Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME) — both of whom have sponsored legislation requiring insurers to offer contraception benefits in all health plans — are in favor of the new compromise, which would allow religiously affiliated colleges, universities, and hospitals to avoid providing birth control. Their employees will still receive contraception coverage at no additional cost sharing directly from the insurer:

“It appears that changes have been made that provide women’s health services without compelling Catholic organizations in particular to violate the beliefs and tenets of their faith,” Snowe said in a statement. “According to the Catholic Health Association, the administration ‘responded to the issues [they] identified that needed to be fixed,’ which is what I urged the president to do in addressing this situation.

“While I will carefully review the details of the president’s revised proposal, it appears to be a step in the right direction,” Collins said in a statement. “The administration’s original plan was deeply flawed and clearly would have posed a threat to religious freedom. It presented the Catholic Church with its wide-ranging social, educational, and health care services, and many other faith-based organizations, with an impossible choice between violating their religious beliefs or violating federal regulations. The administration has finally listened to the concerns raised by many and appears to be seeking to avoid the threat to religious liberties posed by its original plan.”

Republicans in the senate seem determined to oppose the compromise and have introduced legislation that would allow employers or individuals to opt out of any benefit that undermines their moral beliefs. “They don’t have the authority under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to tell someone in this country or some organization in this country what their religious beliefs are,” McConnell told “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “This issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down,” he said.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who led the GOP’s opposition to the original rule, has yet to issue a statement on the measure and did not respond to ThinkProgress’ query about her position. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) also did not respond. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) co-sponsored a 1999 bill requiring contraception equity in insurance coverage and has not yet to weigh in on the current debate.

The Obama measure closely resembles state laws providing equity in insurance coverage for contraception in six states and actually offers far more conscience protections than previous Congressional efforts to expand women’s access to birth control. For instance, a 2001 bill co-sponsored by Republicans Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME), Susan Collins (ME), Lincoln Chafee (RI), Gordon Smith (OR), John Warner (VA), Arlen Specter (PA) — S. 104 — sought to establish parity for contraceptive prescriptions within the context of coverage already guaranteed by insurance plans, but offered no opt-out clause for religious groups who opposed contraception:

SEC. 714. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR CONTRACEPTIVES.

`(a) REQUIREMENTS FOR COVERAGE- A group health plan, and a health insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan, may not–

`(1) exclude or restrict benefits for prescription contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration, or generic equivalents approved as substitutable by the Food and Drug Administration, if such plan provides benefits for other outpatient prescription drugs or devices; or

`(2) exclude or restrict benefits for outpatient contraceptive services if such plan provides benefits.

“Women shouldn’t be held hostage by virtue of where they live,” Snowe told a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing in September of 2001. “It simply is not fair.” “All we’re saying in this legislation is that if health insurance plans provide coverage for prescription drugs that that coverage has to extend to FDA-approved prescription contraceptives. It’s that simple.”

At the time, religious groups also raised concerns about the measure and Snowe promised to add a “conscience clause” that is similar to the exemption included in Maine’s law. Incidentally, that language is very similar to the conscience protections included in Obama’s regulation.

It was Snowe’s concerns over the potential for block grants, stricter Medicare enrollment requirements and possibility for cuts to Social Security benefits — and not the threat of repealing the reform law — that precluded her from signing onto the committee’s proposals.

“I spent a great deal of time reviewing the proposals and agree with many of them,” Snowe said in a written statement supplied by her office.

There were other areas of disagreement, too. Snowe wanted to require pharmaceutical companies to discount drugs used by some of Medicare’s costliest patients. Her Republican colleagues have been cool to idea.

Some of the committee’s health savings proposals are far from controversial and have been included in President Obama’s deficit reduction plan and the fiscal commission’s report. But the Medicare eligibility and Medicaid block grant restructuring are big stumbling blocks for election wary politicians because they are unpopular and face political opposition from within the Republican party. As Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) recently explained at the unveiling of the Republican Governors Association’s health policy report, “not all Republican governors may want a block grant. … It’s up to the states to decide.” Governors fear that converting the existing matching rate formula into a block grant would provide states with less money that they would have otherwise received and force local governments to cut eligibility to the program.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted over the summer also found that 72 percent of Americans oppose cutting Medicaid spending — including 59 percent of self-identified Republicans — and 54 percent are against raising the Medicare eligibility age.

