General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKamala Harris Could Deliver $15 Minimum Wage If Democrats Really Wanted It
?resize=1800,1200&w=1200Now, Democrats have to choose between respecting some arcane Senate semi-rules and ensuring more than a million working Americans would no longer literally go hungry, and they seem, somehow, poised to pick the former.
There are multiple options available to Biden if he is truly committed to the idea that, as he said in his statement on the ruling, no one in this country should work full time and live in poverty.
For one thing, the president could just ask Kamala Harris, the president of the Senate, to overrule the parliamentarian. In fact, one former parliamentarian has said its entirely at the VPs discretion to listen to MacDonough on a ruling like this one or not. And there is ample historical precedent for not listening to the parliamentarian as Slate reports, Vice President Hubert Humphrey routinely ignored his parliamentarians advice.
[link:https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/democrats-15-dollar-minimum-wage-vp-harris-senate-1132695/|
bottomofthehill
(8,239 posts)Can and by their comments would sink the bill. By over ruling, it only leaves the 15 dollars in the bill but then the bill will not pass the Senate. The bill still needs 50 votes to pass. Plus the VP breaking the tie.
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)They just don't want it in the bill.
still_one
(91,807 posts)""Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, a moderate Democrat, has rejected inclusion of a $15 minimum wage in President Joe Biden's coronavirus stimulus package, dashing hopes for progressive lawmakers who are pushing for the raise.
Sinema joined Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, a fellow moderate from West Virginia, in publicly rebuking the idea that raising the minimum wage is appropriate amid the ongoing stimulus bill negotiations.
The Arizona senator made her views clear during an interview with Politico this week, in which she said would "not support" any provisions not directly related to providing immediate COVID-19 relief."
https://www.newsweek.com/kyrsten-sinema-joins-joe-manchin-rebuking-15-minimum-wage-eing-put-stimulus-dashing-1568931
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)She said she doesn't want it in the bill, as confirmed by the article you just gave.
still_one
(91,807 posts)to reconciliation is the way the Democrats will approach this, and it has a very real chance of getting through
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)(even if I disagree with some as to the "why" ).The tax provision is just as good as far as I'm concerned, if not better. And there would be no question as to how it effects the budget.
still_one
(91,807 posts)jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)Fortune 1000 companies are keeping the wages low, they should be responsible for bringing them back up. It makes perfect sense to me. Also the fact this would kick in immediately as opposed to a five year step process would be sooo much better than a simple increase. I'm pretty jazzed and hoping it gets through.
Miguelito Loveless
(4,427 posts)and denying $1.9 trillion in relief is one thing, actually casting the vote and ending your political career is something else.
mopinko
(69,716 posts)i'm sure by now the cost of a no vote has been succinctly explained to both of them.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)RWs talking points "blame everything on the Democrats" which takes the light off of republicans who in whole are against a minimum wage and COVID-19 relief.
Miguelito Loveless
(4,427 posts)and they get to own sinking the entire COVID bill. I don't think they want that on their heads.I think they are bluffing. Siding with the Q Confederacy on this would be a career ending move.
FBaggins
(26,681 posts)There may not be a single Democratic senator who is willing to say that they won't vote for the relief without the minimum wage increase.
Miguelito Loveless
(4,427 posts)The minimum wage SHOULD be in the bill, and Manchin & Sinema then either vote for it, or sink the entire bill and suffer the consequences.
Instead, they get to bluff and extort the Dems into removing it. If there is no minimum wage bill passed, we will suffer in 22. The people who gave the Dems the White House, Senate, and House will have been screwed and will not accept any lame ass excuse about parliamentarians, or disloyal senators.
rickyhall
(4,889 posts)mcar
(42,179 posts)Even if VP Harris did this, we still don't have the votes.
I've seen this on social media, too, by certain groups who seem to really, really want to smear our Vice President.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)mcar
(42,179 posts)still_one
(91,807 posts)hlthe2b
(101,534 posts)tirebiter
(2,520 posts)Read Rolling Stone?
Bonn1997
(1,675 posts)it has the minimum wage increase?
SCantiGOP
(13,841 posts)but my guess would be that they would not intervene in a Senate rules issue.
krawhitham
(4,634 posts)Normally the Senate parliamentarian gives "advice" on whether a section of a bill is legal or not
Here the Senate parliamentarian is giving their "opinion" if this section of a bill passes the "byrd rule" or not, while it is called a "rule", the "byrd rule" is a LAW adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990
Overruling a parliamentarian does not suddenly make the section of the bill pass the "byrd rule". If the VP overrules the parliamentarian the GQP will just take the bill to court, and if the court agrees with the parliamentarian & GQP the court would at least strip out the $15 an hour but could throw the whole bill out
BTW
A VP has NEVER overruled a parliamentarian in a reconciliation bill. 1st time a reconciliation bill passed congress was the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, the last time a parliamentarian was overruled was in 1975 on a point of order issue, not legality issue.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,338 posts)I see headlines like this all over social media all of the time. *What* evidence is there that Democrats just don't want it? Unless the Democrats in the Senate have taken leave of their collective faculties and/or simply becoming cold blooded and heartless, there has got to be a good reason why they are doing/not doing something. Why aren't we asking that question instead of just automatically assume there is some kind of conspiracy involved or they don't want it, are ineffective, weak, etc.?
