Blunt Complains About Jobs Bill Out Both Sides of His Mouth

When Roy Blunt first announced that he did not support the jobs bill that passed the Senate with a large bipartisan majority (70-28), he initially said that the package was not large enough and should have included more spending (and more debt).  As reported by The Beacon's Jo Mannies on February 23:

Blunt said today that he would have held out for the larger bill, which he said included more tax incentives for business.

But now, Blunt says the bill costs too much.  As quoted in the Star on March 5:

"Washington Democrats threw more of Americans’ hard-earned money at the problem, passing a $15 billion so-called jobs bill that's just more of the same."

The jobs bill passed with 70 votes in the Senate, including Kit Bond's. Bond said the legislation "will help restore funding to Missouri and states across the nation that would have lost critical transportation projects and thousands of jobs." 

As summarized by the Associated Press:

Senate Democrats delivered the first of several promised election-year jobs bills Wednesday, passing a measure blending highway funding eagerly sought by the states with tax breaks for companies that hire unemployed workers...

The bill contains two major provisions. First, it would exempt businesses hiring the unemployed from the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax through December and give them an additional $1,000 credit if new workers stay on the job a full year. The Social Security trust funds would be reimbursed for the lost revenue.

Second, it would extend highway and mass transit programs through the end of the year and pump $20 billion into them in time for the spring construction season. The money would make up for lower-than-expected gasoline tax revenues.

But now, Blunt says tax breaks for businesses that hire unemployed workers is just 'throwing money at the problem,' even though he supported said tax breaks as part of a more expensive bill a few weeks ago.

Is it unreasonable to expect Blunt's partisan attacks on one piece of legislation to be logically consistent, one week to the next?