Senate parliamentarian rules against including minimum wage in Covid relief bill

[Montauk6]

Source: CNN

The Senate parliamentarian has ruled against including the increase in the minimum wage in the Covid relief bill, an aide familiar with the process and two sources with direct knowledge of the situation tell CNN.

The increase is still likely to be included in the House bill on which the chamber is voting Friday. However, the parliamentarian ruled that the increase to $15 per hour did not meet a strict set of guidelines needed to move forward in the Senate's reconciliation process. That means that the House will pass their bill, the Senate will have to strip the minimum wage provision out and then eventually, the House will have to pass that bill again at the end of the process.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/minimum-wage-covid-relief-senate-parliamentarian/index.html

[FBaggins]

2. Not a surprise

It was going to take some creative thinking to find a way to get it in.

This isn't to say that the majority might not try to overrule the determination if they can get Manchin/Sinema onboard for an increase.

[Delphinus]

3. Let *THEM*

work for $7.25 per hour!!!!!

[area51]

16. +1 n/t

[yaesu]

19. plus make them try to survive a month only using food stamps for food. nt

[Ollie Garkie]

4. Hate to say it but I think this was wise

Min wage is kind of a separate topic and this way Manchin and Sinema might go along with the plan easier.

[RainCaster]

6. Manchin is drunk on his power all of a sudden. He won't go along with anything.

F'ing DINO.
Yeah, I hear that he is the best we can hope for. That doesn't excuse his being a lousy team player with the party that brought him there.

[ancianita]

34. In spite of West Virginians needing the relief, too. So if he's not caring about them, who are his

donors. Either it's because he's told not to approve raising the minimum wage by his donors, or he's just testing this party. He either knows what Democrats stand for, or he's manipulative for someone else's sake. https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/joe-manchin/summary?cid=N00032838

https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=7573477&default=

Either way, we have to make it our business to NOT let him be the best we can hope for.

[DENVERPOPS]

41. Don't his antics

remind you of that other supreme asshole Leiberman?????????????

[DENVERPOPS]

42. Gotta ration wages

so the corporate exec's (like his daughter) can make 10,000 bucks an hour.........

[Bleacher Creature]

8. I had the same reaction.

I also think it guarantees that the full $1.9 trillion gets passed as Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer won't let the bill get watered down any further.

[FBaggins]

15. Keep in mind that Manchin and Sinema aren't enough

If it can't go through with reconciliation... it might need 60 votes.

[Sapient Donkey]

33. Oh, I didn't realize it getting through with reconciliation was a potential concern.

I thought that was mostly a non-issue






*edit* ohh wait, you mean the min wage at a later time. I'm dumb.

[happybird]

23. I agree

It’s an important issue that deserves it’s own bill.
And now debating/arguing over the wage hike is holding up immediate financial relief desperately needed by so many who have no job and need that new stimulus check yesterday.

[Zipgun]

26. Deservers isn't the issue. Needing 60 votes as a stand alone bill is.

Might be able to badger two senators into supporting it to get the 50. Not going to get 10 for 60.

[Red Mountain]

5. Well

damn.

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. This must come to a floor vote, even as a separate bill- voters won't understand otherwise

Most voters don’t know a parliamentarian from their elbows, and will blame Dems for not delivering unless a floor vote is held and those opposed to raising the minimum wage can be named.

This will mean killing the filibuster sometime before the vote.

[aocommunalpunch]

10. I agree.

I'm guessing voters will see they didn't get the increase and will blame those in power. The details mean nothing these days. We continue as a fraud of a nation.

[WHITT]

9. It's Merely An Advisory Opinion

Clearly it would create jobs, as jobs rose after every other past increase in the Federal Minimum Wage. Clearly it would increase federal tax receipts, which would reduce the federal deficit.

[sellitman]

11. KILL THE FUCKING filibuster already

Just do it.

