Wherefore art thou, Jobs Bill?

www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/us/politics/obamas-jobs-bill-senate-vote.html?pagewanted=1&sq=jobs bill&st=cse&scp=4#

The Jobs Bill was voted against in the senate by 50-49.  Obama has repeatedly asked that it be passed in its entirety, but the only option now is for pieces of it to be passed after votes on specific provisions.

There has been a lot of finger pointing involved:  there's the obvious "republicans will vote against the bill because they want to keep the economy in a bad way until election time".  But the slightly less obvious is "democrats intended the bill to fail to make it look like republicans were trying to sabotage Obama in the election".  Either mentality is a bit second grade-esque, but there is some indications that senators are willing to work across party lines.  “We are willing to take up the things we can agree on,” Mr. Eric Cantor, of VA, said.I just hope there is something both parties can agree on.

The bill would reduce the payroll taxes and increase the amount of money employed persons have on hand. This only applies to about the first $100,000 though;  Democrats are rallying behind the idea of a "millionaire's tax".  Spending comes into play in investments in new highways, reminiscent of FDR.

More or less, there seems to be a clear party split here, where it be because of the election or because of the policy itself.  What needs to happen is compromise. Senators are saying they are willing to compromise on parts of the bill, but only time will tell what "compromising" actually means.