iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Jobs Bill Squeaks Through Despite Dem Defections

First Posted: 03/18/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 04:00 PM ET

House Jobs Pelosi

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) muscled a $154 billion jobs bill through the House on Wednesday evening just before Congress departed for a holiday recess. With the vote in serious doubt until seconds before it was gaveled to a close, Pelosi worked the floor furiously, imploring her caucus to stick with her and move the measure through.

The bill passed 217-212, but when the time on the clock expired, it was losing 208-212. A few minutes later, when it hit 214-213 and then 215-213, someone shouted "gavel it!" from the Democratic side. A bill doesn't need the full 218 to pass -- only a simple majority of those voting. The presiding officer took the suggestion and closed the vote.

Not a single Republican approved of the bill.

The slim margin is strong evidence that deficit hawks have momentum in the ideological battle between one camp that demands more spending on job creation and another, dominated by the GOP and Blue Dog Democrats, calling for immediate reductions in the deficit. Even the fact that the money was being redirected from Wall Street couldn't sway 38 Democrats, who voted with the Republicans.

A vote moments earlier Wednesday showed much the same thing: 39 Democrats split with their leadership on a measure to raise the debt ceiling. Lifting the debt limit is a politically un-fun vote for any member of Congress -- and one that has a habit of popping up on TV ads during campaign season -- but is necessary to continue the functioning of the government. It barely passed, 218-214.

The jobs bill would use $75 billion in money earmarked for the Wall Street bailout and redirect it to infrastructure investment and aid to states. The bill also extends the duration of the COBRA subsidy from nine months to 15 months, extends the deadline for eligibility from December 31, 2009 to June 30, 2010, extends by six months unemployment benefits that would have expired at the end of the year, and expands a child tax credit to 16 million families.

Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, worked the floor on behalf of the bill, aggressively pressuring newly elected Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who took White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's seat. Obey's legendary temper wasn't enough to sway Quigley, who voted against the bill.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), president of the freshman class, was worked over hard on the House floor by a red-faced George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the Education and Labor Committee and a close Pelosi ally. At one point, Connolly tossed his hand in the air, dismissing a Miller argument. Miller pressed Connolly, arguing that if the House doesn't preserve the unspent bailout funds now, they'll be lost for good, Connolly said later.

Pelosi tried Connolly next, energetically making her case. But he leaned forward, put his right hand on her left arm, and told her he couldn't give her his vote.

He then stepped out in to the Speaker's Lobby just off the House floor and spoke to a few reporters.

"I'm sure she's not happy," he said in an understatement. Freshman defections, as he spoke, were threatening to defeat the bill.

"I wrote the Speaker several weeks ago, along with [thirteen] other freshman, saying that at least half of the TARP money should be reserved for deficit reduction, and then we can address jobs."

Pelosi argued back that all of the bailout money that is repaid by banks goes to reduce the deficit, a point Connollly conceded but wasn't swayed by.

"Tonight, obviously a decision was made that what we're going to do is address jobs. Maybe some day we'll address the deficit. And I don't think that's the right sequence," he said, saying that both are important (a point of agreement on all sides).

HuffPost asked if Democratic freshmen are more concerned about the deficit than the jobless situation. Connolly said that the way people voted would answer the question.

Eight of the fourteen freshman who joined the Connolly letter rejected the jobs bill, along with a sizable number of other new members and Blue Dogs.

The sight of Democrats standing in opposition to spending on job creation with unemployment over 10 percent struck an angry Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, as reason to ask where the party stands. "We may have to take a reevaluation," Rangel said, "of Democrats."

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), who voted for the jobs bill, summed up the mood. "People are worried," he said.

If anybody has a right to be worried, it's Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who will take the lead in fending off a wave of angry voters, many intent on tossing his members out of office. "Clearly, taking the TARP money that would have gone to Wall Street and spending it on infrastructure for Main Street I think is an important move, but obviously we need to get right back to work when we get back here focusing on long-term debt deficit and debt reduction. That will be a priority," he told HuffPost.

