Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A Horse Named Stranger

US Politics: CPAC - Finding new ways to bring America to Rune.

Recommended Posts

I agree it was unwise to include it in the bill unless you're willing to fight tooth and nails for it (like, bribe Manchin).

My impression has always been that Biden wasn't really terribly interested in the wage hike, and I thought maybe he included it as a bargaining chip with Republicans (still not realizing that they'll obstruct everything anyway, hoping for a bipartisan vote).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DMC said:

I really don't think this is true.  The high profile vote clearly doesn't help their cause either when it's tied to reconciliation - all it does is suggest less support than there actually is.

As for the parliamentarian, the chances were always very minimal whereas the chances Manchin would block a $15 hike anyway were always very high.  It's true they perhaps could have worked out a deal, but that would have bogged down the passage of the overall deal - almost certainly passed the March 14 deadline - and quite likely the moderate Dems would have demanded further (and more substantive) concessions.  In almost every respect, the downsides vastly outweigh any potential upside.

 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

True but that's fundamentally different than including it in the initial proposal - which is dangling it in front of progressives when in actuality Biden was clearly resigned to its fate and had no interest fighting for it.  I think it was a clear political mistake (and unforced error) that Biden and co. underestimated how pissed off the left was going to be at its omission - and more importantly who they were going to be pissed off at.

I also reject the notion that this really is a more "high profile" vote than a standalone bill.  The vote yesterday is obviously going to be overshadowed by the passage of the bill.  Whereas if they waited a month or so, the wage hike could have news cycles to itself, Biden could make a full-throated push for it, and the Senate could almost certainly reach a deal that would get 49 votes with something very close to Sanders' original proposal.  Then the anger can be directed where it belongs - at Republicans and Manchin.  This seems like a much better outcome than what happened for all involved.

I disagree. Consider how little attention the voting rights bill or police reform bill that the House passed last week got. Bills just don't get much attention unless there's a real chance they might become law. Minimum wage was a big part of a lot of campaigns last year, and it was priority to a lot of members to make a very visible push for it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Fez said:

Consider how little attention the voting rights bill or police reform bill that the House passed last week got.

They don't get attention passing the House.  Hell, the House passed a minimum wage bill in July 2019.  But if Schumer takes up the bill and forces a cloture vote, that will get attention.  Especially if Biden uses the bully pulpit to highlight Republican obstructionism.  Same goes for HR1 and the Floyd bill for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DMC said:

They don't get attention passing the House.  Hell, the House passed a minimum wage bill in July 2019.  But if Schumer takes up the bill and forces a cloture vote, that will get attention.  Especially if Biden uses the bully pulpit to highlight Republican obstructionism.  Same goes for HR1 and the Floyd bill for that matter.

Maybe. But those are all ifs, the COVID bill was a guarantee. Also, I think a cloture vote only gets attention if there's any possibility the filibuster is getting modified or eliminated.

 

And speaking of which, Manchin just gave a really important interview on the Meet the Press this morning, where he:

  • Again reiterated that he will not support removing the filibuster. HOWEVER, he did say "If you want to make it a little bit more painful, make him stand there and talk, I'm willing to look at [it]." The talking filibuster has been a lesser reform being pushed for a while that, AFAIK, Manchin has never announced support for before.
  • Said that he has no problem with party-line reconciliation votes, so long as there's genuine attempt at bipartisanship first. Which is great, since there's going to be another big one around infrastructure/climate later this year.
  • Said that he was open to using reconciliation to pass an ethics and voting reform bill if a deal with Republicans can't get worked out.

That last point is particularly interesting, because it's pretty widely agreed that almost none of HR1 would survive under the current reconciliation rules. One possibility is that Manchin doesn't realize that, but I think he's smart enough that he does. Another possibility is that he's fine just passing whatever tiny amount of reforms could get through, although that would seem to belie his first two points, which make it sound like he wants to get a lot done this Congress. A third possibility would be that he's open to changing the rules around reconciliation to some extent; which is a big assumption still, but would be a huge relief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Fez said:

Maybe. But those are all ifs, the COVID bill was a guarantee. Also, I think a cloture vote only gets attention if there's any possibility the filibuster is getting modified or eliminated.

