A fight is brewing between liberal and moderate Democrats. Evidence of this struggle can be found in the battle to raise the minimum wage to $ 15 an hour as part of the latest coronavirus relief bill. The left failed in that effort. And despite having control of the House, Senate and White House, the exclusion of the salary increase reflected the political reality of what progressives can do with a 50/50 Senate and a House with 221 Democrats and 211 Republicans.
This does not bode well for progressive initiatives such as arms restrictions, climate change legislation and immigration reform. The failure to translate these campaign promises into legislative achievements could lead progressives to the end of this Congress.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Meets with reporters before the House votes to approve a $ 1.9 trillion pandemic aid package during a press conference at the Capitol in Washington, February 26, 2021.
(AP)
Namely: Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough acts as a procedural arbitrator. She recently decided that the Democrats’ move to include a $ 15 hourly minimum wage increase in the COVID relief bill violated special budget reconciliation rules.
Legislators can include almost anything they want in diverse legislation. But not in a measure addressed in the single budget reconciliation process.
Democrats opted to use the special budgetary framework for the COVID measure to avoid an obstruction. Otherwise, they need 60 votes to reject an obstruction. With only 50 Democrats in the Senate and only a handful of “achievable” Republicans for this measure, reaching 60 votes would never happen. Thus, Democrats are studying the budget reconciliation option.
Implementing the reconciliation process once a fiscal year ends the obstruction for this bill – and just this bill.
But there was an exchange.
These budget rules restrict provisions of the bill that address policy or contribute to the deficit over a long period. MacDonough decided that the proposed minimum wage did not qualify for reconciliation.
THE $ 1.9 T BIDEN CORONAVIRUS RELIEF ACCOUNT IS ‘TROJAN HORSE,’ WILL BE USED AS A ‘THINK BACKGROUND’ TO BUY VOTES: REPRESENTATIVE. NUNES
In many ways, this is not a surprise. A few days ago, President Biden doubted that the minimum wage increase would survive MacDonough’s examination for this COVID bill.
Liberal Democrats have gone crazy.
“I certainly think there should be an annulment (of MacDonough’s decision) or a replacement,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. “There are no more excuses.”
“I think the congressman was wrong on this call,” said Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, DN.Y.
When asked if they should fire MacDonough, Ocasio-Cortez replied that “all options must be on the table.”
Progressive Caucus co-chairwoman Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., Argued that Senate Democrats should override MacDonough.
“This is an advisory opinion. We made a promise to raise the minimum wage. Now we have to keep that promise to 27 million Americans who will not be convinced when we return in two years and say ‘Sorry, the unelected parliamentarian told us that we could not increase the minimum wage, “said Jayapal.” So, we’re going to have to make a choice here. ”
Jayapal said the Senate budget reconciliation rules “were actually put there to preserve the power of white segregationists and the power of the minority”.
Jayapal can be right about some of the reasons related to “segregationists” and the Senate obstruction. But not when it comes to budget reconciliation.
The reason is that the 1974 Budget Law governs the budget reconciliation process in the Senate. That is 1974, not 1874.
Omar and Jayapal are right. There is a way to potentially challenge MacDonough’s decision.
MacDonough was enforcing the “Byrd Rule” when he rejected the proposed minimum wage. It is named after the late Senate majority leader, Robert Byrd, DW.Va.
A senator could challenge MacDonough’s decision – but the Senate would have to find itself in a very specific procedural stance – essentially a parliamentary dead end – where nothing else could be debated. Thus, senators could establish a vote to overturn MacDonough’s decision by detonating Byrd’s rule in the simple majority of votes.
This would not constitute a “change of rules” in the Senate. But a “precedent” change. The Senate conducts much of its business by “precedents” and not by the 44 Permanent Senate Rules. This tactic would be similar to the “nuclear option” used in 2013 and 2017 to curb obstructions in the executive branch and Supreme Court candidates.
Ignoring the congressman is all about math.
Senator Joe Manchin, DW.Va., is a Democrat who opposes the inclusion of the minimum wage increase in the COVID bill. By the way, Manchin is now in the seat occupied by Byrd for decades. Manchin indicated that he would also oppose detonating Byrd’s Rule.
AOC SQUAD, OMAR MEMBERS SUGGEST THAT THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARY MAY BE REMOVED BY THE MINIMUM WAGE DECISION
So if Democrats have only 50 votes to start and Manchin is opposed to annulling the congressman …
The other option is for a senator to propose “dispense with the Budget Law” with regard to the provision of the minimum wage. This option allows the Senate to bypass the Budget Law – and potentially include raising the minimum wage. But the Senate can only waive the Budget Law if 60 (!) Senators vote to do so.
This dog is not going to hunt.
In other words, if you are struggling to get 51 votes, you will never dispute 60.
Replacing the parliamentary?
yea. It has happened before. In 2001, Senate Republicans dismissed then-parliamentary Bob Dove from his position after some decisions they did not like. But there is a small universe of people on the planet who are qualified to exercise parliamentary functions.
Democrats criticized the appointment of former President Trump of Supreme Court judge Amy Coney Barrett to the higher court last fall. They said the former president only summoned Barrett because she would make decisions favorable to the Trump administration. Do Democrats really want to install a congressman who will rule only in their direction? Or do they prefer to have someone objectively calling balls and hitting?
Democrats included a $ 15 minimum wage increase in their $ 1.9 trillion COVID bill passed Saturday morning. But Democrats need to decide whether or not to support the next round of the bill, after the Senate removes the minimum wage clause from the measure.
Ocasio-Cortez said that moderate Democrats should be “lucky that progressives are not asking for $ 24 (an hour) now”.
But that is the problem. Procedural gymnastics with MacDonough revealed how little power progressives really have in Washington. That would always be the tension within the party with Democrats controlling the White House, the House and the Senate.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPLICATION
Liberals hoped to raise the minimum wage. Approve legislation on climate change. Enforce gun control. Adopt immigration reform. Grant Washington, DC and a state of Puerto Rico. These can be great campaign promises. But parliamentary realities will hinder the transformation of such plans into law.
It’s about math. It’s about math. It’s about math.
Did the Democrats make too much commitment to their base? Or, if the liberals are disappointed? It is a danger to Democrats.
I asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., If she thought there would be problems with approving the bill when he returned from the Senate.
“No,” replied the speaker.
That is the verdict on the coronavirus bill. But bigger problems may be lurking for the party if it does not approve the important initiatives it has promised on its left flank.