In fact, she did not publicly oppose the individual requirement to purchase coverage — which the 11th Circuit found unconstitutional — until October of 2009. Earlier that year, she had indicated that she could support an individual requirement if coverage became more affordable. “I understand the rationality behind the individual mandate,” Snowe said during the committee’s mark-up hearings. “Certainly we shouldn’t pay for those who don’t have health insurance.”

But this isn’t the first time Snowe has attempted to cloud her role in moving forward the health care legislation. In March, Snowe issued a press release announcing that she is co-sponsoring an amendment “to repeal the employer mandate imposed by the new health reform law.” The “mandate” she was referring to, however, is actually a “free rider” compromise provision that she helped broker in her effort to draft a bipartisan health care law.

Not to be outdone, Senate Republicans sent a letter to President Obama this week saying that they will not vote to confirm a Director for the Bureau — who is supposed to be in place by July 21 — unless several changes are made to the Bureau’s structure:

As presently organized, far too much power will be vested in the CFPB director without any effective checks and balances. Accordingly, we will not support the consideration of any nominee, regardless of party affiliation, to be the CFPB director until the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is reformed.

For starters, the notion that the CFPB has some unprecedented amount of power is absurd. Plenty of agencies are run by a single director, and the CFPB’s rules can already be vetoed by a two-thirds vote of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which is tasked with policing systemic risk in the financial system.

Interestingly enough, two of the letter’s signatories — Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) — voted for the Dodd-Frank law, complete with the CFPB in its current form. In fact, during the Dodd-Frank debate, Snowe helped Democrats defeat a Republican proposal that would have scrapped the CFPB in favor of a consumer protection council.

Both Snowe and Collins have been running to their right recently, with Snowe in particular tacking that way in anticipation of a 2012 primary challenger. Yesterday, in fact, Snowe blocked a small business bill that she authored, throwing a fit over not receiving a vote on an amendment she authored with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) that would block federal agencies from implementing regulations. She had previously called for a “clean” version of the small business bill to be passed.

The practical upshot of Senate Republicans refusing to confirm a nominee is that President Obama will have no choice but to make a recess appointment. But not every Senate Republican appears to be on-board with the GOP push to kneecap the CFPB, as both Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) did not sign the letter to Obama.

“More fundamentally, without the care Planned Parenthood provides — without access to Pap smears, pelvic exams and breast exams — women will die,” the senators said.

Indeed, one in five women in the U.S. have used one of Planned Parenthood’s 800 health centers, where the organization provides nearly one million Pap tests and more than 830,000 breast exams each year. The organization also administers nearly four million STD tests every year, including those for HIV. Just three percent of the organization’s work is related to abortions.

Meanwhile, The Hill reports that a number of moderate Republicans are signaling willingness to re-instate funds to Planned Parenthood. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) called “the outright elimination” of funding “a step too far,” while a spokesperson for her colleague Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) called the House vote “unwise.” Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) said he “has always supported Planned Parenthood and family planning efforts.”

The three senators didn’t say how they would vote on a measure to defund Planned Parenthood, and Brown and Murkowski have both voted for the House-passed full-year government funding bill that contained a provision eliminating funds for the organization. As CAP’s Matt Yglesias wrote of Brown’s statement in support of the group, “If he’s voting to defund Planned Parenthood, then all the statements in the world don’t mean a thing.”

After all, failure to do so doesn’t seem to have endeared her to Maine conservatives:

It’s been clear for a long time now that Maine Republicans want to swap out Olympia Snowe for someone more conservative. Our newest poll in the state finds that hasn’t changed: only 33% of primary voters in the state say they would support Snowe next year to 58% who prefer a generic ‘more conservative candidate.’

The gripe with Snowe is pretty straight forward. 58% of primary voters think she’s too liberal to 37% who think she’s ideologically where she should be. Most GOP voters don’t really think Snowe belongs in their party- 34% think she ought to be an independent, 33% think she should be a Democrat, and only 27% feel that the GOP is indeed her rightful place.