SlogginThroughIt
(1,977 posts)This is some anti-woman propaganda.
lapucelle
(18,016 posts)It might all seem simple to a Rolling Stone staff writer advocating for firing or overruling an impartial parliamentarian as some easy fix, but the reality is very different.
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)As manchin and sinema would be hard pressed not to actually support a stimulus. If they actually don't vote for it, they can simply take out the provision.
lapucelle
(18,016 posts)... that would mean that Senate Democrats resorted to questionable Republican tactics and then still lost.
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)But there would likely easily be the votes to reverse it, and any senator could force a vote, so it isn't gonna be in the bill either way.
OnDoutside
(19,890 posts)then you will have far more information than you currently have. It's illuminating.
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)Does he think it wouldn't pass a full senate vote if the minimum wage is in the bill? I'll need to check him out more often. I've watched clips here and there but don't watch msnbc in general much. I am quite impressed with what I've seen of him, though.
OnDoutside
(19,890 posts)was used the last time the minimum wage was increased (in 2004 iirc), and that's to include it in a "Must Pass" Defense Bill. He said it got 80 votes and most of the 20 votes came from Democrats voting against the Defense Bill ! There will be another such Bill coming up this year.
If they are going to blow up the filibuster, make it when there really is no other way.
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)I don't disagree. Although for now I am quite impressed with Wydens provision which I see as a good shot to pass in this bill. But this provision put together with a future minimum wage hike would be incredible.
OnDoutside
(19,890 posts)they will find a way but if there is to be a massive fight that they need to keep their filibuster powder dry for, it's to pass S1 / HR1 & the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. After the Covid Relief bill, there is nothing more important to American Democracy, nothing. It simply must be passed.
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)This minority rule crap is b.s.
OnDoutside
(19,890 posts)it was livable, but McConnell has hastened its imminent demise for sure. The fear I have is that if it were to go, and the RWNJs slither back in...well be careful what you wish for in that situation. That's why S1 is so vital, and worth killing the filibuster for.
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)Right now. Maybe Sinema will come to terms with it considering what is happening there.
OnDoutside
(19,890 posts)the score.
Actually I am really hopeful that the 2022 elections will be a lot better for Democrats that the 2020 downballot races. I think a lot of Republicans not only came out to vote for Trump and down the ballot, but a lot of Republicans came out to vote for Biden and then Republican down the ballot as well. It was a double whammy that won't be there next year, plus Covid under control, the economy flying, and unemployment way down. Even better if S1 passes Democrats just need to keep a cool head
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)Republicans knocked on doors because they don't car about infecting people. Dems largely didn't. I think that had a pretty resounding effect on our downballot races as a result. Something that we did not repeat in the Georgia races.
On edit to add: I think 2022 will be really different in this regard.
OnDoutside
(19,890 posts)lapucelle
(18,016 posts)would own both the charge of dubious ethics and the failure of the tactic.
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)Although the evidence is heavily against me in this regard...
BlueLucy
(1,609 posts)Manchin is already pissed about being pushed. Why would we kill the filibuster for a bill we don't have 50 votes on? Manchin would likely have a meeting with Mitch McConnell, cut a deal, become a repuke and we lose the Senate.
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)But also his republican governor. It's a non issue though. Either way it isn't getting in the bill. The simpler reason being that even if Kamala overruled the parliamentarian, there would be a successful vote to reverse it.
BlueLucy
(1,609 posts)People are hurting, Covid is killing folks. We need to get this relief out ASAP! Why are we holding back when we know it's not possible.
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)People are hurting. Not just because of covid, but also poverty wages.
Midnight Writer
(21,469 posts)There, I fixed the headline.
betsuni
(25,061 posts)Celerity
(42,445 posts)It isn't going into the reconciliation bill, even if Manchin and Sinema said they would vote for it. Biden is not going to allow the parliamentarian to be overruled, and sub-zero chance Harris backstabs him and does it anyway.
Manchin and Sinema will not support a standalone bill for 15 usd AND it will be be filibustered (60 voted need for cloture).
So you will need 12 Rethugs to cross the aisle.
Never happening.
We will be super lucky to tuck an 11 usd rate (maybe even lowered to 10 usd and spread out over 3, not 2 years) into a Defence spending bill and dare the Rethugs to block it.
Our party is too divided to ram shit through. It is the price we all pay for having centrists or even centre-right conservatives (Manchin calls himself moderately conservative) as the only types who can get elected in pink/purple/red states.
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)That is the real problem. Not whether all democrats will vote for a stimulus bill that includes a minimum wage hike.
andym
(5,437 posts)and they have already announced opposition to the $15 minimum age-- so the measure is DOA in the Senate-- and it has nothing to do with Harris.
Moreover, there are probably even a greater number of senators who would refuse to go along with Harris overruling the parliamentarian, as a matter of respecting the Senate traditions.
jorgevlorgan
(8,196 posts)But the former also has truth, I must concede. I don't think manchin and sinema would want to stake their reputations on obstructing more money to their constituents, though. I could easily be wrong of course. Either way, it isn't going in the bill.
