Anarchistbear said:

---

Part of that of course is the authoritarianism of the two parties but there is also a social dynamic. We just went through a major catastrophe where-often- the people working and at greatest risk were at the bottom of the wage scale; and they suffered more than we did. So these "heroes" are feted at the Super Biwl but left with little recompense other than words. The other reason is we have a crisis of inequality, declining health, increasing drug addiction, increasing suicides and a lack of social cohesion that is a national crisis

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

chazzed said:

---

I'm thinking people do keep voting for representatives who don't work for a minimum wage increase, even if said voters are for an increase. The socialism/communism boogeyman and other wedge issues can be used to manipulate plenty of people.

---

Who are they supposed to vote for when both parties represent business interests?

---

Start with local government. Local government impact people's lives much more on a day to day basis than media coverage and people's attention would indicate. Local elections and platform are not limited by two parties or national party platform.

---

I agree with that. Grass roots is still the most effective at local levels and is also the reason people like AOC won, but you also have to recognize that primary motive of both parties is power and they will use money and all means to safeguard that. It always goes back to representation or lack or it- a country of 300 plus million deserves more than a corrupt duopoly

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

Since you appear to feel strongly about this, I'm interested in your thoughts on the question I posted upthread. Namely, what is the rationale for inserting a minimum wage provision into a reconciliation bill? Also, of the 8 Democratic senators who voted no, I suspect that a few more than just Sinema would be potentially amenable to a $15 minimum wage outside of reconciliation, so in that hypothetical scenario, would you still support primarying them?

---

chazzed said:

---

sycasey said:

---

---

You were right in a reply of yours earlier in this thread: Democrats did get plenty done with this bill.

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

Since you appear to feel strongly about this, I'm interested in your thoughts on the question I posted upthread. Namely, what is the rationale for inserting a minimum wage provision into a reconciliation bill? Also, of the 8 Democratic senators who voted no, I suspect that a few more than just Sinema would be potentially amenable to a $15 minimum wage outside of reconciliation, so in that hypothetical scenario, would you still support primarying them?

---

I'm not interested in what Bernie Sanders calls "the archaic and undemocratic" rules of the Senate. I'm interested in results for the American people.

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

Since you appear to feel strongly about this, I'm interested in your thoughts on the question I posted upthread. Namely, what is the rationale for inserting a minimum wage provision into a reconciliation bill? Also, of the 8 Democratic senators who voted no, I suspect that a few more than just Sinema would be potentially amenable to a $15 minimum wage outside of reconciliation, so in that hypothetical scenario, would you still support primarying them?

---

I'm not interested in what Bernie Sanders calls "the archaic and undemocratic" rules of the Senate. I'm interested in results for the American people.

---

To be clear, I am in full support of a $15 minimum wage. Having said that, budget reconciliation is a completely different concept from the filibuster with a clearly delineated set of parameters that are - in my view anyway - perfectly reasonable. The filibuster, on the other hand, is a concept whose original basis is sketchy at best and whose recent history is anathema to functioning government. I guess I just don't see why the minimum wage fight isn't something better taken up as a stand-alone issue separate from a budget reconciliation bill. I think it's a virtual certainty that several more Democratic senators if not all (looking at you Manchin) would vote in favor of a $15 minimum wage if it didn't go through the reconciliation process, since there apparently isn't an actual justification for considering it a budgetary measure. So why are certain wings of the Democratic party framing this parliamentarian decision as the end-all be-all on the minimum wage question?

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

Since you appear to feel strongly about this, I'm interested in your thoughts on the question I posted upthread. Namely, what is the rationale for inserting a minimum wage provision into a reconciliation bill? Also, of the 8 Democratic senators who voted no, I suspect that a few more than just Sinema would be potentially amenable to a $15 minimum wage outside of reconciliation, so in that hypothetical scenario, would you still support primarying them?

---

I'm not interested in what Bernie Sanders calls "the archaic and undemocratic" rules of the Senate. I'm interested in results for the American people.

---

To be clear, I am in full support of a $15 minimum wage. Having said that, budget reconciliation is a completely different concept from the filibuster with a clearly delineated set of parameters that are - in my view anyway - perfectly reasonable. The filibuster, on the other hand, is a concept whose original basis is sketchy at best and whose recent history is anathema to functioning government. I guess I just don't see why the minimum wage fight isn't something better taken up as a stand-alone issue separate from a budget reconciliation bill. I think it's a virtual certainty that several more Democratic senators if not all (looking at you Manchin) would vote in favor of a $15 minimum wage if it didn't go through the reconciliation process, since there apparently isn't an actual justification for considering it a budgetary measure. So why are certain wings of the Democratic party framing this parliamentarian decision as the end-all be-all on the minimum wage question?