[LymphocyteLover]

17. I wish! Tell it to Sinema and Manchin.

[Sapient Donkey]

30. Would that even help in this case since two democrats in a 50/50 senate are opposing it?

[riversedge]

12. Overruling the parliamentarian's finding does not have the votes in a 50-seat majority Here is Sin

Overruling the parliamentarian's finding does not have the votes in a 50-seat majority

Here is Sinema in a recent interview: “There is no instance in which I would overrule a parliamentarian’s decision"

Here is Manchin: "I will protect the Byrd Rule at all costs.”

Link to tweet

?s=20

[aocommunalpunch]

14. Senate Majority Leader should have a good reason why we struggle to bring

these wiley loose-cannon Dems on board. Imagine the popularity! Bribe them with whatever it takes.

Unfortunately, the party will be branded poorly, especially when low-info voters find out stuff like: (Parliamentarian) Term Length: Pleasure of the Senate Majority Leader. It LOOKS like you had the ability to do something and didn't get it done. It feeds a narrative and we're on defense again. Twist the arms or face the obvious consequences, I guess.

[LymphocyteLover]

18. Thanks-- I figured as much. Sucks.

[LymphocyteLover]

20. So Kristen Sinema is bisexual, has purple hair, wears thigh boots and takes her oath on

a copy of the constitution, but won't vote to overturn ridiculous Senate rules. GMAFB.

[Progressive Jones]

39. D.I.N.O. She's a sell out. nt

[LymphocyteLover]

51. I dunno. I think she's more complicated than that. But it's weird how she can be an iconoclast

personally and be so old-fashioned about the Senate and frankly pig-headed about the filibuster. Manchin I can sort of understand, but her? WHY?

[ancianita]

35. Why should Schumer preserve the Byrd Rule at the cost of 27 million American lives being lifted out

or poverty. Since when are Senate rules written in stone.

What is the Senate Rules Committee for, then? Just oversight on existing buildings on the capitol grounds? Senators Schumer and Klobuchar need to explain this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/117th_United_States_Congress#Committees

[NYC Liberal]

37. The parliamentarian can be fired and it doesn't require the whole Senate.

Trent Lott did it in 2001: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/05/08/key-senate-official-loses-job-in-dispute-with-gop/e2310021-0f14-4667-a261-54e6c033207c/

[aocommunalpunch]

13. This salary seems a bit above minimum wage.

Per Wikipedia:

The Parliamentarian's current salary is $171,315 per year.

[LymphocyteLover]

21. Ughh... this rulng is so insanely stupid

of course the wage rate affects the budgets FFS

[yaesu]

22. and Maddow reminds us the repukes fired their parliamentarian when they were told the same. nt

[oasis]

24. 2022 ads will be hell for ReTrumplicans. nt

[iluvtennis]

25. Very disappointed in this ruling...but want Biden admin to move on with getting the Covid

relief package passed and later downstream bring the $15 minimum wage back for a separate vote.

[Zipgun]

27. So it's dead then. Never going to get 10 GOP senators vote. Might get some BS slightly higher

poverty wage that Manchin will crow about how great it is. Really starting to hate him.

[catrose]

28. If you'd like to urge Vice President Harris to override the parliamentarian,

her phone number, according to the White House website, is 202-456-1414.

[Sapient Donkey]

31. How does that work exactly, and what would it do?

[catrose]

32. Not an expert, but my understanding is she can say, no, we're not going along with that.

[OnDoutside]

45. Norm Ornstein spoke with Al Franken about this, here's an excerpt from the transcript

And again, that will also go back to a reconciliation because the reconciliation, why don't you explain what that is to the folks it's going to be very important in this administration? Reconciliation is what was it started as a very small and arcane budget process, going back to the budget

And impoundment control act and acted after Richard Nixon. And the idea was Congress is going to do a budget and it's going to set out spending and revenue targets. And then at the end of the year, in theory, after we've done that, we will need to reconcile those and pull together a resolution that sends out directions to all the different committees. And here's what you've got to do now is to make sure that we meet the targets from the budget, but it's been used in very different ways over the years. The advantage of it in the Senate is that it requires an expedited, certain up or down vote with only a majority required to pass it.