The key word Van Hollen's analysis is "long-term." House leaders are pushing for more spending now, along with efforts to structure the budget so that future deficits are reduced. The GOP and vulnerable Democrats, meanwhile, want to cut spending yesterday. "You can't accomplish the fiscal stability goal if the economy doesn't turn around," Van Hollen said.

Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) echoed Van Hollen's argument. He noted that for every one-point reduction in the unemployment rate, the federal deficit is reduced by more than $200 billion due to increased tax revenue. "If we want to close the deficit, we've got to grow the economy and put people to work. And if we don't do that, nothing else we do is going to work," he said.

Connolly, the freshman leader, said that passing the bill would give fodder to political opponents -- even as it is uncertain the Senate will move on it. "Why do we want to pass a bill that seems to lend credence to critics who say, well, maybe the stimulus really isn't succeeding?" he argued.

Connolly's opposition to the spending, however, is particularly striking, because many of his Northern Virginia constituents are employed by or through the federal government itself.

"I have to represent my district. My district has five percent unemployment. My district is right here in the shadow of the nation's capital and it's filled with federal employees and people who work for federal contractors and lots of other people. And within reason they are absolutely sympathetic to the need for jobs for people in other districts who aren't so fortunate. But, remember, they're the ones being asked to foot the bill," he said -- though his constituents are also being paid from the proceeds of that bill.

"And they want to know that if we're going to be doing that, that it's balanced with prudent fiscal stewardship and with some attention to the red ink we inherited. And given the fact that that's not in tonight's bill and I asked for it two or three weeks ago, I cannot bring myself to vote for this bill. Reluctantly," he said.

Peering back into the chamber, Connolly noticed Pelosi and several aides watching him. "They're looking at me. I've gotta go."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) muscled a $154 billion jobs bill through the House on Wednesday evening just before Congress departed for a holiday recess. With the vote in serious doubt until seconds...
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) muscled a $154 billion jobs bill through the House on Wednesday evening just before Congress departed for a holiday recess. With the vote in serious doubt until seconds...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,977
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (73 total)
11:38 AM on 03/11/2010
The House members that voted against the jobs bill apparently care nothing about jobs.
Their professed goal of keeping the deficit low is only a superficial excuse.

By keeping investment from infrastructure, they show their economic myopia plainly to all;
it is only by investment in infrastructure that a nation can increase its ability to service what
debt it has and increase its ability to grow economically.

Deficits and debt can be a wonderful tool if they help increase a nations ability to reduce those
deficits and debt. Is it House members myopia, or that members do not care about Americas
economics ?
04:00 AM on 02/12/2010
MORE REASONS FOR HER TO GET THE BOOT
photo
hrc04
put on your pants and go home.
02:33 PM on 12/18/2009
Pelosi's ability to get the votes necessary is underrated.
01:23 PM on 12/18/2009
I am a progressive liberal. I say " reduce foreign aid, cut the budgets for the State Department, the Department of Defense and bring our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany and other countries. "

Use the money saved for reducing the national debt, Medicare For All and jobs for US citizens.
06:47 AM on 02/12/2010
I am a Conservative and feel pretty much the same. Surely, the real enemy of both of us on political (not social) policy is the two-headed reptile of Washington. As long we only bicker and shout names, they win every time and chuckle while they watch us.
01:01 AM on 12/18/2009
I am interested in how Obama/Pelosi and Hillary thinks the American public will react after they
promised 100 BILLION A YEAR of our tax dollars to poor nations to fight climate change and environmental conditions.

Anyone ever sees what happens with food aid we send to 3rd world countries? Imagine what the politicians in those corrupt counties will do with US taxdollars. It won't be environmental programs.

What do liberals think of this promise????
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CTtransplant
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow
02:54 AM on 12/18/2009
I still say we need to be taking care of our own FIRST!!!! Use our tax dollars to feed OUR hungry, to create jobs for OUR unemployed, etc. - then we can send money to assist others...but not until we take care of our own!
10:34 AM on 12/18/2009
That figure is NOT intended to represent money. That figure also includes transfer of intellectual capability, usage of assets, etc.

