Progressives Want Kamala Harris to Overrule $15 Minimum Wage Ruling — Here's Why She Can't
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
© Provided by Mediaite
Jessica McGowan/Getty Images
High-profile progressives like Reps. Ro Khanna and Ilhan Omar and a raft of political organizations want Vice President Kamala Harris to overrule the Senate parliamentarian's decision not to allow a $15 minimum wage provision to be included in a bill that would only need 50 votes to pass, rather than the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.
In order for the bill — President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion Covid relief package entitled the "American Rescue Plan" — to pass through the so-called reconciliation process, it needs to meet a set of rules, and the parliamentarian is the person who decides which provisions do or do not satisfy those rules.
President Joe Biden has been explaining this process for several weeks, publicly and privately, and expressing strong support for the minimum wage provision's inclusion — while preparing supporters for the likelihood that it would be stricken by the parliamentarian.
On Thursday night, that ruling came down, as Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that the provision does not meet the requirements for inclusion in a reconciliation bill.
Rep. Khanna greeted the news of the ruling by writing that "an unelected parliamentarian does not get to deprive 32 million Americans the raise they deserve," and added "This is an advisory, not a ruling. VP Harris needs to disregard and rule a $15 minimum wage in order."
I'm sorry—an unelected parliamentarian does not get to deprive 32 million Americans the raise they deserve.
This is an advisory, not a ruling. VP Harris needs to disregard and rule a $15 minimum wage in order.
We were elected to deliver for the people. It's time we do our job. https://t.co/rraVhT5GV7
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) February 26, 2021
And a lengthy list of organizations that includes the National Black Women's Roundtable, She the People, and the Urban League sent a letter requesting a meeting with President Biden and Vice President Harris to plead the same case:
We are women of color, people of color, women, low-wage workers and organizations that represent and support them. We are writing to urge you to use the full power of your office to
bring essential financial relief to all working people in America, by ensuring that a $15 federal minimum wage is included in the budget reconciliation process, regardless of the opinion of the parliamentarian.
As President of the Senate, Vice President Harris has the Constitutional power to disregard the recommendation of the Senate Parliamentarian and include this provision in the COVID relief legislation.
Rep. Khanna is correct that VP Harris can disregard the parliamentarian's advice, which carries no more authority than another famed Parliamentarian's suggestion to tear the roof off the sucker. It's just advice.
But as many people pointed out to Khanna, Harris' ruling would then be subject to appeal by a simple majority vote, and there are at least two Democratic senators — Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema — who have publicly indicated they do not support this kind of maneuver, or the $15-an-hour minimum wage.
Rep. Omar suggested replacing MacDonough to get around the ruling.
Abolish the filibuster.
Replace the parliamentarian.
What's a Democratic majority if we can't pass our priority bills? This is unacceptable.
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 26, 2021
But MacDonough's ruling isn't a judgment on the merits of the provision or a matter of personal or partisan caprice, it's the product of an analysis of the relevant Senate rules, in this case the so-called Byrd Rule. The obstacle isn't the parliamentarian, it's the rules, and the VP can't unilaterally overrule them.
When progressive journalist Sam Stein pointed out the prospect that Harris could be overruled, Rep. Khanna responded by writing "I do not think at the end of the day any Senator or Congressman will be the lone vote to sink the President's agenda. Let's force the vote. Progressives vote all the time for bills while noting objections to some provisions."
I do not think at the end of the day any Senator or Congressman will be the lone vote to sink the President's agenda. Let's force the vote. Progressives vote all the time for bills while noting objections to some provisions. https://t.co/G6cUMqvPvh
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) February 26, 2021
What Rep. Khanna is describing is a huge gamble, the merits of which can certainly be debated. But win or lose — and it's almost certainly a losing bet; despite consistent and very strong support for the measure in polls, Manchin and Sinema have ample political cover to protect the Senate rules — such a maneuver might amount to pulling the pin on a grenade that could go off the next time Republicans take power.
Progressives would argue that Republicans will blow up whatever rules they need to to get what they want when they're in power next, and history supports that argument. Any time there is an escalation in the war over Senate rules and procedure, the party in power must weigh the benefits against the political cover they are giving to the next escalation. You could argue it's "worth it" for a minimum wage, or health care, or voting rights, but it's tougher to argue it's worth it when you stand to gain nothing.
