children for better jobs in the future".

[RoyGBiv]

(09-13-2011 07:39 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(09-13-2011 07:05 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  ...

One emerging theme seems to be that the Obama administration has decided than in order to get one thing done, they have to loudly demand 50 things packaged in such a way as to create huge public pressure.

This is not a way to run a government, but it's about all Obama has left to him when dealing with Congress at this point.

I agree, but disagree. I think Obama is finally learning how to get things done with an intransigent Congress - i.e., don't ask for what you want, ask for what you want + 10 additional things.

What's the "disagree" part? That's basically what I thought I said, and if not, it's what I meant.

[There Is No Spoon]

(09-13-2011 07:42 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(09-13-2011 07:39 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  I agree, but disagree. I think Obama is finally learning how to get things done with an intransigent Congress - i.e., don't ask for what you want, ask for what you want + 10 additional things.

What's the "disagree" part? That's basically what I thought I said, and if not, it's what I meant.

Yes, that's the part I agree with, it was more the tone and intention that was the "disagree" part. Basically your post implied a more passive approach, while I was suggesting a more active approach. But yeah, it's splitting hairs.

[RoyGBiv]

(09-13-2011 08:00 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  Yes, that's the part I agree with, it was more the tone and intention that was the "disagree" part. Basically your post implied a more passive approach, while I was suggesting a more active approach. But yeah, it's splitting hairs.

I believe that was more inferred than implied.

I'd only interpret his emerging strategy as passive in the sense that I am quite sure he would very much prefer not to have to go about things this way. He tried very hard to avoid it for quite some time.

[There Is No Spoon]

(09-13-2011 08:39 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  

(09-13-2011 08:00 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  Yes, that's the part I agree with, it was more the tone and intention that was the "disagree" part. Basically your post implied a more passive approach, while I was suggesting a more active approach. But yeah, it's splitting hairs.

I believe that was more inferred than implied.

I'd only interpret his emerging strategy as passive in the sense that I am quite sure he would very much prefer not to have to go about things this way. He tried very hard to avoid it for quite some time.

Yeah, I think his original approach was unrealistic based on today's politics and that this has been an active learning process for him, against his deep seated instinct that reasonable people will negotiate in good faith. Republicans are neither reasonable or people of good faith.

[RoyGBiv]

(09-13-2011 08:57 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(09-13-2011 08:39 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  I believe that was more inferred than implied.

I'd only interpret his emerging strategy as passive in the sense that I am quite sure he would very much prefer not to have to go about things this way. He tried very hard to avoid it for quite some time.

Yeah, I think his original approach was unrealistic based on today's politics and that this has been an active learning process for him, against his deep seated instinct that reasonable people will negotiate in good faith. Republicans are neither reasonable or people of good faith.

In his defense, it might have been reasonable to expect people in his own damn party to be a bit more accommodating in the beginning. That might have alleviated some of the need to be going to the lengths he's having to go to now.

I still wish he'd more actively use residual TARP money to establish a infrastructure bank and just flat out dare Republicans to start complaining. (Disclaimer: I have not read all the "under the hood" details of his jobs plan, so he may have in fact done just that already. I know people have been advising him to do so for some time.)