A “yes” vote would have positioned her for a timely party switch, or a move to become an independent and hope the Democrats don’t mount a serious candidate against her. But as things stand, she’s mired in a kind of no-man’s land—she voted, in committee, for a tyrannical individual health care mandate but at the end of the day she stood against Barack Obama’s signature initiative. What’s keeping her alive right now is there’s no really solid conservative candidate in the field against her, but that may not be enough and it may not hold up.

U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) cosponsored legislation today to repeal the employer mandate imposed by the new health reform law. Senator Snowe, who opposes this mandate requiring employers to offer health insurance to their employees, filed an amendment during Senate consideration of the health care legislation to strike the provision altogether. Additionally, Senator Snowe is a cosponsor of legislation to fully repeal the health care law.

From the beginning, I strongly opposed this mandate, which will require small businesses with more than 50 workers to offer health insurance as a workplace benefit – or be subject to a fine of up to $2,000 penalty per employee. Worse still, the employer mandate captures part-time workers and seasonal workers who are employed for more than 120 days in determining whether a firm will be subject to the mandate.

The “mandate” Snowe is referring to is actually a “free rider” compromise provision that she helped broker as a member of the so-called ‘Gang of 6.’ Unlike the pay or play employer requirement that was part of earlier drafts of the law it doesn’t “require small businesses with more than 50 workers” to offer coverage. In fact that’s why Snowe eventually voted for the measure in the Senate Finance Committee.

As the National Journal reported on July 28, 2009, Snowe “emerged from bipartisan talks Monday confirming the employer mandate and, as expected, a public option would not make the final bill.” “We still have various options on the table, but we obviously are providing incentives in that regard,” Snowe said. “We don’t mandate employer coverage.” What the Finance Committee offered instead was a provision that did not require employers to provide insurance. However, by 2014, businesses with more than 50 employees that choose not to offer coverage, but have at least one full- time employee who receives a federal tax credit through an exchange, must compensate the government.

Progressives vehemently opposed the measure. As the Washington Post’s Steve Pearlstein explained at the time, “the provision would have the perverse effect of encouraging employers to fire, or not to hire, low-wage workers with children or spouses who are unemployed.” “Republican Olympia Snowe is said to be particularly enamored of this idea. I’d bet a two-pound lobster and bowl of Maine’s best chowder that she can’t find a labor economist back home who thinks this is a good policy,” he added. Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) unsuccessfully offered an amendment to replace the free-rider provision with an employer mandate and the Snowe-crafted provision made its way into section 1513 of the Affordable Care Act.

Without the support of at least a handful of Republicans, the DREAM Act doesn’t stand a chance. Though the majority of Democrats support the legislation, Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Jon Tester (D-MT) have all either voted against the DREAM Act at some point in their careers or expressed reservations about the legislation. However, in the past, the DREAM Act has enjoyed the support of a handful of Republicans. Immigration reform used to be a bipartisan issue. Where these Republicans seem to stand now is outlined below:

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN): Lugar and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced the DREAM Act on March 26, 2009. Although Lugar voted against moving on the Department of Defense (DOD) bill which included the DREAM Act as an amendment, his senior adviser explained that the lawmaker objected to “a vote on proceeding to the defense bill in a very politically charged and unusual way. The DREAM Act deserves a proper debate on its merits.”

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT): Bennett voted to proceed with debate on the DREAM Act in 2007. Bennett was stripped of his party’s nomination earlier this year and will be leaving the Senate in a month. Essentially, he has nothing to lose by sticking to his guns.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME): Snowe voted to proceed with debate on the DREAM Act in 2007. Snowe justified voting against the DOD bill in September by saying that “the Senate should have the ability to debate more than the three amendments the Majority Leader is allowing.” Snowe is up for reelection in 2012 and could always choose to stick with her party to play it safe.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): Like her colleague, Collins voted in favor of the DREAM Act in 2007. Before voting against proceeding with the DOD bill, Collins explained, “I find myself on the horns of a dilemma, I support the provisions in this bill. I think it is the right thing to do. I think it is only fair… But I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that is going to shut down the debate and preclude Republican amendments.” Although she is not up for reelection any time soon, like her colleague (Snowe), Collins is feeling pressure to move farther to the right.

Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL): LeMieux’s predecessor, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) was a strong proponent of immigration reform and the DREAM Act. Since Rubio will replace him in 2011, LeMieux doesn’t have to worry about getting reelected. Yet, he is “mulling” a 2012 Senate bid. He has also expressed some hesitation about the bill, saying, “It’s a very difficult situation for kids who are brought to this country and it’s no fault of their own. I understand that and I am sympathetic, but to attach this to this [DOD reauthorization] bill without trying to fix our broken immigration system is disingenous and irresponsible.”

Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH):Voinovich voted against proceeding with the DREAM Act in 2007. However, he has been a strong proponent of AgJOBS, a bill that would put undocumented agriculture workers on a path to legalization and has often been perceived as a swing-vote on immigration bills. He is also retiring from the Senate at the end of the year.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK):Murkowski voted against proceeding with the DREAM Act in 2007. However, she voted in support of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. After a tough reelection race, it looks like she will be returning to the Senate to serve another a term. And chances are she’s not to happy with the Republican establishment after losing the Republican primary to Joe Miller.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX): Hutchison voted in favor of the DREAM Act in 2007. However, since then, she has moved farther to the right on the immigration issue. She faces a tough primary in 2012.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX):Cornyn did not support the DREAM Act in 2007. Though he supported comprehensive immigration reform which included the DREAM Act in 2007, it doesn’t sound like he’s up for it in 2010. “This is getting to be a joke. No one believes that there is enough time that we could do a responsible job,” said Cornyn on the DREAM Act in July. According to him, the Senate should approach the issue in “a responsible, reasonable way and not just try to play to the peanut gallery and act like we’re going to do something we’re not.”

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ): Kyl has supported immigration reform in the past, but voted against the DREAM Act in 2007. Like many of his colleagues, his immigration position has hardened and shifted to an enforcement-only approach.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA): Brown replaced the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), a champion of immigrant rights and a tireless advocate for immigration reform. Though there is a lot a pressure on him to take a pro-immigrant stance, so far, he has stuck to his anti-immigrant guns. He recently lashed out at Harvard University, stating “They should embrace young people who want to serve their country, rather than promoting a plan that provides amnesty to students who are in this country illegally.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): Hatch has supported both the DREAM Act and immigration reform in the past. However, he is facing a tough reelection in 2012 and has already seen his colleague, Bennett, go down in flames. Given the political climate he’s facing in Utah, my guess is he’ll vote no.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): Grassley voted in support of immigration reform in 2006, but against the DREAM Act in 2007. Over the past three years, his position on immigration has moved so far to the right, it is nearly unrecognizable.

Today, Senate Republicans voted unanimously against legislation to close the pay gap between women and men. The Senate voted 58-41 against allowing debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help end discriminatory pay practices against women. It had already passed the House.

More than 45 years after passage of the Equal Pay Act, the pay gap shockingly persists with women still earning on average 77 cents to every man’s dollar. According to the National Women’s Law Center, “This persistent pay gap translates to more than $10,000 in lost wages per year for the average female worker.” The gap is even worse for women of color: African-American women earn 61 cents and Latinas earn 52 cents for every dollar a white non-Hispanic man earns.

This afternoon on MSNBC, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said it was “outrageous” and “egregious” that “these senators voted against fair pay.” Watch it:

Women are half of all U.S. workers and mothers are the primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners in nearly two-thirds of American families. The Paycheck Fairness Act would be critical to strengthening the economic security of these families. The bill would have updated the landmark Equal Pay Act of 1963 by closing loopholes, strengthening incentives to prevent pay discrimination, and prohibiting retaliation against workers who inquire about employers’ wage practices or disclose their own wages. The act would have also addressed pay secrecy, which is a prevalent problem prohibiting employees from knowing whether discriminatory practices are occurring.