During the Democratic primary, Senator Bernie Sanders campaigned on doing just this thing, appointing a vice president who would ignore the parliamentarian and the Byrd Rule, while also saying he opposed nuking the filibuster. He even made the case during the September 12, 2019 debate.
If Democrats had the votes to nuke the parliamentarian and pass the $15 minimum wage, this maneuver might make sense in a results-oriented way. But ironically, while it's less drastic than nuking the filibuster from a practical standpoint, it's substantively much more radical. Rather than reforming the rules, this would entail ignoring them wholesale.
Sanders seems to realize that now. Upon news of the ruling Thursday night, he released a statement condemning it, and made no suggestion that the advice be overruled. Instead, he vowed to continue fighting for $15 an hour, and to add tax provisions that would encourage companies to raise their wages to that level.
I strongly disagree with tonight's decision by the Senate Parliamentarian. But the fight to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour continues. pic.twitter.com/pGwrYKjOel
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 26, 2021
As a candidate, President Biden consistently cast himself as an institutionalist who would try to protect the rules of the Senate, but also repeatedly left the door open to supporting an end to the legislative filibuster if the stakes were right and the Republicans wouldn't budge.
"If the Republicans, if there's no way to move other than getting rid of the filibuster, that's what we'll do," Biden said during a forum last August, a sentiment he expressed at numerous town halls as well.
Biden on filibuster: "If the Republicans, if there's no way to move other than getting rid of the filibuster, that's what we'll do. pic.twitter.com/8XZyqvxZNu
— Tommy X-TrumpIsARacist-opher (@tommyxtopher) August 6, 2020
The decision to push the button is something of a reverse-Catch 22, because the greatest danger involved is that you're handing the same weapon to your opponent the next time they take control of the Congress and the presidency, but the surest way to avoid that eventuality is to enact legislation and policies that benefit voters the most.
The time may yet come when Democrats decide they have the votes and a sufficiently urgent need to flex their parliamentary muscles. Now is not that time, and Vice President Harris can't change that.
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
Progressives not getting their way want to ignore the rules.
Who'd a-thunk it?
What!!! Perhaps now we can dispense with that non-sense that Progressives are in charge of the Democratic Party?
I am still opposed to both the minimum wage increase and killing the filibuster. The Dems will keep trying the minimum wage increase, but it looks dead in this bill as long as Manchin and Sinema are opposed.
I am left wondering why progressives are so eager to chunk the rules whenever it suits their purposes and why the Party doesn't set them straight.
Damn. Voted you up, Texan.
Here is why. I agree with you on many, but not all of your points.
Harris must not over ride. The minimum wage can be a political football and if the dems are smart ( which all to often they are not ) they could use it as a wedge in the 2022 campaigns.
As far as ( chunk the rules )-----uh gee, Texan-------well, you know how that works, right?
That's how populists run things. They can't win on messaging so whenever it suits them move the goal posts.
Then who is?
The thing is that Republicans are wiling to compromise and democrats are willing to have the issue and settle for nothing if they don’t get 100% of what they want.
Dude, you cannot complain about ignoring rules, after supporting Trump's attempted coup over the last election. That would be the ultimate hypocritical claim.
I really hate it when people flat-out lie about me.
Either support your bogus claims with some facts or stop making them regarding me.
My posts are all still here.
I defy you or anyone else to quote me EVER supporting any attempted coup.
Since I already know you JUST CAN'T DO IT, get back to me with a quote proving your blatantly FALSE allegations.
[Deleted]
define? I think you mean dictate.
The far left wanted the $15 an hour provision put into the relief bill along with all the other progressive pork. Pelosi is leaving it in even though she knows the Senate will remove it, so she can tell her hard liners "I tried." As far as I'm concerned there is a lot more serious stuff in there that is going to pass along with the needed covid relief. This is what happens when people vote for what they think is "normalcy."
The far left seems prepared to do whatever it takes to get what they want, even ignoring rules whenever it is convenient for them.
They are going to go as far as they can in this first year. By the time most Americans figure out what is happening, we will be well on our way to Oceania! After all, they are almost sure to lose big in the midterms anyway.