FBaggins
(26,681 posts)Yes... the parliamentarian's role is advisory in nature and the presiding officer could rule differently - but the presiding officer's ruling is ALSO advisory - because the full senate decides questions of rules if a single senator asks for a ruling to be voted on.
Given how the parliamentarian ruled on the question - there isn't any reason to believe that Manchin/Sinema would both support Harris's ruling on the question if she were to override the parliamentarian.
Silent3
(14,961 posts)I hate the idea that things don't get voted on at all because a losing vote is possible, and no one wants to look bad losing.
The $15 minimum wage is important enough to fight harder for it, and put Manchin and Sinema on the spot if they're going to stand in they way.
It's certainly way to important to worry about appearances. Republicans wouldn't blink an eye if the shoe was on the other foot and they wanted to make a bill or a provision pass.
FBaggins
(26,681 posts)They're generally skipped when the whip knows that the vote will fail and there's no significant benefit to expending the political capital.
Republicans wouldn't blink an eye if the shoe was on the other foot and they wanted to make a bill or a provision pass.
They would if they didn't have the votes.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)always electing lying corporatists? Us and the Republicans really just like Tweedledom and Tweedledee as we prove Senator Sanders right every day?
Guess I'd better add a sarcasm emoji if anyone's here who laps up this kind of agitprop. Don't want to have to disagree with someone happy to find a like mind. It's happened.
betsuni
(25,061 posts)Trueblue1968
(17,111 posts)marie999
(3,334 posts)Still Sensible
(2,870 posts)She could, if she wanted to spend the political capital, overrule the parliamentarian. At that point, there would need to be at least two--and perhaps more--repug senators firmly prepared to vote for it. The vice president cannot simply will it to be passed.
As much as we want the minimum wage raised to $15, and it is very important, it is most critical to get the rest of this stimulus bill passed and signed into law!
everyonematters
(3,430 posts)Manchin has stated he would approve of $11.00. If I was Biden and the Democrats, that's what I would do, after making some noise about how the Republicans are blocking it. What it really comes down to is public opinion. This is popular and important enough to have Harris do it.
msfiddlestix
(7,260 posts)Let's get real folks. Those rules are Jim Crow rules that the fifty Democratic Senators can't do freaking thing about, until it increases by 17 more Senators on our side.
Please let's not pretend otherwise. We have to take the Senate bigly. making a 2/3rds majority before we can make any significant changes.
Hermit-The-Prog
(32,891 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(143,635 posts)Both have stated that they will not weaken the Byrd rule and so this effort would fail
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Falsely trashing democrats. Joe on the other one and Harris on this one. At least you cover all the bases. At least 2 Democratic Senators have stated they will not support the increase.
And dont even try the old Biden should make them bullshit. Senators are not like representatives, especially those from red or purple states where weakening them means a republican senator.
We are not political novices here and understand the often frustrating realities of a tied Senate.
Oh, welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.
radius777
(3,624 posts)She does not have 'superpowers' to do this, as others have noted, it would be overridden by the Senate, and then she (and Biden) would look like fools. Biden also ran on 'restoring normalcy' and going against the parlimentarian (who was appointed by Harry Reid and is well respected) just would look wrong.
And as noted, Manchin and Sinema would stall the bill until it was taken out. Manchin has been adamant that he won't vote on anything the parlimentarian disallowed, and if the parlimentarian had allowed it he would've only gone as high as $11/hr. Why get into this shit for $11 when we can (as Lawrence Odonnell who worked in the Senate noted) stuff it into a defense spending bill - same way we did to raise it to $7.75 back in 2009.
Manchin is a problem but he is in a deep red state, so it's difficult (but not impossible) to find a better conservative Dem to primary him. Sinema should be primaried as she's too conservative for a purple state. Somebody better like Rep. Ruben Gallego could defeat her in a primary and IMO easily win statewide.
UTUSN
(70,435 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(143,635 posts)FBaggins
(26,681 posts)The quoted statistic appears to measure the number of times that a VP has ignored the advice of the parliamentarian and then had the full senate override that decision.
But it ignores the "nuclear option" occurrences where the presiding officer ruled with the parliamentarian and then had the full senate override that ruling.
LetMyPeopleVote
(143,635 posts)We lack the votes in the Senate. On the Last Word s couple of nights ago, it was explained how that overriding the parliamentarian is meaningless unless you have the votes. If VP Harris overruled the Parliamentarian, McConnell would propose an amendment to strike the minimum wage and this vote would pass 52 to 48. We do not have the votes to pass this amendment right now in the real world
FBaggins
(26,681 posts)Its just a mistake to believe that theres some structural roadblock to overriding the parliamentarians view on some rule.
It does happen... it just hasnt happened through the VP. But thats just because the VP is rarely involved.
Mr.Bill
(24,031 posts)to fight this on a state-by-state basis.
It's already been done in a number of states. It would be a good issue to use in state elections to turn states blue in some cases. Don't see it as a problem, use it as a tool.