Not a single Republican supported the bill, including Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who had previously voted in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which removed barriers blocking workers from seeking compensation from discriminatory pay practices. At the time, Snowe said, “This new law[] sends a clear message to the American people that this Congress is committed to these core principles and will continue to work in bipartisan fashion to break down the barriers of wage discrimination in our nation.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), who also voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Act, was the lone Democrat voting against the bill today. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was not present for the vote.

Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has a long record of opposing women’s rights urged Congress to vote against the act, as it did with Lilly Ledbetter in 2009.

Senate Democrats whittled the bill down to appease Republican concerns and subjected more and more of the bill to spending offsets, ultimately leaving just the jobless benefits extension unpaid for. But still, the Republicans refused to relent. However, one glimmer of potential hope remains for those counting on the Senate to take the belated but responsible step of extending benefits, as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is advocating for a benefits-only bill, even saying that she’s okay with it adding to the deficit:

The hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans who are losing jobless benefits every week deserve our immediate attention, so I am writing today to urge you to bring a free-standing extension of unemployment insurance benefits to the Senate floor for a vote early next week. As of today, more than 1.2 million people out of work for longer than six months are ineligible for the next tier of extended benefits, which were originally provided by the economic stimulus bill to fight the recession.

It’s a pretty ugly spectacle to see Snowe call for paying “immediate attention” to a measure that she voted to filibuster not once, but three times. But, considering that 1.2 million people will have lost their benefits by the end of this week if something is not done and that 46 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for six months or more, I suppose this is worth considering.

Of course, passing a stand-alone bill neglects all the other important provisions that were in the extenders bill, including COBRA subsidies to help laid-off workers purchase health insurance and aid to states to help them with their Medicaid bills. Failing to pass such measures is only going to add to the economic misery that Snowe at least seems aware is occurring.

Today, the House attempted to rush a bill consisting of nothing but a benefits extension through under a suspension of the rules, which means that a two-thirds majority of members was needed for it to pass. However, the House fell short on a 261-155 vote, meaning that the bill — which costs $33 billion — will have to be brought back under normal order if House Democrats wish to ultimately approve it.

Today, Brown said that he will vote against the final bill produced by the House-Senate conference committee (despite the inclusion of an special deal that he personally sought) because it imposes a $19 billion fee on the biggest financial firms to cover the cost of the law’s implementation. And now Snowe and Collins are singing a similar tune:

COLLINS: I’m not happy with the $19 billion new fee or tax that would be imposed. It was not part of either the House or Senate bill. It was added in the wee hours of the morning.

SNOWE: Well, obviously I’m concerned, anytime you’re placing taxes in the legislation that was not in the Senate bill. I’m going to have a discussion with Sen. Dodd on some of these issues.

It’s not only in the Senate that this tiny levy has become the object of scorn. “The imposition of a job-killing tax on large financial institutions to create a $19 billion slush fund to finance future bailouts is nothing short of bleeding this economy in the midst of the worse recession in 25 years,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN).

As Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, pointed out, “the fee is approximately equal to 0.01 percent of projected GDP over the next decade.” To derail legislation aimed at correcting the deficiencies that led to an economic meltdown because of a fee that will hardly be a blip on the radar of the biggest banks seems foolhardy, especially considering that Maine’s banking system is largely composed of smaller institutions that won’t be affected by the fee.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who chaired the financial reform conference committee, challenged the Republican hold-outs to find some other way to pay for the bill, if they don’t want to use a bank fee. “Do they want to add to the deficit?” he asked. “Is there another way? What’s their other way?”

As the Economist’s Ryan Avent put it, opposition to the fee also has implications for the debate over addressing the deficit. “The most moderate Republicans in the Senate are balking at the charge. Not because they disagree in any real sense with the economics of the fee. They simply won’t vote for anything that looks like a tax. This is why it’s so difficult to imagine a solution to America’s long-run budget crisis,” he wrote.

Russ Feingold voted against the Senate version of the financial regulation overhaul and nobody much noticed or cared because a handful of Republicans voted yes and thus it passed. One gets the sense that this is oftentimes what the most liberal members really want out of these compromise bills. It’s not that they want to block them, they just want the opportunity to vote “no” and register their official objection to legislation that has, in fact, been considerably watered down at the behest of “centrist” members.

