The attempt to get a $15 Minimum Wage passed through senate budget means was ruled out of order by the Senate Parliamentarian.
Senate Democrats will not be forced to confront an internal political battle over increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 following a decision by the primary keeper of Senate rules.
The Senate parliamentarian ruled that a plan to gradually increase the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 does not fit the complicated rules that govern budget bills in the Senate. House Democrats included the measure in a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill that is expected to be the first major legislative act for President Biden.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, said he is disappointed in the decision and pledged to pursue other legislation to increase the minimum wage.
“We are not going to give up the fight to raise the minimum wage to $15 to help millions of struggling American workers and their families,” Schumer said in a statement. “The American people deserve it, and we are committed to making it a reality.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee praised the ruling, saying it was the appropriate path to protect the rules of the Senate.
The decision is a disappointment for progressives but relieves immediate pressure on party leaders who are attempting to rally support for the overall bill despite concerns from at least two Democrats who say $15 is too high.
Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz, are the only Democrats who have publicly opposed the idea, but many others have been selectively silent on the issue.
Democrats were bracing for the measure to be removed from the bill and the path to an increase is much more difficult in the Senate where most legislation needs 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. Senate Republicans are almost uniformly opposed to the plan and a stand-alone bill to increase the minimum wage, introduced by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has 37 co-sponsors, meaning a number of Democrats may not back the idea.
The parliamentarian in me wonders why exactly . . . .Report
To get this to pass with 50 votes, you need reconciliation.
Reconciliation can only be used for pure money matters. Funding already existing programs that need more money. Increasing the debt. Increasing revenue (which probably means issuing bonds).
Increasing the min wage isn’t even slightly close to being a purely money issue.
Suggestions that it could be used by informed parties were political posturing (i.e. lies).Report
People paying higher wages might be subject to paying more taxes. Seems like a revenue issue to me.Report
That type of reasoning makes everything “entirely” a budget issue. Congress could put a dollar’s worth of [something] in there if they somehow find something that isn’t.
Much more honest to just eliminate the filibuster since that’s the instant result.Report
I wonder if this is why Hawsley offered up his idea of having the Fed subsidize wages?Report
That’s a closer call (so maybe) but establishing a new program is STILL not purely a budget issue.
Reconciliation is rare. It was used once in the last 10 years (the Trump Tax cuts) and the closest thing I can see to exceptions is “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling” which was in that bill.
Having said that, the ANWR has been a political football for decades. If it was opened in a previous bill and then that opening got zeroed out in the budget process, we may be in “funding something already approved” territory.Report
Whew. Bullet dodged.Report
Sounds like this was the right decision. And maybe the stench from Trump has fully cleared my nostrils, but if this was the right decision, I’m glad it was made. Regardless of how I feel about the policy itself, I would like to see rules followed.Report