And while it has constraints, it's gotta be something that is directly related to the budget itself, that it can't increase deficits over a 10 year period. That's something that was put in by Robert Byrd when he was the majority leader of the Senate, and it's called the bird rule, but it's been used in and abused over time. So the huge tax cuts implemented by George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, we're done to avoid a filibuster by Democrats in the Senate with reconciliation. As you mentioned earlier, the affordable care act, at least a large portion of it.
It was kind of awkward because some of the elements that you'd want to include you couldn't that weren't so much budget related, but it got through the Senate eventually in the house because of reconciliation.

I should point out by the way that we did pass it with 60 votes originally. And then you're a member of Scott Brown, one of the Senate seat, and suddenly at 59, and then the house, unfortunately with the best solution would have been in the house to pass exactly what we had passed in the Senate. They didn't, because they'd worked very hard on what they want to do on the ACA. So they had a lot of pride of authorship. And as a result, we had to go to a reconciliation in the Senate and, and vote that way. And that puts on certain kinds of constraints, but you can do it in a remarkable amount in reconciliation. You know, for example, the, the bird rule saying you, it can't increase the deficit over 10 years.
You know, if, if part of what you're passing is tax increases on a very rich people, that's it?

No, no. And you can do that. And rather than a even dealing with the filibuster, you can alter the bird rule a little bit. So for example, you could raise an objection to a $15 minimum wage because it's not directly budget related, you know, amend the bird role a little bit, and you could bring that in as part of a package and you could do infrastructure and you can do a lot of things that you would want to do to get the economy moving. And maybe even at least in a small way to address the wealth and income inequality. But, you know, there's a lot you can fold in there and not just a enormous tax cut

Something to me because you're talking about ways around the, you know, and being able to add like the $15 minimum wage or something. And the person that came to my mind was the Senate parliamentarian who has to make these decisions. And then what came to my mind is being able to use 50 votes plus the vice-president to override the parliamentarian, which has been done a number of times, right? Like for example, Gorsuch didn't get 60 votes. He got a majority, and that was, I believe over the objections of the parliamentarian, but the 50 plus can overrule the parliamentarian, right?

So the way in which the Senate rules have been changed in the past, and that was a good example when Mitch McConnell decided that he would lower the bar required for Supreme court justices is that you have the parliamentarian rule that under the rules, this can be filibustered. And there's an appeal of the ruling of the chair. And in most circumstances, the appeal of the ruling of the chair only requires 50 votes. And it's a backdoor way, but an effective way of changing the rules

In fairness to the Republicans. And this is way too complicated because it isn't, but the complication is Mitch McConnell is still the blame, but Harry Reed, the, the same thing on other federal judges. So I just, I, I, I, it, it's more complicated than that, but I just wanted to be fair to say, my point really is that you can do this.

You can change the rules and with a common law Harris in the chair, she can rule that the Byrd rule actually does not apply to a $15 minimum wage. And the parliamentarian would say, Oh, yes, it does. And then you could have an appeal and a The, you could make that work.
So we need all 50 to the hanging they're on that, a witch, you don't know if Mention would, you know, or something like that, but it is. And this brings me to will Schumer be Mitch McConnell.

It's not just, will he be Mitch McConnell and being ruthless in using the rules to accomplish his own objectives, but will he be clever enough to figure out ways to frame all of these things and to use them in a fashion that will actually be effective? And I would say a, the jury is very much out on both of those. And I, you know, I will give him his due in this case, a four Schumer, the tricky part for him is one that you alluded to a little bit a minute ago. He's only got 50 and among the 50, you have a Joe mansion. Mmm. And you have a Christian cinema, and you have some others who are going to be a little bit uneasy about pushing too far.

And you've got to Diane Feinstein. Who's a day's are probably not quite as robust as they were a few years ago.

She'll vote the way the last person talks to her.

Yeah. And I'm not sure how long she'll stay in the Senate and whether Chuck Schumer can do as well as Harry Reed did in bringing together those 60 votes that ranged from back then from Bernie Sanders to Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. That
Was 60 though.

That's we literally had Six, you had 60. And he had to get every single one of them. And, you know, its possible in some issues that Chuck will be able to get a few Republicans and maybe then lose a couple of Democrats, whether he's skillful enough to do that in a fashion where the Democrats he loses are at the left end of the spectrum and not have his caucus be very upset. How skillfully is. That's really gonna be a, a, an important question for Joe Biden.