But now it looks like we’re in trouble. Not only is Feingold sticking to his “no” position, but suddenly Senators Collins, Snowe, and Brown are jumping ship as well.

The problem here, as a result, isn’t so much that Feingold’s vote is needed to pass the bill—with Senator Byrd dead, it can’t pass anyway without the moderate Republicans—as it is that it will be tough for the White House and Harry Reid to put the squeeze on the recalcitrant Republicans as long as their caucus isn’t united. As you recall, the financial regulation bill really started to move once the full political press was put on. The bank lobby is extremely powerful, but also extremely unpopular, so when there’s partisan unity and a big public focus on an issue it’s very hard to stand with the banks. But when any kind of confusion, disarray, or lack of attention enters the picture then suddenly it’s trouble.

One of the criticisms that opponents of the bill are raising is that it includes a tax increase that unfairly target small businesses. The legislation partially closes what’s known as the “John Edwards loophole,” which enables some businesses to avoid paying Medicare taxes by classifying wages as something they are not. Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Mike Enzi (R-WY) called this provision the bill’s “poison pill”:

“At a time when Congress continues to dither on enacting a small business jobs bill, Section 413 is a poison pill in this tax bill, robbing American small businesses of the capital they need to create new, good-paying jobs,” Senator Snowe said. “Indeed, this is a job-killing tax hike that will force entrepreneurs across the nation to retrench and reconsider any plans for hiring employees or expanding their business.”

But what’s really going on here? Should these Senators be so concerned about closing the loophole and therefore clobbering small businesses?

S corporations, which are the most commonly employed business structure in the United States, don’t pay corporate income taxes, but instead pass all their earnings through to the firm’s shareholders, who report them on their personal income tax. This pass-through income is exempt from the payroll tax (which funds Medicare). So employees of S corporations have an incentive to accept their money not as wages (which are subject to the tax) but as pass-through income that is tax-exempt.

The epitome of this was former Sen. John Edwards paying himself millions in pass-through income from his law practice, even though it was clearly money that he earned by simply doing his law work. There’s no reason for employees of a firm to be able to escape payroll taxes by classifying their wages as something else.

The extenders bill before the Senate doesn’t fully close the loophole, but merely stipulates that any shareholder who performs substantial services for the S corporation pay payroll taxes on all the income they receive. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, this should help the majority of small businesses:

Passing legislation to close this loophole will benefit the majority of small businesses. Most small businesses pay all of their taxes, including Medicare taxes on all of their personal service income. (The loophole is not allowed for partnerships or sole proprietorships.) When some small business owners avoid taxes, honest taxpayers make up the gap by paying higher taxes. Lawmakers who are concerned about the tax burden of small businesses need to do everything possible to close loopholes in the tax code so that all Americans pay their fair share.

And, in fact, most S corporations aren’t all that small. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “businesses with gross receipts of more than $10 million accounted for about two thirds of the gross receipts of all partnerships and S corporations.” Cleaning up the tax code to make sure that these companies pay their fair share will be to the benefit of businesses small and large.

Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME)

Today, the Senate followed through, and considering all of the deficit fearmongering that has been going on in Congress, you’d think that it would have passed by a fairly wide margin. But no. Instead, the rules passed on a party line vote of 60-40.

And the blanket Republican opposition is particularly interesting considering that some Senate Republicans used to support PAYGO, even when it was opposed by their own party. For instance, in 2004, three current Senate Republicans — Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — joined 47 Democrats in adopting PAYGO, against the majority Republicans’ wishes (although the rule was ultimately scuttled when Congress failed to pass a budget). The next year, the same three senators were joined by Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) in a failed attempt to implement the rule.

Yet all four of them opposed the rule today. Here’s what they’ve had to say in favor of PAYGO in the past:

VOINOVICH: I just don’t understand how we can continue to go this way. We’re living in a dream world. This deficit continues to grow.

COLLINS: [PAYGO is] much-needed restraint for members of Congress as we wrestle with fiscal decisions.

SNOWE: I believe now is the time for both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to commit to pay-as-you-go rules for both revenues and spending.

