I dunno about this:
AOC: "There would have been a lost more resistance over other measures" had progressives known $15/hr wage would fall out
"These negotiations ... were predicated" on the $15/wage. "I think that's what really smoothed over the negotiations"
Per pool via @lindsaywise @mmcauliff pic.twitter.com/smkVXhK9i2
— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) February 26, 2021
The whole issue of whether a $15 minimum wage could be included in a reconciliation bill (and thus need only 50 votes to pass) wasn't a big surprise as of yesterday. It was a live topic back in January, at the same time that the $1,400 checks and other things were being negotiated. And while Democratic leaders tried to put a brave face on it, it was surely obvious to everyone that it had no real chance of being approved by the Senate parliamentarian. The rules¹ say that to be part of a reconciliation bill, a provision needs to directly impact the budget. It can't just be "incidental"—and the minimum wage is practically the definition of something that has only an incidental effect on the budget.
This is Legislation 101. It may be Greek to your average schmoe, but to anyone in Congress it's one of the basics of the legislative process. There's no way that AOC and the rest of the progressive caucus didn't know this.²
In the end, though, this is all pointless trivia. The only thing that really matters is whether the $15 minimum wage could have gotten 50 votes in the first place. It almost certainly couldn't because there are two Democratic senators opposed to it, so it's irrelevant what the parliamentarian ruled. It failed for normal reasons of not having enough support.
¹Make no mistake: these may indeed be the rules, but the rules are ridiculous. They are designed to allow a few exceptions here and there to the filibuster, and they wouldn't exist in the first place if we could just kill the filibuster. So forget all the hot air about the "unelected bureaucrat" who killed the $15 minimum wage. She's just doing her job. The real answer here is to (a) round up the votes to eliminate the filibuster and (b) then round up the votes to raise the minimum wage.
²Alternatively, maybe they really were this oblivious to the basics of federal legislating. If so, they should be relieved to be taught a lesson at a fairly low price.
The Great Tax Theft of 2017 was passed under reconciliation because it so depleted Federal Revenue over the subsequent years. Raising the Federal minimum wage would increase federal revenue through taxation and is considered not applicable.
Clearly, only Republican SLASHES to federal revenue are appropriate bills to be considered for this procedure.
The rules are stupid and should be changed but you have to admit that raising or lowering taxes has a direct impact on the budget. The minimum wage does not. The problem is not the ruling from the parliamentarian but the rule she is enforcing. Until we can convince Joe Manchin to change the filibuster rules that's the world we live in. Blaming the parliamentarian is like blaming the Burger King cashier because the beef in your Whopper is not grass-fed.
Here’s an argument:
Increasing the minimum wage will decrease the number of people requiring food stamps so affect the budget.
A stretch? Sure but no more ridiculous than a bunch of Senate rules.
I read that Manchin has a hard on for Neera cause Neera bad mouthed his daughter. Maybe his resistance to $15 is part of negotiations to kill Neera's confirmation?
I don't think it's related - clearly it's personal with Neera but the $15 minimum wage thing is clearly local politics in WV which is a low wage state.
I don't recall which bill/president it got started, but I've often heard that the "original sin" of reconciliation abuse was when the procedure was first used for tax-cutting legislation that would increase the deficit. So, net/net is it's been a while since reconciliation had to be used in the manner for which it was originally intended (to cut federal borrowing).
The real inanity isn't reconciliation, but the fact that we have defacto amended article 1 to require a super majority in the upper chamber. It's nuts. It's harmful. And it should be jettisoned.
I don't think AOC is saying that the Paliamentarian's verdict was unforeseen. She's just saying that without the $15 minimum wage, progressives would have insisted on other progressive measures.
Then they were foolish. However, all they need to do is attach the minimum wage to a must pass bill. Its how it was raised the last time.
Most of them are foolish.
Many on the fleft thought Shahid Buttar would be Speaker of the House had he defeated Neoliberal Nancy.
^^^However, all they need to do is attach the minimum wage to a must pass bill.^^^
That's a possibility, but it's tough to do when you own the incumbency brand. Republicans are only too happy to burn the country down when doing so will harm Democrats.
Why is it frivolous Republican things are okay, but things which totally change the budget - as higher minimum wages would reduce dependence upon safety-net items - are not when they're Democratic things?
The only thing that really matters is whether the $15 minimum wage could have gotten 50 votes in the first place.
I think the issue is whether the entire relief package, including the $15 minimum wage, could get 50 votes. That is, it's not whether Manchin/Sinema would vote against the $15 minimum wage standing alone, nor whether they would vote against eliminating the filibuster (even just for this type of legislation, which is certainly possible), but rather whether they would vote against the ENTIRE package just because it contained the $15 provision. That's a very different political calculation.
Republican Senators Haven’t Represented a Majority of Voters Since 1996,
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/02/gop-senators-havent-represented-a-majority-since-1996.html
If $15/hr doesn't happen it just might be an effective issue for Democrats to run on in 2022. If Florida's 2020 vote is any guide it would have broad appeal, and also might help drive Democrats to the polls in higher than usual numbers.
I don't think running on something in 2022 that voters thought you should have accomplished in 2021 is a winning strategy. And nobody is going to blame Manchin or the parliamentarian on 2022. I am not blaming Biden - but the fact is we have a Democratic Senate in name only. And when nothing gets accomplished its going to be the fault of that Democratic Senate in the eyes of enough voters to lose the house.
Kevin, how do you actually know she's not evil?
“ Alternatively, maybe they (the progressives) really were this oblivious to the basics of federal legislating. “
Does that same ignorance apply to Biden and the others who wanted to put the mini wage in the bill? Biden told cbs a few weeks ago that he wanted the $15 in the bill but that from what he was being told, he “didn’t think it would survive”. He wasn’t specific about what he meant (poor job on the follow-up, Norah O’Donnell) , but if he knew early on that there was little chance that the parliamentarian would play along, could it be that the real lesson that the young progressives learned was not to trust the old older oldest Republican-lite crowd? Yeah, I’m stirring things up a bit. Part of legislating has always been knowing when is the best time to stab your allies in the back, and anyone who thinks that everything is “different “ now that Biden is in charge is fooling themselves, or is young and still a little naive.
(Despite mr. drum’s belief that the outcome was obvious (even I didn’t think the parliamentarian would let this pass), how difficult could it have been for Pelosi, who has pulled rabbits out of the congressional-rules hat before, to convince the young-in’s that she could do it again. )
Oops! I should clarify my flippant Pelosi reference, since she is a house member. I have so much respect for her sorcery (if not always her positions), I’d easily believe that she could find a way to manipulate an obscure senate rule (thus the reference to “congressional rules”.) .
Hah!
https://twitter.com/hami/status/1365339498364604419
Oh, god, I'm sure that was just some inexplicable coincidence!
Total coincidence,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odal_(rune)#Modern_use
“²Alternatively, maybe they really were this oblivious to the basics of federal legislating.”
Well. Sinema seems to think that a 60 vote threshold has been the standard in the Senate forever, rather than something that only became routine a few decades ago, so it’s totally possible that there are Senators and Representatives throughout Congress who don’t know the basics of federal legislating.
Sigh. How about we go with the obvious: Joe ain't no schmoe. The point was to get Manchin and Sinema to committing to the notion that the reason they wouldn't vote for the bill was the minimum wage provision. Once that's stripped out, they don't have much of a choice but to get with the program and vote for the bill. And they can put it that way to their constituents as well. Zounds, foiled again by those sneaky Dems!
It's also not shocking to fire and replace her. It's not common but it has happened before when the majority is displeased. If they are unhappy with the ruling replace her with someone who will rule in their favor.