However, I don't see the relationship of the reconciliation process to the act of reconciling Senate and House versions of a bill. I guess there must be and that's why it's called reconciliation - but I don't see it.
Well there's two different bills currently. The House passed a budget bill, the Senate passed a budget bill, (joanne's reference to voting is on one of those bills -- probably the Senate one, I'd guess, based on timing), and now a third bill to reconcile them needs to be written. That third, yet-to-be-written bill is the "reconciliation". It's that third bill, passed by both the House and Senate, that will actually become law.
Yeah, but what makes that any different than any other bill? Reconciling through a conference committee has nothing to do with the reconciliation process that avoids a filibuster.
Right?
I guess the question to ask is why is the filibuster-avoidance maneuver called reconciliation?
However, I don't see the relationship of the reconciliation process to the act of reconciling Senate and House versions of a bill. I guess there must be and that's why it's called reconciliation - but I don't see it.
Well there's two different bills currently. The House passed a budget bill, the Senate passed a budget bill, (joanne's reference to voting is on one of those bills -- probably the Senate one, I'd guess, based on timing), and now a third bill to reconcile them needs to be written. That third, yet-to-be-written bill is the "reconciliation". It's that third bill, passed by both the House and Senate, that will actually become law.
Yeah, but what makes that any different than any other bill? Reconciling through a conference committee has nothing to do with the reconciliation process that avoids a filibuster.
Right?
I guess the question to ask is why is the filibuster-avoidance maneuver called reconciliation?
But I'm not so sure I care anymore.
You are right that all bills have to be reconciled. Budget reconciliation get special no-filibuster powers though. So I guess we could be pedantic and always call it "budget reconciliation" -- and you do sometimes see it that way in news stories -- but more often we just see the it shorthanded to "reconciliation".
I'm not even 100% I got all the details exactly right -- eg I called them "bills" but really what the House and Senate pass are "resolutions" and I think the "bill" is the final outcome of reconciliation. But I think the general gist of what I said is correct -- and is why people just generally wave their hands and say "reconciliation" to mean all of the various pieces of the process.
read that link I posted earlier. It explains it in excruciating detail. But doesn't clear up my question - at least that I could see before my eyes started to glaze over.
read that link I posted earlier. It explains it in excruciating detail. But doesn't clear up my question - at least that I could see before my eyes started to glaze over.
:shrug
Anyway, main takeaway is House and Senate now have voted on budget resolutions and path's clear for them to make the final bill without the threat of a filibuster. And for those who want to dive into it in detail there's your links ;-)
One thing that's actually not clear to me is when the final bill will actually get passed -- Trump's impeachment trial starts soon and I think that pauses other Senate business? Can they actually get the final bill written and passed before then?
and how insane is it that everyone now understands that a supermajority of 60% is not an absolute requirement for any major legislation to pass the Senate. Another example of the GOP getting a total pass on trashing part of our government out of spite.
Anyway, main takeaway is House and Senate now have voted on budget resolutions and path's clear for them to make the final bill without the threat of a filibuster. And for those who want to dive into it in detail there's your links ;-)
One thing that's actually not clear to me is when the final bill will actually get passed -- Trump's impeachment trial starts soon and I think that pauses other Senate business? Can they actually get the final bill written and passed before then?
They haven't announced all the Rules for the trial. There was a mention at one point for doing it in the mornings only and other business in the afternoon.
Sometimes actual Court Trials are interrupted for other Court business.
As to the Minimum Wage, not one person who gets to decide the issue or just about anyone commenting on the issue here or in the Media or "Punditry" works for the Minimum Wage.
I propose that all Members of Congress get paid the Minimum Wage. I allow that they are on the job 24/7 so for their 168 hour work week at $7.25 they would earn $1218 a week or $63,336.00 per year if my arithmetic is correct. With their other perks I think that salary is about right
As to the Minimum Wage, not one person who gets to decide the issue or just about anyone commenting on the issue here or in the Media or "Punditry" works for the Minimum Wage.
I propose that all Members of Congress get paid the Minimum Wage. I allow that they are on the job 24/7 so for their 168 hour work week at $7.25 they would earn $1218 a week or $63,336.00 per year if my arithmetic is correct. With their other perks I think that salary is about right
Our current Congress is almost entirely made up of millionaires. Paying the minimum wage would only formalize the wealth requirement for election.
Bernie says he has a team of lawyers working on justifying the new minimum wage for reconciliation.
I think the way it works is that the parliamentarian of the Senate rules on this, but that they can be overruled by VP Harris.
I think.
That's my understanding too, though on the Parliamentarian being overruled, as I understand it that would be a major, and aggressive, flouting of a long-standing norm. If abolishing the filibuster is a stretch for this Senate, then ignoring the Parliamentarian probably is too -- would you be able to hold onto votes like Manchin and Sinema for a bill that could only pass by ignoring the Parliamentarian?
