I disagree. As you note, firing the Parliamentarian doesn't solve the problem, it just unnecessarily adds to bad precedent and optics. There are alternatives. Let the VP overrule the decision or better yet Dems should change the rule so this doesn't keep happening. I wouldn't describe this as a "whim" by the Parliamentarian, it's the rule that's the problem. Dems have supported her for years as fair, do we want to keep firing Parliamentarians? I don't think I'm defending a norm for it's own sake, I fear another step towards a banana republic Congress.
What kind of pressure is being put on Manchin and Sinema on the minimum wage issue? I mean pressure back at home, not in DC. According to a WVA poll, 63% of West Virginian's support the minimum wage increase. AZ seem split, but if we can peel off Manchin, I wonder if Sinema wants to be the lone holdout.
One thing I haven't heard mentioned is the possibility of a second reconciliation package this year. Possible because, while it's only allowed once per fiscal year, Congress didn't pass a budget in 2020 -- so the idea is that Dems can pass two -- for 2020 and 2021. If that's true, this one bill doesn't have to carry everything.
My understanding is that this ruling is only the parliamentarian's viewpoint. I will be extremely disappointed in this WH if they do not deal with this issue as the obstruction it is. And yes, I mean Biden. I have been a Joe Biden supporter from Day One and I respect his time in the Senate but I now fear that he has too much patience for a process that now will be the American peoples' undoing. I certainly hope that Kamala Harris is INDEED, the last person in the room now.
These are important points, Dan. And the most important is that whether one is talking about the filibuster or the power that has been unnecessarily ceded to the parliamentarian, these are rules that the Dems are affirmatively choosing to accept and play by. People may disagree about whether the rules make sense – and I probably most other readers of the Message Box would argue that such rules both aggravate the undemocratic nature of the Senate’s structure and that the rules neuter Congress from any ability to meet the challenges that the nation faces - but they are rules that the Democrats choose to accept. The narrative about “getting rid” of the filibuster, “changing” rules, or “overruling” the parliamentarian, risks letting Democrats off the hook for responsibility for choosing to play by rules that do not Congress address the grave challenges we face. And if Congress and government doesn’t meet the challenges, only one party will be blamed, the party that believes in government.
WWMMD? As someone posted the other day Moscow Mitch if he returns to the majority would fire the parliamentarian, kill the filibuster or anything else to push his agenda. As things stand we have one or maybe two shots to pass the bills that will help our fellow Americans and that is what we'll be judged by in 2022 and 2024, not how we bowed to some arcane relic. Neither we as Dems nor the American people can leave our fate in the hands of an advisory opinion put forth by an unelected person who serves at the whim of our own Majority Leader, especially when we know what fate awaits us if we lose one Senate seat. Throw in losing the House to redistricting and a President romantically entwined with the Senate and we're looking at game over. Agree with you 100% Dan, fire the parliamentarian then bare knuckle Manchin and Sinema if we have to, but get it done.
Pass COVID relief immediately, then figure out all creative outside-and-inside the box avenues for the wage increase. Go bare knuckles on both HR1 and minimum wage increase (I like the idea of including it in an infrastructure package). Shout at all Dem senators from the rooftops every day-- if we do these three things, it will help more people than anything we've done in the past 10 years. Fearing what happens if we lose the presidency in 4 years and the filibuster is gone as a means to stop R policies is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Go all out and get ruthless to accomplish things that will make the most people's lives better, and that gives you the best chance of winning the presidency in 2024. And then, even if you lose in 2024, at least you've accomplished a lot in the time you had. If you don't do these things, you will lose in 2024, especially if you don't do them because you're worried about what happens if you lose.
I'm confused. If the Democrats don't have 50 votes for $15, then what's the point of creating a side show by attacking the filibuster or the parliamentarian? They'll end up in exactly the same place. First order of business has to be getting Manchin and Sinema on board.
Do we want a "$15 minimum wage" or do we want t raise the incomes of low income workers? Given an pre-cooked national sentiment for $15 minimum wage, it made sense to go for that, especially if it could be done over the screams of Republicans, but a higher EITC would do that same good for low income workers (yes the formula would have to be tweaked to include single workers) and will still produce politically instructive screams from Republicans. What's the advantage of the tax kludge working through business incomes?
