I don’t know what to think about today’s news that Harry Reid stepped forward to stop the Baucus-Grassley jobs bill. Steve Benen says it was a stinkeroo of a bill that would not have created many jobs but which would, of course, cut taxes. Specifically, these were estate and gift tax cuts that would have created no jobs at all and which would have added billions of dollars of cost to the bill. Benen wrote yesterday,

So why would the Senate move forward on a jobs bill that’s underwhelming in the job-creating department? It’s not a mystery — in order for legislation to pass, it necessarily has to be made worse. Democrats could write a terrific jobs bill — which, you know, would create lots of jobs — but Republicans won’t let the Senate vote on it. Republicans will, however, let the chamber vote on a weaker bill that does less good.

Democrats are effectively given a straightforward choice: embrace a good bill that gets killed by GOP obstructionism, or embrace a weak bill that won’t do much good but can pass. And here’s the kicker: when Americans notice that the jobs bill didn’t deliver impressive results, it’s the Democratic majority that will get the blame, even though Dems wanted a better bill.

Reid is being skewered for being against “bipartisanship.” Some news stories suggest that too many Senate Dems told Reid the Baucus-Grassley jobs bill gave away too much to Republicans; other suggest the Dems thought Republicans weren’t going to vote for it anyway.

So it’s back to the drawing board.