I truly have no idea re the parliamentarian issue. Don't know how often they've been overruled in the past.
But I think Bernie has a reasonable case re the minimum wage. I think it wouldn't be terribly hard to argue that a higher min wage would have budgetary effects. Less spending on SNAP, for instance. Probably other areas too.
I truly have no idea re the parliamentarian issue. Don't know how often they've been overruled in the past.
But I think Bernie has a reasonable case re the minimum wage. I think it wouldn't be terribly hard to argue that a higher min wage would have budgetary effects. Less spending on SNAP, for instance. Probably other areas too.
Last time was 1975. As for how the Parliamentarian is likely to rule, no idea.
If you would like to understand some of the hostility from "the other side", imagine if another party had the presidency, the house and a 50/50 senate. Further, imagine how you'd react if they used some of these tactics to ram through a bill that eliminated the minimum wage.
If you would like to understand some of the hostility from "the other side", imagine if another party had the presidency, the house and a 50/50 senate. Further, imagine how you'd react if they used some of these tactics to ram through a bill that eliminated the minimum wage.
been there, done that with the 2017 tax cut. Even worse, their attempt to overturn the ACA. "Ram through" doesn't begin to describe what they tried to do.
Oh, you want another ram through? How about Justice Barret and all those other whackaloon justices they rammed through.
Anyway, not even this R party is delirious enough to eliminate the min wage, so your example kinda sucks.
If you would like to understand some of the hostility from "the other side", imagine if another party had the presidency, the house and a 50/50 senate. Further, imagine how you'd react if they used some of these tactics to ram through a bill that eliminated the minimum wage.
I’m not saying you’re religious, but you should really take a step back from Mark Levin’s sermons....faking this “libertarian” ideology and your “independent” thoughts will not pass the test here. At least you’re not trolling with stupid cartoons, while holding the Bible upside down...
If you would like to understand some of the hostility from "the other side", imagine if another party had the presidency, the house and a 50/50 senate. Further, imagine how you'd react if they used some of these tactics to ram through a bill that eliminated the minimum wage.
been there, done that with the 2017 tax cut. Even worse, their attempt to overturn the ACA. "Ram through" doesn't begin to describe what they tried to do.
Oh, you want another ram through? How about Justice Barret and all those other whackaloon justices they rammed through.
Agree, it wasn't a hypothetical question. The GQP also "rammed through" a tax increase for people in states such as ours, as part of the "tax cut".
If you would like to understand some of the hostility from "the other side", imagine if another party had the presidency, the house and a 50/50 senate. Further, imagine how you'd react if they used some of these tactics to ram through a bill that eliminated the minimum wage.
If this country's disagreements were over policy, I'd be a lot more hopeful. Your example here gets to why I'm not. Florida, after all, voted both in favor of increasing the state's minimum wage and in favor of Donald Trump. If these same voters are angry, it's not because of the minimum wage and a desire for bipartisanship.
If you would like to understand some of the hostility from "the other side", imagine if another party had the presidency, the house and a 50/50 senate. Further, imagine how you'd react if they used some of these tactics to ram through a bill that eliminated the minimum wage.
If this country's disagreements were over policy, I'd be a lot more hopeful. Your example here gets to why I'm not. Florida, after all, voted both in favor of increasing the state's minimum wage and in favor of Donald Trump. If these same voters are angry, it's not because of the minimum wage and a desire for bipartisanship.
While I can sympathize with someone trying to make ends meet at such a low salary, what what if she's one of the 1.4 million people that the CBO estimates will lose their job?
Here's more from Bob Murphy. I suggest reading the whole article, but here's his commentary on how agressive the plan is:
According to fans of the minimum wage hike, namely the progressive Economic Policy Institute in a 2019 analysis, the $15 floor would directly raise the pay of 28.1 million workers who currently earn less than $15/hour. (In addition, the EPI estimated that 11.6 million workers earn more than $15 but would still see a pay hike as employers tried to distinguish their pay from the new minimum wage.) The 28.1 million workers represent about 19 percent of the wage-earning workforce.
In contrast, the previous round of minimum wage hikes was phased in starting in 2007, when the minimum wage was gradually raised (over two years) from $5.15 to $7.25. Another EPI study at that time praised the legislation, estimating that it would directly benefit only 5.6 million workers, which at the time was a mere 4 percent of the wage-earning workforce. Notice the huge contrast: the previous minimum wage hike only (directly) affected 4 percent of workers, but the current proposal would affect 19 percent.
Another way of assessing the aggressiveness of the current plan is to note that, even adjusting for price inflation, it would put the “real” minimum wage at the highest level in US history.
While I can sympathize with someone trying to make ends meet at such a low salary, what what if she's one of the 1.4 million people that the CBO estimates will lose their job?