I disagree. As you note, firing the Parliamentarian doesn't solve the problem, it just unnecessarily adds to bad precedent and optics. There are alternatives. Let the VP overrule the decision or better yet Dems should change the rule so this doesn't keep happening. I wouldn't describe this as a "whim" by the Parliamentarian, it's the rule that's the problem. Dems have supported her for years as fair, do we want to keep firing Parliamentarians? I don't think I'm defending a norm for it's own sake, I fear another step towards a banana republic Congress.
What kind of pressure is being put on Manchin and Sinema on the minimum wage issue? I mean pressure back at home, not in DC. According to a WVA poll, 63% of West Virginian's support the minimum wage increase. AZ seem split, but if we can peel off Manchin, I wonder if Sinema wants to be the lone holdout.
One thing I haven't heard mentioned is the possibility of a second reconciliation package this year. Possible because, while it's only allowed once per fiscal year, Congress didn't pass a budget in 2020 -- so the idea is that Dems can pass two -- for 2020 and 2021. If that's true, this one bill doesn't have to carry everything.
My understanding is that this ruling is only the parliamentarian's viewpoint. I will be extremely disappointed in this WH if they do not deal with this issue as the obstruction it is. And yes, I mean Biden. I have been a Joe Biden supporter from Day One and I respect his time in the Senate but I now fear that he has too much patience for a process that now will be the American peoples' undoing. I certainly hope that Kamala Harris is INDEED, the last person in the room now.
These are important points, Dan. And the most important is that whether one is talking about the filibuster or the power that has been unnecessarily ceded to the parliamentarian, these are rules that the Dems are affirmatively choosing to accept and play by. People may disagree about whether the rules make sense – and I probably most other readers of the Message Box would argue that such rules both aggravate the undemocratic nature of the Senate’s structure and that the rules neuter Congress from any ability to meet the challenges that the nation faces - but they are rules that the Democrats choose to accept. The narrative about “getting rid” of the filibuster, “changing” rules, or “overruling” the parliamentarian, risks letting Democrats off the hook for responsibility for choosing to play by rules that do not Congress address the grave challenges we face. And if Congress and government doesn’t meet the challenges, only one party will be blamed, the party that believes in government.
WWMMD? As someone posted the other day Moscow Mitch if he returns to the majority would fire the parliamentarian, kill the filibuster or anything else to push his agenda. As things stand we have one or maybe two shots to pass the bills that will help our fellow Americans and that is what we'll be judged by in 2022 and 2024, not how we bowed to some arcane relic. Neither we as Dems nor the American people can leave our fate in the hands of an advisory opinion put forth by an unelected person who serves at the whim of our own Majority Leader, especially when we know what fate awaits us if we lose one Senate seat. Throw in losing the House to redistricting and a President romantically entwined with the Senate and we're looking at game over. Agree with you 100% Dan, fire the parliamentarian then bare knuckle Manchin and Sinema if we have to, but get it done.
Pass COVID relief immediately, then figure out all creative outside-and-inside the box avenues for the wage increase. Go bare knuckles on both HR1 and minimum wage increase (I like the idea of including it in an infrastructure package). Shout at all Dem senators from the rooftops every day-- if we do these three things, it will help more people than anything we've done in the past 10 years. Fearing what happens if we lose the presidency in 4 years and the filibuster is gone as a means to stop R policies is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Go all out and get ruthless to accomplish things that will make the most people's lives better, and that gives you the best chance of winning the presidency in 2024. And then, even if you lose in 2024, at least you've accomplished a lot in the time you had. If you don't do these things, you will lose in 2024, especially if you don't do them because you're worried about what happens if you lose.
I'm confused. If the Democrats don't have 50 votes for $15, then what's the point of creating a side show by attacking the filibuster or the parliamentarian? They'll end up in exactly the same place. First order of business has to be getting Manchin and Sinema on board.
Now getting a new parliamentarian who will rule virtually anything budget reconcilable (diluting the power of the filibuster) has its advantages, too.
Do we want a "$15 minimum wage" or do we want t raise the incomes of low income workers? Given an pre-cooked national sentiment for $15 minimum wage, it made sense to go for that, especially if it could be done over the screams of Republicans, but a higher EITC would do that same good for low income workers (yes the formula would have to be tweaked to include single workers) and will still produce politically instructive screams from Republicans. What's the advantage of the tax kludge working through business incomes?