Does anyone remember that the House passed a jobs bill in December

[ProSense]

House narrowly approves Democratic jobs plan

$174 billion measure now faces uncertain future in Senate next year

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the House Wednesday muscled through a year-end plan to create jobs, mixing about $50 billion for public works projects with another almost $50 billion for cash-strapped state and local governments.

The unemployed would get continued benefits. But conspicuously absent from the plan were Obama's recently announced initiatives to give Social Security recipients $250 payments, a tax credit for small businesses that create jobs and a program awarding tax credits to people who make their homes more energy efficient.

Not a single Republican voted for the plan, which passed on a 217-212 vote after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., worked the floor for an hour before it passed. The measure now goes to the Senate, which won't consider the measure until next year and which generally has a smaller appetite for such deficit-financed economic stimulus measures.

more

This was right after President Obama's jobs summit earlier in the month.




edited to add emphasis.

[Enrique]

1. sounds good to me

what do you think of that bill?

[ProSense]

3. The Senate needs to pass it.

And there needs to be more.

[Enrique]

4. that won't be easy

look how close it was in the House, how Nancy had to fight to squeak it by. And we all know what happens in the Senate, a handful of conservadems will say we can't have this and we can't have that.

Since you posted it in this forum, what role do you think the President will and should play? Should he take a side on what gets stripped out? Should he say something about it in the SOTU. Not just vague words about "jobs", but this bill in particular and parts of it that he maintains MUST remain.

[ProSense]

6. Nothing ever is. n/t

[Enrique]

7. what about the president's role

any thoughts?

[ProSense]

9. I suspect his role is going to be what it has always been. Now let me ask you a question

or two.

Since you posted it in this forum, what role do you think the President will and should play? Should he take a side on what gets stripped out? Should he say something about it in the SOTU. Not just vague words about "jobs", but this bill in particular and parts of it that he maintains MUST remain.

What does that mean? Even if the President mentions this bill specifically, do you think that will shield him from charges of being vague?

[Enrique]

10. no, he will be unfairly criticized no matter what he does

I hate it, but it happens.

But there is a difference between advocating "a bill that will create jobs", and taking a stand on a bill which exists, which passed the House as you point out.

I think, in order for the bill to get passed in the Senate, Reid will have to tell his centrists "no" on some of their demands, and Obama will have to help him. Obama can say, I'll campaign for you for re-election, but you have to be strong on this, so I can mean the good things I will say about you.

[ProSense]

12. Everyone has his/her own notion of what it will take, and

I'm sure Obama and Reid do as well.

[babylonsister]

2. I did and posted about it; good news is verboten!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x148870

Senate Democrats ready to send more stimulus funds to states

By Les Blumenthal | McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON — Linda Nguyen, the chief executive of WorkForce Central, has a message for Congress: "Main Street still has some problems. It's not over yet."

Nguyen's organization, which helps unemployed in Tacoma and Pierce County looking for jobs, has seen a 40 percent increase in the number of people seeking assistance since the recession began.

The $6 million in federal stimulus funding it received last year runs out this summer.

"We call it the cliff," she said.

Stung by a Republican win in a special Senate election in Massachusetts and the loss of their critical 60-seat majority, Democrats are putting a new stimulus and jobs bill on the legislative front burner, temporarily bumping health care reform aside. Senate Democrats are expected to unveil their $170 billion or so package this week.

"There is still a lot of desperation and hurt out there," said Nguyen. "There just aren't jobs out there."

Among those on Capitol Hill who are listening is Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. With one in 10 people relying on unemployment benefits, food stamps and health insurance subsidies, Murray said the economic crisis is taking its toll.

"I know people are worried, I know their economic security has been undermined," said Murray. "This is a critical time."

The Senate proposal is expected to mostly mirror a $174 billion stimulus and jobs bill approved, with little notice, by the House in December. That bill provides more than $48 billion for road, bridge, transit, school, housing, airport and clean water construction projects. It includes nearly $27 billion to help avoid layoffs of teachers, firefighters and police officers as state and local governments grapple with their own budget deficits.

more...

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Has the Senate voted on such a bill yet?

Wonder how the new Junior Senator from Massachusetts will vote on a Job bill?

[Clio the Leo]

8. Yep. NT

[depakid]

11. Might be wise for the administration to keep reminding people in a very vocal way about that

as well as reminding people every day who got America into this mess- but regrettably, that's not their style.

[dkf]

13. Is that really the only ideas we have on jobs?

Public works and more checks to states. And unemployment.

It feels finger in the dike ish.