*** See the last update below — it changes this entire diary.
Needless to say, the ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian that raising the minimum wage can’t be included in a budget reconciliation bill is not going down well among the Democrats who have been moving quickly to get an economic relief package through Congress.
To speed Mr. Biden’s stimulus plan to enactment, Democrats are using a fast-track process known as budget reconciliation, which shields legislation from a filibuster and the 60-vote requirement to overcome one, and allows it to pass on a simple majority vote, bypassing Republican opposition.
But Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate parliamentarian, advised senators on Thursday that their legislation to gradually increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2025 would violate the strict budgetary rules that limit what can be included in a reconciliation measure. The ruling opened the door for Republicans to demand that the proposal be jettisoned from the stimulus bill when it comes before the Senate.
It has sparked outrage among progressive activists, calls for Democratic leaders to fire or overrule Ms. MacDonough, and demands for the elimination of the filibuster to allow Democrats to enact the wage increase and other marquee agenda items over Republican objections.
With only 50 Senate Democrats + Vice President Kamala Harris to approve anything where a simple majority can pass it, there is no margin for error — and zero cooperation from Republicans.
The GOP strategy is to obstruct everything, preventing Democrats from fulfilling their promises. The calculation is that this will ensure Democrats lose control of the Senate and and the House when midterm elections come up in 2022.
There are two things that could be done: one is to eliminate the filibuster — the requirement for 60 votes to get anything through the Senate. Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema oppose this. (Why is a matter of debate, but one effect of the filibuster is that it allows them to avoid being the deciding vote on tough issues.) Both of them are against raising the wage to $15 an hour also.
The second is to find alternative pathways to raise the minimum wage — bringing it up as a stand-alone bill, impose tax penalties for big companies that don’t do it, or some other work around.
It’s worth pointing out that the $7.50 an hour minimum wage is not a national standard. PvtJarHead has a post on the debate that includes map showing the wage in the states. A few are below it, or have no minimum wage law — and some are already above the $7.50 level. Where voters have a choice, it’s already happening, as in Florida going for $15.
However, there may be another option.
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has been following up on a suggestion from name removed that Vice President Harris has the power to overrule the Parliamentarian — and that it would take a 60 vote margin in the Senate to overturn the ruling by Harris if she did so.
[Edit 2-27-21: I have removed “the name” because it seems to trigger a reaction in some people to the point that they overlook that, regardless of the source, Marshall finds it appears to be a legitimate point. The name is still present at the link for those who have to know who it was — but read what Marshall found first.]
Marshall was skeptical initially.
…I had a whole post put together on the politics of this. But then I questioned again whether the 60 vote rule thing was accurate since it’s such a game changer. It doesn’t sound right. I got even more suspicious when I realized that references to it all seemed to trace back to an article by name removed in which he references a “secret memo” which makes this claim…
...But here’s the thing. He’s right! Whatever the “secret memo” says, name removed seems to be right. Though name removed didn’t directly link to it, The American Prospect’s David Dayen flags this Congressional Research Service report that backs it up. (This is the report that the “secret memo” purports to reference.) And this one is public and we can read it. See the reference at the bottom for appeals of decisions of rulings of the chair, who in this case would be Harris presiding over the Senate…
...So to my surprise, it seems to be the case that it would take 60 votes to overrule Harris, a hill that would be too steep for opponents to climb. The politics remain highly complicated. But I think this is right. For parliamentary and hill types, let me know if this seems right. Because whether or not it is is a pretty big deal at the moment.
Bottom Line: IF Harris did this and it was not filibustered, the $15 minimum wage hike could be included in the Covid Relief Bill under budget reconciliation rules — the House plans to keep it in their version — and it could be done without having to eliminate the filibuster on this maneuver.
Manchin and Sinema have been very clear that they do not support raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. They might still vote against it, but if it is part of the larger package which is popular even among some Republican voters, they might be persuaded to see reason. (It would be nice if Schumer and Biden could channel some of LBJ’s legendary arm-twisting skills.)
Mind, this would take a level of determination and focus that has not often been seen in Democrats. That may be shifting. Digby looks at something from Perry Bacon at 538 on three contesting views of what the Democratic Party is up against, and how it should proceed. To summarize:
- Camp No. 1: We are in a Democratic and democratic emergency
- Camp No. 2: Maybe there’s an emergency, maybe not; either way, just do popular stuff
- Camp No. 3: We can and should work with Republicans
The analysis describes each camp, who is in them, and the preferences they have. Read the whole thing.