Here's more from Bob Murphy. I suggest reading the whole article, but here's his commentary on how agressive the plan is:
According to fans of the minimum wage hike, namely the progressive Economic Policy Institute in a 2019 analysis, the $15 floor would directly raise the pay of 28.1 million workers who currently earn less than $15/hour. (In addition, the EPI estimated that 11.6 million workers earn more than $15 but would still see a pay hike as employers tried to distinguish their pay from the new minimum wage.) The 28.1 million workers represent about 19 percent of the wage-earning workforce.
In contrast, the previous round of minimum wage hikes was phased in starting in 2007, when the minimum wage was gradually raised (over two years) from $5.15 to $7.25. Another EPI study at that time praised the legislation, estimating that it would directly benefit only 5.6 million workers, which at the time was a mere 4 percent of the wage-earning workforce. Notice the huge contrast: the previous minimum wage hike only (directly) affected 4 percent of workers, but the current proposal would affect 19 percent.
Another way of assessing the aggressiveness of the current plan is to note that, even adjusting for price inflation, it would put the “real” minimum wage at the highest level in US history.
wtf is wrong with these people? The current minimum wage is a slave wage. If raising it were to increase unemployment - hardly a sure thing - then there are other tools that can be used to increase employment.
Anyone arguing against raising the minimum wage is a real sick puppy.
While I can sympathize with someone trying to make ends meet at such a low salary, what what if she's one of the 1.4 million people that the CBO estimates will lose their job?
Here's more from Bob Murphy. I suggest reading the whole article, but here's his commentary on how agressive the plan is:
According to fans of the minimum wage hike, namely the progressive Economic Policy Institute in a 2019 analysis, the $15 floor would directly raise the pay of 28.1 million workers who currently earn less than $15/hour. (In addition, the EPI estimated that 11.6 million workers earn more than $15 but would still see a pay hike as employers tried to distinguish their pay from the new minimum wage.) The 28.1 million workers represent about 19 percent of the wage-earning workforce.
In contrast, the previous round of minimum wage hikes was phased in starting in 2007, when the minimum wage was gradually raised (over two years) from $5.15 to $7.25. Another EPI study at that time praised the legislation, estimating that it would directly benefit only 5.6 million workers, which at the time was a mere 4 percent of the wage-earning workforce. Notice the huge contrast: the previous minimum wage hike only (directly) affected 4 percent of workers, but the current proposal would affect 19 percent.
Another way of assessing the aggressiveness of the current plan is to note that, even adjusting for price inflation, it would put the “real” minimum wage at the highest level in US history.
wtf is wrong with these people? The current minimum wage is a slave wage. If raising it were to increase unemployment - hardly a sure thing - then there are other tools that can be used to increase employment.
Anyone arguing against raising the minimum wage is a real sick puppy.
More than doubling the minimum wage increasing unemployment is a sure thing. Tell me about how you are going to engineer the economy to full employment after doubling the minimum wage. Why haven't we done it already?
While I can sympathize with someone trying to make ends meet at such a low salary, what what if she's one of the 1.4 million people that the CBO estimates will lose their job?
Here's more from Bob Murphy. I suggest reading the whole article, but here's his commentary on how agressive the plan is:
According to fans of the minimum wage hike, namely the progressive Economic Policy Institute in a 2019 analysis, the $15 floor would directly raise the pay of 28.1 million workers who currently earn less than $15/hour. (In addition, the EPI estimated that 11.6 million workers earn more than $15 but would still see a pay hike as employers tried to distinguish their pay from the new minimum wage.) The 28.1 million workers represent about 19 percent of the wage-earning workforce.
In contrast, the previous round of minimum wage hikes was phased in starting in 2007, when the minimum wage was gradually raised (over two years) from $5.15 to $7.25. Another EPI study at that time praised the legislation, estimating that it would directly benefit only 5.6 million workers, which at the time was a mere 4 percent of the wage-earning workforce. Notice the huge contrast: the previous minimum wage hike only (directly) affected 4 percent of workers, but the current proposal would affect 19 percent.
Another way of assessing the aggressiveness of the current plan is to note that, even adjusting for price inflation, it would put the “real” minimum wage at the highest level in US history.
wtf is wrong with these people? The current minimum wage is a slave wage. If raising it were to increase unemployment - hardly a sure thing - then there are other tools that can be used to increase employment.
Anyone arguing against raising the minimum wage is a real sick puppy.
More than doubling the minimum wage increasing unemployment is a sure thing. Tell me about how you are going to engineer the economy to full employment after doubling the minimum wage. Why haven't we done it already?
Please provide your step by step plan.
before the pandemic hit, we were at below 4% unemployment, several points below what most economists considered full employment.
Yeah, but what makes that any different than any other bill? Reconciling through a conference committee has nothing to do with the reconciliation process that avoids a filibuster.
Right?
I guess the question to ask is why is the filibuster-avoidance maneuver called reconciliation?
But I'm not so sure I care anymore.