And also he has a house which the margin of the house is what right now, only three years.

Well, right now there are there, it takes a, the, the 435 member house. A if it were a completely filled, would need to 118 votes to make a majority. And right now there were 219 Democrats because three have left to go into the administration. We have one seat that's still a little bit up in the air, probably go to the Republicans. You know, that gives them a little bit of a cushion because you don't have the full, a house in place. You had one Republican who died of COVID before being seated, but you have almost no margin for error in the house either.

Yeah. So he's got to think about that in addition to the 50 50. Okay. So he's going to want to increase taxes on the wealthy and the unbelievable gaps in wealth and income in this country are just kind of a sin. And he'll be able to do that only
You would share things.

So, and you know, the Biden proposal from the campaign was to increase taxes only on those making $400,000 a year or more. And it's worth adding here that, you know, we've had this insane wealth and income gap, but the fact is it's widened dramatically during the pandemic, large numbers of Americans hit so hard, their incomes disappearing, their costs going up, businesses struggling. But that group at the top, the one 10th of 1% have grown insanely richer during the pandemic. They've managed to find ways to do just fine. In some ways, in some of them even better, we're going

[FBaggins]

48. She doesn't have a say in the matter

The full senate can overrule the parliamentarian, but the VP only gets a vote in the event of a tie... and there aren’t enough votes to get to a tie.

[Sapient Donkey]

29. Pretty much figured that would happen with Machin and Sinema

I've been arguing with the anti-biden left about this for weeks now. I don't know if they really don't understand how the process works, or if they are intentionally ignoring these facts. So, ask them how they think their preferred person (usually Bernie) would pull it off, and they never seem to have any answers. So, I'm pretty sure it's not just a matter of me having a lack of understanding or imagination.

I mean, is there anything that could be done without making changes to appease those two?

[ancianita]

36. It's not as important that it doesn't pass this time as it is to just get passed soon.

Americans pay $7.8 TRILLION in taxes every year.

More bills should be paid to lift the bottom wage class.
Poverty as it stands is more costly for this nation than a wage increase, which improves local economies of small businesses nationwide. A "rich nation" is a lie if 30% of its population are poor.

[Orrex]

38. Shit like this is how Republicans win midterms

I am not bashing Democrats. I am simply observing that, in the name of power, Repugs ignore with impunity the rules by which Democrats abide, and as a result Repugs can claim great advances made in their hateful, regressive agenda.

All over social media I see people asking when they'll receive the much-promised $1400 check. The desperate and struggling constituents will, at some point, do the math and reflect on which administration gave them a bigger total payout in their time of need, and they will make their decisions accordingly.


We can only hope that McConnell has stroked out before that day comes.

[lostnfound]

40. Remember that time Trump and McConnell stopped themselves over parliamentarian advice?

Neither do I.

[DENVERPOPS]

43. However

I DO remember awhile back when the House and/or Senate held a quiet middle of the night vote on giving themselves a raise!

[Montauk6]

47. Where was the parliamentarian when senators as impeachment jurors were...

...openly collaborating with the impeachment defendant?

[FBaggins]

49. Standing by the existing parliamentarian determination

Which was that they aren’t jurors in the first place.

[cstanleytech]

44. Do the rules allow for tax increases? I would include those then on corporations up to 60% if they

earn more than 100 million a year.
To lower it they simply have to make sure they employee workers here in the US that earn more than 500% over the federal poverty level with the more they have that earn that the lower those taxes go.
Also of course add a provision that if they offshore those jobs to lower the number of employees then the higher their taxes go as well.

[FBaggins]

50. Yes

But there aren’t nearly 50 votes for that.

[lapfog_1]

46. the irony here

is that even raising the minimum wage to $15/hr for 20M people DOES NOT affect the federal budget enough in 10 years to make a significant budget impact. If it had, the parliamentarian might have been persuaded to allow this change to federal law to be made under reconciliation.

Perhaps they should have tried for $25/hr or even $30/hr.