Digby places Biden in Camp 3 originally during the campaign early on, but he’s since shifted to Camps 1-2. Digby is there as well:
So, I’m firmly in Camp #1 and Camp #2. I think it would be suicidal to pretend that something very dangerous has not happened to the right wing in this country and simply go about our business as if it’s all about money and if we just get material benefits to people this will all straighten itself out. I just don’t think economic determinism works here. The right wing extremists who stormed the capitol were not downtrodden working class folks who’ve been exploited. They are largely middle class and upper middle class and their beef is about status, race, pride, religion, and psychology way more than money.
Obviously, that doesn’t mean the Democrats shouldn’t deliver the material benefits they’ve promised. That’s what people voted for them need as well as a lot of people who didn’t, whether they voted for Trump or didn’t vote at all. Their families deserve the help that Democrats are offering. But that’s just one priority. The other is to save democracy from this increasingly radical factions that’s taken over the Republican party. They must do both.
Camp 3 members need an unreality check, which is on full display at CPAC. Charles P. Pierce has donned hazmat gear to check it out. Looking at the list of speakers,
I think we are approaching an unprecedented wingnut singularity.
Anyone who wants to count on the what is now and forever the party of Trump to do the right thing should probably not be allowed to drive or operate heavy machinery. There is no going back to ‘normal’ — and normal wasn’t working in any case. For Democrats, there’s only one real choice:
They have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Remember that our sons and grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty. Think big.
— Daniel Burnham, Chicago architect (1864-1912)
Saturday, Feb 27, 2021 · 2:35:11 PM +00:00 · xaxnar
UPDATE: Several points to add to the discussion.
Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema will see their current terms in the Senate both end on January 3, 2025. Neither of them is facing an immediate threat from being voted out of office. (The longer 6 year term of office was intended in part to ensure the Senate would be less susceptible to immediate political concerns, and take a longer view.)
U.S. Senators are elected directly by the voters in their state, since the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913. Neither Manchin or Sinema face the prospect of having to run in a gerrymandered district, beyond the overall political make-up of their respective states.
I bring up these two points to counter the assumption that they are political prisoners of the states they represent, who risk immediate electoral jeopardy. The idea that they have no choice but to oppose raising the minimum wage because of popular opposition in their states is not entirely the case. In West Virginia,
63% of West Virginians report supporting a raise in the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025 when they are told that 43% of West Virginia workers (including paramedics) earn less than $15 an hour, according to data from OFW. The polling was done between February 20 and 22 by GBAO Research Strategies with 600 respondents.
In Arizona, there does not seem to be a great deal of voter resistance to raising the minimum wage:
Arizona's minimum wage — which already had risen four times in the past four years and ranks among the nation's highest — increased by 15 cents to $12.15 an hour this year. Employers may pay servers and other tipped workers up to $3 an hour less than the minimum wage if tip income at least makes up the difference.
Some cities have adopted higher minimums including Flagstaff, where the 2020 minimum of $13 an hour rose to $15 in January.
Whatever reasons Manchin and Sinema may have for opposing a $15 an hour minimum wage, fear of their voters reaction would not seem to be a reasonable concern.
One More Thing:
The House has passed their version of the Covid relief bill. (Framing it as a stimulus bill is just wrong — this is about getting aid to people facing a natural disaster, not an attempt to goose the economy.) The NY Times describes it as:
..a nearly party-line vote, advancing a sweeping pandemic aid package that would provide billions of dollars for unemployed Americans, struggling families and businesses, schools and the distribution of coronavirus vaccines.
emphasis added
The joker in that phrasing comes in the next paragraph:
The vote was 219 to 212, with Democrats pushing the measure over unanimous Republican opposition. After hours of debate that stretched past midnight, two Democrats — Representatives Jared Golden of Maine and Kurt Schrader of Oregon — broke with their party and voted against the bill.
emphasis added
To quote Aral Vorkosigan,
"I could take over the universe with this army if I could ever get all their weapons pointed in the same direction.”
*** Last Update
I checked back at Talking Points Memo to see if Josh Marshall had anything new on whether or not Harris could overrule the Parliamentarian. It turns out he does.
Here’s a brief update on this tussling over what to do about the minimum wage hike and the fact that the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that it shouldn’t be included in a reconciliation bill. Yesterday I wrote that it seemed like advocates were right when they claimed that Vice President Harris could reverse the decision in a way that required 60 senators to, in turn, overrule her. (It’s a bit convoluted; here’s the post from yesterday that walks through it.) Since I wrote that post I’ve found out some more information that suggests the 60 vote thing isn’t even real. Or rather that it would take 60 votes to overrule Harris and if that vote failed then they could vote again and on the second round would only need 51 votes, which would make the whole thing a mirage.
Marshall is still checking into it, but that looks like the last word for now… on that particular possibility, but a larger issue remains and Marshall addresses that.