?  The only two ifs were if Schumer brought a bill to the floor and if Biden would use the bully pulpit.  Both of those are virtually sure things too..if Biden employed that strategy instead.  Anyway, I don't really get your argument here - you're saying the media only pays attention if it has a real chance of becoming law, but the vote on the amendment didn't have any chance of passing; hell, it still required 60 votes - but whatever.

47 minutes ago, Fez said:

That last point is particularly interesting, because it's pretty widely agreed that almost none of HR1 would survive under the current reconciliation rules.

Yeah I haven't looked at it yet but that sounds like a pretty huge deal.  Of course, sounds like he couched it in language he can always renege on, but still.  "Ethics and voting reform" are two of the three prongs of HR1.  Another option, beyond what you mentioned, is simply he would be in favor of overruling the parliamentarian if, say, that's included in the next reconciliation bill.  That'd be pretty awesome.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump vows to campaign against 'disloyal' Murkowski
The former president is formalizing his long-held opposition to the four-term senator, promising to travel outside the Lower 48 to galvanize Alaska voters against her.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/06/trump-lisa-murkowski-2022-474028

Quote

 

Former President Donald Trump is making official his plans to target Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, vowing to travel to Alaska to campaign against her ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

In a statement to POLITICO on Saturday, Trump said: “I will not be endorsing, under any circumstances, the failed candidate from the great State of Alaska, Lisa Murkowski. She represents her state badly and her country even worse. I do not know where other people will be next year, but I know where I will be — in Alaska campaigning against a disloyal and very bad Senator.”


Murkowski, who has held her seat since 2002, has been a longtime critic of the former president and was one of seven Republican senators to vote to convict him in last month’s impeachment trial. She is the only one of the seven to face reelection in 2022.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

?  The only two ifs were if Schumer brought a bill to the floor and if Biden would use the bully pulpit.  Both of those are virtually sure things too..if Biden employed that strategy instead.  Anyway, I don't really get your argument here - you're saying the media only pays attention if it has a real chance of becoming law, but the vote on the amendment didn't have any chance of passing; hell, it still required 60 votes - but whatever.

I typed too fast, I meant to say "big" not "all." I think its a big if to assume Biden will publicly make a big push any House bills, he didn't really even for the COVID bill. And I also wouldn't assume Schumer will force cloture votes on every House bill that comes through. I assume he will for HR1, but I wouldn't for a standalone minimum wage bill. Basically, I think he will for every bill his caucus is united on, to show a contrast against Republicans; but he won't for bills that split the caucus and are potentially a hard vote for some of his members.

And I think the only reason the media paid attention to the Sanders amendment was because it was tied up with the ongoing story related to parliamentarian, and when there had been a chance for it. Without that history, if it was just an amendment brought up like any other, I think it would've been ignored like all the other failed amendment votes Friday night. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fez said:

Basically, I think he will for every bill his caucus is united on, to show a contrast against Republicans; but he won't for bills that split the caucus and are potentially a hard vote for some of his members.

Well, I think the Floyd bill should unite the caucus as well - only Golden and Kind voted against it in the House.  Same goes for minimum wage if they go through regular order to work out some concerns.  Except, of course, for Manchin (really, for both bills).  As for Biden pushing for the bill being a big if - that's pretty much my point.  I'm arguing he should be doing this instead of the hamfisted way he dealt with the minimum wage. 

Hell, based on the comments this morning, this is what Manchin wants - these agenda items first going through regular order to "give a chance" for bipartisanship.  That's of course crap, but appeasing him in going through this process - in a high profile manner - sounds like the best way to get him on board for filibuster reform and/or using reconciliation for non-budgetary issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been much discussion here about a possibility of filibuster reform, and I just wanted to call attention to this article in Politico on Manchin willing to change the rules to make it "painful" for the minority to use the filibuster. This looks to me to open the way for an approach much like Norm Ornstein has advocated. Make the bastards actually have to show up around the clock with their forty votes!

Sorry, it this has already been linked and I'm slow to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that was the way I was told back in civics class what it meant to filibuster. One had to continually read or the measure would end.

Not certain if that was ever true, but it's what my notion of what the filibuster actually was for many years.

On a separate note, I gather that $15hr minimum wage is DOA.