I would question why Pelosi would leave something in the bill when she KNOWS it won't pass until it's removed. Isn't that kind of defeating the purpose of a COVID relief bill? The minimum wage increase should be in a bill on its own.
I don't like people trying to manipulate, assume, or be sneaky. To me, when something is put into a document and the people that put it there are hoping that no one notices, that's some serious manipulation. Some assume it will never be read to that depth, but I can promise that those things will be found every time. I mean... it's not the service agreement of NT... this is something the entire nation is hoping will be resolved.
Perhaps Nancy didn't have the time to read the bill to find out what's in it?
Historically, leaving a 'poison pill' provision in a bill can have multiple purposes, one being to put the opposing party on the record voting against something that the majority of voters support, like a minimum wage hike.
The awaited ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian has been reported by a plethora of media for over a month so there was NO attempt at being 'sneaky' nor was there a 'hope that no one noticed'.
I would question why Pelosi would leave something in the bill when she KNOWS it won't pass until it's removed. Isn't that kind of defeating the purpose of a COVID relief bill?
It’s called politics. There is no honesty in politics. It’s like the misnomer “aid”. Foreign aid is 99% about pay to play and 1% help for the needy. In a similar vein, earmarks are set to come back to our political reality. They were banished a while back in an effort to bring more transparency to government, but the inevitable result was absolute gridlock in DC, because it eliminated the leverage needed to sway votes on congress. The policy is coming back for that reason alone. Welcome to political reality in the US.
She has to show her far left wing that she tried to get it in.
I don't like people trying to manipulate, assume, or be sneaky. To me, when something is put into a document and the people that put it there are hoping that no one notices, that's some serious manipulation. Some assume it will never be read to that depth, but I can promise that those things will be found every time. I mean... it's not the service agreement of NT... this is something the entire nation is hoping will be resolved.
This is beyond sneaky. There are Americans who are against all the radical extras attached to the bill, but they are desperate for the aid, thus they'll gladly swallow the poison along with the medicine. Every Senate democrat will vote as ordered for this monstrosity.
The other side of the Byrd Rule ( which nobody seems to be talking about) is the 10 year sunset clause. In order to avoid the prohibition against increasing deficits beyond the budget window, there is a sunset clause in there. Wouldn't that mean any change in the minimum wage would revert after 10 years? After all, that sunset clause was used to allow people to get up in arms on the 2017 tax cut where the cuts for the majority of people must expire after 10 years.
So, I'm supposed to simply accept it because this is just how it's done? That seems to be pretty counterintuitive, doesn't it?
I doubt it, but it won't be of any consequence since the Senate Parliamentarian has already ruled that it does not belong in a covid relief bill.
What's your issue with the practice? It's been ongoing and used by both sides of the isle. Do you remember when Trump had a photo op with the House when the passed the ACA repeal? It was pretty well known that it wouldn't pass the Senate, they refused to pass it through 'regular order' and they lost the moderate GOP Senators.
Your reaction perhaps.
That doesn't make it right. My issue is that it blocks the resolve to the issues that both parties can agree on because of issues that cannot. Therefore, becomes a stalemate.
No. I don't remember.
No one said it's right. It is what it is...
Then you really have no reason to have an issue. There is NO need for a stalemate. The Conference Committee process resolves the differences in the bills. That too is a long used procedure to avoid a stalemate.
Nice!
Typical. You can't get what you want playing by the rules, so you want the rules changed. Just freaking typical.
I don't think they should just get rid of the filibuster. Minority voices should always be heard in the Senate, but it shouldn't paralyze legislation. There are ways they can fix the filibuster. Allow people to speak their mind on issues, but then move on and have a vote.
It's a practice that the GQP perfected when changing the rules for Trump's agenda. Turn about it fair play.
Oh, so no one was mad that Trump DID It, they were just mad they didn't do it, too.
Got it now.
Not mad at the practice, just mad at who does it.
Typical shit.
That is a total misinterpretation of my comment.
Well done. /s
Trust me, your posts just aren't that deep or very hard to understand.
No sarcasm tag attached, for obvious reasons.
I didn't say a fucking thing about misunderstanding, I said misrepresentation, which your above statement proves was intentional.
Yawn.
Just the typical weak response, as expected.
Not deep, not complicated, easily understood.