...There’s a recurring pattern in the permanent and mostly healthy pull and tug between more institutional/coalitional parts of the Democratic party and the left progressive wing of the party. That is that members of the latter group [progressives] will claim that the solution to this or that problem is in fact easy, a slamdunk and a no brainer when in fact in many cases it won’t work at all or carries high, high risks.
emphasis added
...Pushing this hard is obviously a way of exerting pressure, which is unremarkable and totally what one would expect. The problem is that when you convince your supporters that something is easy and just sitting there waiting to be done and the folks in charge refuse to do it you send a crippling, demoralizing and fissiparous message.
...It’s best at making you feel confident and cozy in your own righteousness and reassured that the only reason things aren’t getting done is because everyone else is a hack or a sell out or so feckless as to amount to the same.
Again, that can feel good. But misleading your supporters like this actually doesn’t generate policy successes and it breeds – or rather directly instills – a belief in the cynicism or bad faith of coalition partners that makes future successes far less likely.
emphasis added
You can read the entire piece at this link. BTW, If you are thinking about subscribing to TPM, I would recommend it — Marshall continuing to follow this up is an example of what we should be getting from journalism.
I am going to add my own observations to Marshall’s.
What Marshall is talking about goes above and beyond the question about Harris and what she can and cannot do in this case. As he says, it is a mostly healthy pull and tug over what can and cannot be done in the bigger picture of setting the Democratic Party agenda; honest opinions differ. The problem is when unrealistic expectations are set, and when those responsible pursue them regardless — on either side.
I am going to differ with Marshall on several points. He notes that progressives tend to argue that some problems can be easily solved. I would counter the corollary is that the institutional/coalitionalists tend to argue some problems are too hard to solve or just can’t be done at this time. It is easy to lose sight in the pull and tug that both sides still largely agree there are problems that need to be solved and what those problems are.
This is what happens when you live in a reality-based community. Facts matter — but how facts are interpreted also makes a difference. And when new facts appear, as is the case with this specific issue on the VP’s powers, then everything may need to be recalculated. That can be painful, especially when it seems to make desired goals unattainable — or the powers that be take that as reason to put them off, compromise, accept half-measures.
One of the things that drives Daily Kos is that it’s a venue where progressives can exchange ideas, work on advancing the progressive agenda (while fighting about exactly it should be and how it should be achieved), and because the Establishment Left seemed to be seriously dropping the ball. We are people who are tired of hearing why things can’t be done. There’s an observation I picked up from Richard Bach: argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they’re yours.
To attempt anything is to risk failure; to refuse to attempt anything is to guarantee failure. How much risk can you tolerate? We are up against existential threats from multiple directions — at some point risk becomes irrelevant when the alternative is oblivion. (The short version is: Failure is not an option.)
Consider life across the aisle. Facts don’t matter; only beliefs, and they are as ‘true’ as how firmly they are believed. They spent four years where their leader promised them everything, delivered nothing good, left many of them impoverished and dead, took no responsibility for anything, was able to blame everything on others (us), got away with numerous crimes — and they still love him and want him back.
IMHO, for all practical purposes they have become a cult — and a death cult at that. The policies they pursue kill people. (The cruelty is the point.) For the moment the death count is incidental to their leader’s goals — wealth and power — but as history shows, it can easily become an open policy goal.
As January 6 showed, some among them are chomping at the bit for open violence; only blood sacrifice will satisfy them and excuse the failures of their cult to deliver on its promises. Give people enemies to kill, to hate, and it’s easy to keep them in line.
(I guess this puts me firmly in Camp 1, re Digby’s post the other day.)
I’m going to wrap this up now; I assume there are some new comments since I started this update several hours ago. To respond to several previous comments, I did not post this because I was attacking Harris — I was writing up what yesterday looked like a potential game changer worth discussing.
Neither am I trying to refight purity wars. I’m trying to find answers and laying out arguments for what I think we need to do.
YMMV — so be it.
Regardless, I see this as the immediate (and perennial) problem.
- Democrats were elected by voters to solve problems — and/or because voters rejected the alternatives.
- Democrats have made promises and are working on them. They only have a limited time to start delivering results — and the bare minimum of power to do it.
- People don’t care all that much how the sausage was made — what they care about is how it tastes and how much ends up their plate.
- If Democrats fail to deliver on some or all of their promises, or if they are seen as failing to deliver, they will be voted out of office. *
- If this happens despite their best efforts — they will deserve to lose.
- If they lose, America loses — because the alternative is no alternative at all.
* The GOP answer to this thing about promises is attempt to rig the system so they can’t lose whether they keep them or not.
Any questions?