It's surprising how many people I've heard talking about this as if it's already passed. Imagine the heartbreak for so many dependendant on these jobs. It seems unusually cruel to deliver nothing to so many with hopes so high. I hope they can at least get a raise to a $12hr minimum wage or a close compromise later. It's better than zilch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josh Chafetz had some thoughts on Ornstein's proposals, namely that reintroducing a talking filibuster would prevent dual-tracking, meaning lots of stuff would just sit idle waiting for a filibuster to end. Chafetz's own proposal is a declining filibuster, where the number of votes to call cloture slowly falls as the filibuster goes on. Sounds like an interesting idea, but one that seems like it's a brand new approach that doesn't seem to line up with any other Senate procedure (that I'm aware of, anyways), which could lead to resistance.

But Manchin's clearly signalling he's willing to see some sort of tweak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Yeah that was the way I was told back in civics class what it meant to filibuster. One had to continually read or the measure would end.

Not certain if that was ever true, but it's what my notion of what the filibuster actually was for many years.

On a separate note, I gather that $15hr minimum wage is DOA.

It's surprising how many people I've heard talking about this as if it's already passed. Imagine the heartbreak for so many dependendant on these jobs. It seems unusually cruel to deliver nothing to so many with hopes so high. I hope they can at least get a raise to a $12hr minimum wage or a close compromise later. It's better than zilch.

The lowest wage at my current workplace is $12 an hour.

If it actually passed, the higher ups already decided they’d just raise everyone else’s wages  by $3 an hour to keep people from complaining.

Looks like they won’t have to do that any time soon, and can just keep the money for themselves. 

Edited by A True Kaniggit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are in contract negotiations and one class of workers getting a few dollars over the proposed $15 has been very vocal over they should then immediately be raised as well. I was hearing this argument yesterday as the employee spoke of a new $15 hr minimum as if it were a done deal. 

I think he and many similar have now had their hopes falsely dashed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ran said:

Chafetz's own proposal is a declining filibuster, where the number of votes to call cloture slowly falls as the filibuster goes on. Sounds like an interesting idea, but one that seems like it's a brand new approach that doesn't seem to line up with any other Senate procedure (that I'm aware of, anyways), which could lead to resistance.

That isn't just Chafetz's proposal, it's been proposed in the past - by actual Senators!

Quote

A third way to reform the filibuster is to lower the threshold each time a cloture vote fails. In 2013, former Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced a resolution to achieve this. The resolution stipulated that the majority for the first cloture vote on a measure was three-fifths of all sitting Senators (60 votes). However, each time the cloture vote failed, the threshold for a successful vote would be reduced by three. If the vote reduction would put the threshold below a simple majority, the threshold would automatically become a simple majority of all Senators (51 votes).

Anyway, that link is fairly comprehensive on detailing the various options (and pros and cons) on reforming the filibuster.  Think I've linked to it at least a half dozen times here over the past few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, thanks. I should say rather that it was one that Chafetz was touting in an article. He probably cited Harkin. Think I've missed your prior links, but will read it, as it's interesting to see what the alternatives are. 

I really do wonder what Manchin would be willing to go for, or if it's just a feigned position he's taking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ran said:

I really do wonder what Manchin would be willing to go for, or if it's just a feigned position he's taking.

Me too.  As you said, reverting to the talking filibuster - while perhaps nostalgic with the Jimmy Stewart/Huey Long allusions - does present some very real logistical problems on its own.  And that seemed to be the only one he specifically mentioned (haven't watched all his Sunday morning interviews).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe just plain indexing the current federal minimum wage to inflation?  Inflation goes up, so does the minimum wage.  perhaps that might garner a few republican votes...

 

Be nice to slide in a dollar or three an hour pay bump on top of that, but probably unlikely 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

maybe just plain indexing the current federal minimum wage to inflation?

Negative.

Because the current minimum wage is already behind the times.

Tying it to inflation may work after it is fixed. 

Edited by A True Kaniggit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make the filibuster require speakers to be on-topic all of the time, and once a topic has been covered it can't be repeated? And at any time a point of order can be raised to say that what is currently being spoken about is either not-relevant or has been said before. You get X number of successful points of order against you then the filibuster is over.

Oh, and you can't just read verbatim from texts written in a published document (book, article, journal) of the senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ser Scot A Ellison "Pics or it didn't happen"

I keep my campaign promises.

https://i.imgur.com/NIjPPxM.png

https://i.imgur.com/gz62hAT.png

Please let these be acceptable. I know you can't make out the words on the upper flag, but they say, "Not my president" I'll get a better photo if you demand it, but it'd be nice if you take me at my word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...