Additionally, the most likely format would be similar to previous American goodwill/progress programs -- you know, the ones that tend to enhance our exports (build business).

A rational and thinking comment would have been to suggest that a cost benefit analsys be done to determine what level of funding equates to what level of economic improvement (export, etc.)

However and as usual, you gave us another empty rhetoric comment.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JakeHanson
Flying Spaghetti Monster Bless America!
08:40 PM on 12/17/2009
Legalize it nation-wide and tax it. Billions for the States AND people should chill out more. Hopefully.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CTtransplant
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow
06:17 PM on 12/17/2009
Folks, maybe I look at things just a little bit differently - for example...600,000 get laid off in October, and only 450,000 get laid off in November...an improvement of 150,000 - meaning 150,000 jobs saved, right? But it ALSO means 1,050,000 people out of work...and that is a significant problem. Spin it any way you want, it STILL means TOO many people out of work!
12:59 AM on 12/18/2009
Psssssssssssss. Don't tell the White House how you look at things. And God forbid don't let Pelosi or Reid hear such comments. They'll be offended that you would question how they are spending your money. After all its their job. To spend our money.

All politicians do is spend money. These 3 just happen to be Spending On Steroids. And we get nothing in return.
10:32 AM on 12/18/2009
But we do get something in return - you and the msm just choose to ignore it. Simple economics -- the money they spend will come back as tax revenue. If you want to reduce the deficit, spend MY money on butter, not guns!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
plaidsportcoat
05:56 PM on 12/17/2009
"and one that has a habit of popping up on TV ads during campaign season --"

Anyone with half a brain could counter an ad like that easily.
05:13 PM on 12/17/2009
The Cobra Subsidy is the only worthwhile thing in this crappy bill
01:00 AM on 12/18/2009
True. It could have been so much less and still addressed some real concerns. But, they keep paying off the unions and others. The old adage of government doesn't create jobs is more true today than ever.
10:38 AM on 12/18/2009
Perhaps subsidizing Wall Street is better for we see all the jobs they create. The old adage is that govt DOES indeed stimulate the economy, just ask the Rockefellers and corporate fat cats. In fact, the US built/subsidized the very railroad systems that ushered in the Industrial Age and laid the groundwork of our very system of capitalism. You would do well to study economics history before you spout inaccurate talking points.
04:35 PM on 12/17/2009
Pelosi is insane! What happened to that previous "jobs bill" they called "stimulus?"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
willt7311
Middle aged average guy.
04:37 PM on 12/17/2009
They are in the midst of re-purposing the purpose of the "stimulus" bill.
04:53 PM on 12/17/2009
Well, it has directly created 600,000 jobs so far, and possibly saved that many more because these 600,000 people now have money to spend. Only one-fourth of the stimulus money has been spent so far. Unfortunately, more than half the stimulus was tax cuts and other BS that does nothing to create jobs, so it is not very efficient as a jobs bill.

What happened was, the recession turned out to be worse than projected at the time of the stimulus, so the jobs provisions were insufficient. Hence the need for a new bill. The good news, this time there are not going to be non-jobs-related provisions in it, and it will use leftover TARP money, so there will be no significant impact on the deficit.
04:19 PM on 12/17/2009
continue from manofmystique;

The American people voted for change and Healthcare Reform but they showed little emotion and no outrage while Republicans scared old people with distortion and lies (death panels). Republican as a Party did nothing to deserve to sit at the same table as the Democrats. They abandoned democracy and became the Party of “No”.
Republicans spent most of their time complaining, criticizing and attacking the President while offering nothing constructive in return. Despite Republicans childish behavior and mission to destroy this President Reid and Pelosi did nothing to protect their leader and his pet project (Healthcare Reform Bill).
Something is seriously wrong with the media and the American people. Republicans have been disrespectful and defiant toward the President and those who voted him into office. They threatened democracy while spitting on the constitution and to top it off they will not denounce the crazy tea baggers who advocate overthrowing the government.
Instead of exposing Republicans as the real enemy of the state (people) the media treat their disturbing treasonous behavior as no big deal, meanwhile fearless Republicans are impeding Obama‘s progress.
I guess as long as Republicans do their dirty deeds in the open the American people are OK with it.
The more Republicans are allowed to dilute or kill the Healthcare Bill, the more they will laugh at the fools who failed heed their warnings.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
willt7311
Middle aged average guy.
04:31 PM on 12/17/2009
Another partisan cheerleader.