Just last year, Snowe approved of Obama’s advocating for PAYGO. And in the last few weeks, all of these Republicans have voiced concerns about the deficit and spending. So what changed? And why did all the supposed deficit hawks in the Senate — like Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) — vote against it as well? Could it be that they’re actually deficit peacocks, who “like to preen and call attention to themselves, but are not sincerely interested” in addressing deficits?

In last night’s address, Obama chided Senate Republicans, saying that “just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together.” They’re not off to a good start.

Cross-posted at The Wonk Room. DJ Carella contributed research to this post.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this. It’s my understanding that, even after Leader Reid announced that he had the sixtieth vote, the sixty votes he needs, you met again with President Obama. What was– what was that about?

SNOWE: Correct. The President, you know, and I have worked together on this issue. And I applaud him for, you know, his knowledge, his grasp of the issue. It’s his major and highest domestic initiative, on this issue, and he wants to get it done this year, and encouraging me to support the legislation.

Watch it:

The concessions Joe Lieberman wanted in exchange for his vote for health reform sounded basically similar to the ones Olympia Snowe wanted. Which left me wondering yesterday what, if anything, was left in the bill that she objected to. Well now we know:

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican who had been considered a possible Democratic ally, said she would oppose the measure because it was being rushed. “It is a take-it-or-leave-it package,” she said.

There’s obviously a certain “take-it-or-leave-it” quality to any proposed piece of legislation. You can’t say “I vote 72 percent yes.” But beyond that, she’s had an enormous amount of time to have input and win concessions. As for “rushed,” as Steve Benen says “Snowe has been complaining about the speed of the legislative process since July, but therein lies the point: how could this possible get slower?”

This Public Policy Polling survey of Maine isn’t all that surprising: She has a 46/40 disapproval/approval rating from state Republicans. By a whopping 27 points, those same Republicans say they’d back a “conservative challenger” to Snowe in the 2012 GOP primary. Voters who picked the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008 and self-identified conservatives all oppose Snowe and want a challenger; basically everyone else in the state has a more positive view of Snowe, the poll found.

I don’t know whether these results are “surprising” or not, but I think they ought to change our understanding of the prospects of bipartisanship in health reform. This means that when you’re thinking about whether Snowe will support a bill or not, the issue ultimately comes down to not triggers versus non-triggers, or employer mandates versus free rider fees, but whether Snowe wants to remain a Republican or not. Based on this polling, a Snowe who votes for a comprehensive health care overhaul is basically not going to be viable as a GOP primary candidate. Conversely, a Snowe who votes for comprehensive health reform and switches parties would remain a very popular general election candidate with a safe seat.

Incidentally, this poll inspired me to look up who’s important in Maine GOP politics aside from Snow and Susan Collins. Turns out the top Republican in the State Senate is Kevin Raye, who’s also proprietor of Raye’s Mustard Mill, which is one of Maine’s finest food products. I don’t know much about the guy’s politics, but he makes great mustard!

The next day on MSNBC, RNC Chair Michael Steele was asked if there was room for Snowe in the GOP. “Absolutely,” Steele said:

STEELE: Welcome! Welcome! Because–you know why that’s important? Because every footprint of this party is different from region to region, from county to county. I can’t win in the northeast with someone who’d be a better candidate suited in the south….So the reality of it is I’m looking to find my candidates where they are. And I want to lift them up beause they represent those districts. So like New England, Olympia Snowe works there for her. She may not translate in South Carolina. She works in Maine.

But today on ABC’s TopLine, Steele appeared to have a change of heart. When asked if he’s comfortable with GOP candidates who supported the stimulus, Steele said there’s “no justification” for that support, adding, “we’ll come after you”:

STEELE: So candidates who live in moderate to slightly liberal districts have got to walk a little bit carefully here, because you do not want to put yourself in a position where you’re crossing that line on conservative principles, fiscal principles, because we’ll come after you. [...]

You’re gonna find yourself in a very tough hole if you’re arguing for the president’s stimulus plan or Nancy Pelosi’s health plan. There’s no justification for growing the size of government the way this administration and this Congress wants to do it.

While Steele didn’t mention any names, clearly Snowe and fellow Republican Senator from Maine Susan Collins — who both supported the stimulus — may soon be in the RNC’s crosshairs.