[muawiyah]

The world of practical politics must sometimes intrude upon the most pleasant of dreams. He's a Senator from Massachusetts (hardly a normal place from the average American's perspective), and if it says it's "a jobs bill" but it's really about plumbing fixtures in Zembabwe, then the Senator has to vote for it.

Yes, Massachusetts people are that stupid. They are easily fooled.

By the standards of the present time it's a piddly little bill ~ ($15 billion) ~ that will do virtually nothing.

The federal government's computers handle that sort of thing in 15 femtoseconds so it doesn't even increase federal employment.

Of interest the article says it has some piddly little tax cuts. From the Conservative perspective a tax cut however so small is better than no tax cut, or a fake tax cut.

No doubt those complaining the loudest were those who believed that Massachusetts had changed somehow. If you'd wanted someone elected who would vote against the most beneficial of legislation simply because it had a tax cut in it (at least 3/4 of the Democrat members of the Senate would do that) you could have gotten Martha Coakley.

[ALPAPilot]

Agreed. Although I would not support any more spending, as described the bill is reported to have two things: tax cuts, road construction. Road construction is one of the few items actually listed as a congressional power in the Constitution.

I don’t trust the guy, but this is hardly a test.