Did you bring your fan for the flames?
04:18 PM on 12/17/2009
The GOP is sitting back laughing at all the fools who can’t understand what went wrong with Healthcare Reform. Republicans are laughing because they told you what they intended to do and one of them boldly said that denying Obama a victory “will be his waterloo”. Now Democrats are appalled. Why? You and the main-stream media were aware of the plot by Republicans to bring down Healthcare and you heard what Rep. DeMint said (waterloo). Where was the outrage when they FIRST mentioned these things?
DeMint’s waterloo statement and Republicans opened game-plan to sabotage Healthcare Reform went largely unchallenged by those who had an invested interest in its passage. Without ANY backlash or outrage from the America people Republicans were on their way to kill real Healthcare Reform. I don’t blame Obama because he did what was necessary to create the Bill and send it to the house, unfortunately Obama have a lot of people around him who are either in bed with the Republicans or they can’t be trusted.
Harry Reid is weak for allowing Republicans to water down the Bill in the first place. He should have never conceded anything to a minority Party that wants the President to fail. Reid and Nancy Pelosi did not recognize the simple fact that Republicans would never do the same for them if the shoe was on the other feet. How in the world could they let one man (Independent Joe Lieberman) hold up a major piece of legislation?
04:11 PM on 12/17/2009
Great, but whatever passes the House goes to the Senate next, where the Dems and Lieberman must have unanimous consent for anything whatsoever to pass.

What's the point of the Senate, anyway, and why can't we abolish it?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
willt7311
Middle aged average guy.
04:21 PM on 12/17/2009
balance.
04:22 PM on 12/17/2009
The Senate is supposed to give Rhode Island the same power as Texas...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nuyorican21
Law Clerk
03:45 PM on 12/17/2009
It seems to me from all the back and forth that's going on that the entire government and all of its practices (campaign and lobbying finances, two-party system, political pandering of votes, messing with voting districts, upset of checks and balances and and and.....everything else) is more to blame than the party affiliations.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
willt7311
Middle aged average guy.
03:47 PM on 12/17/2009
Of course the government is to blame but we shouldn't blame the institution when it is the personalities causing the problems.

Career politicians are a big problem.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nuyorican21
Law Clerk
03:55 PM on 12/17/2009
Well I tend to think they're all related. All combines to numb the public into trusting a small simplistic set of ideals that basically says "yeah this person has experience and can get things done" and nothing about what ideas this person has or how his solutions can affect the legislative process or his overall qualifications to analyze problems. I'm not going to sit here and rip on the American public and their consciousness because that just brings up education and faith and all that unsavory stuff. So I'll settle with just being angry at our institutions.
05:01 PM on 12/17/2009
It's easy to argue that, but term limits have proven ineffective, you only reduce accountability even more.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
willt7311
Middle aged average guy.
03:36 PM on 12/17/2009
PWM I'm a Fan of PWM I'm a fan of this user 277 fans permalink
photo

The Republicans only followed the lead of Clinton. Before his the same Republicans ran up the National Debt to the sky, and they did it again after him. Clinton is the only variable in the equation.
Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:16 PM on 12/17/2009
=========================================================

The problem here is if you want to give Clinton credit then you have to give republicans credit as well.

Why do I say that? Well, the republicans controlled congress from 95 to 2000. In that time they increased the debt just a little under a trillion dollars or by 17.5%.

Prior to 95, democrats controlled congress from 1987 until 1994. Do you know what happened to the debt? It increase 2.5 Trillion dollars or around 54.3%.

You can't blame democrats for all of that either. Why? Well, because Reagan and Bush Sr. were president at during those time. In this scenario, both parties should be blamed.

Now, I am not trying to make republicans out to be any better than democrats when it comes to the debt but democrats certainly aren't any better than republicans.