---

sycasey said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

Since you appear to feel strongly about this, I'm interested in your thoughts on the question I posted upthread. Namely, what is the rationale for inserting a minimum wage provision into a reconciliation bill? Also, of the 8 Democratic senators who voted no, I suspect that a few more than just Sinema would be potentially amenable to a $15 minimum wage outside of reconciliation, so in that hypothetical scenario, would you still support primarying them?

---

I'm not interested in what Bernie Sanders calls "the archaic and undemocratic" rules of the Senate. I'm interested in results for the American people.

---

To be clear, I am in full support of a $15 minimum wage. Having said that, budget reconciliation is a completely different concept from the filibuster with a clearly delineated set of parameters that are - in my view anyway - perfectly reasonable. The filibuster, on the other hand, is a concept whose original basis is sketchy at best and whose recent history is anathema to functioning government. I guess I just don't see why the minimum wage fight isn't something better taken up as a stand-alone issue separate from a budget reconciliation bill. I think it's a virtual certainty that several more Democratic senators if not all (looking at you Manchin) would vote in favor of a $15 minimum wage if it didn't go through the reconciliation process, since there apparently isn't an actual justification for considering it a budgetary measure. So why are certain wings of the Democratic party framing this parliamentarian decision as the end-all be-all on the minimum wage question?

---

By the way, Manchin signaled today that he might be interested in changing the filibuster rules, if not eliminating it outright.

HR1 will be the big test. If Dems don't pass it they are giving the GOP a chance to lock them out of power for a long while.

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

Since you appear to feel strongly about this, I'm interested in your thoughts on the question I posted upthread. Namely, what is the rationale for inserting a minimum wage provision into a reconciliation bill? Also, of the 8 Democratic senators who voted no, I suspect that a few more than just Sinema would be potentially amenable to a $15 minimum wage outside of reconciliation, so in that hypothetical scenario, would you still support primarying them?

---

I'm not interested in what Bernie Sanders calls "the archaic and undemocratic" rules of the Senate. I'm interested in results for the American people.

---

To be clear, I am in full support of a $15 minimum wage. Having said that, budget reconciliation is a completely different concept from the filibuster with a clearly delineated set of parameters that are - in my view anyway - perfectly reasonable. The filibuster, on the other hand, is a concept whose original basis is sketchy at best and whose recent history is anathema to functioning government. I guess I just don't see why the minimum wage fight isn't something better taken up as a stand-alone issue separate from a budget reconciliation bill. I think it's a virtual certainty that several more Democratic senators if not all (looking at you Manchin) would vote in favor of a $15 minimum wage if it didn't go through the reconciliation process, since there apparently isn't an actual justification for considering it a budgetary measure. So why are certain wings of the Democratic party framing this parliamentarian decision as the end-all be-all on the minimum wage question?

---

Budget reconciliation only exists as a workaround to the filibuster. To say they are different concepts is wrong. The former exists because of the problems caused by the latter.

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

Since you appear to feel strongly about this, I'm interested in your thoughts on the question I posted upthread. Namely, what is the rationale for inserting a minimum wage provision into a reconciliation bill? Also, of the 8 Democratic senators who voted no, I suspect that a few more than just Sinema would be potentially amenable to a $15 minimum wage outside of reconciliation, so in that hypothetical scenario, would you still support primarying them?

---

I'm not interested in what Bernie Sanders calls "the archaic and undemocratic" rules of the Senate. I'm interested in results for the American people.

---

To be clear, I am in full support of a $15 minimum wage. Having said that, budget reconciliation is a completely different concept from the filibuster with a clearly delineated set of parameters that are - in my view anyway - perfectly reasonable. The filibuster, on the other hand, is a concept whose original basis is sketchy at best and whose recent history is anathema to functioning government. I guess I just don't see why the minimum wage fight isn't something better taken up as a stand-alone issue separate from a budget reconciliation bill. I think it's a virtual certainty that several more Democratic senators if not all (looking at you Manchin) would vote in favor of a $15 minimum wage if it didn't go through the reconciliation process, since there apparently isn't an actual justification for considering it a budgetary measure. So why are certain wings of the Democratic party framing this parliamentarian decision as the end-all be-all on the minimum wage question?

---

Budget reconciliation only exists as a workaround to the filibuster. To say they are different concepts is wrong. The former exists because of the problems caused by the latter.

---

This got me curious enough to look a little bit into the history of budget reconciliation and I sorta agree and disagree with you here. It looks like the initial concept of budget reconciliation was introduced via the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which Nixon (R) signed into law. Carter (D) was the first president to actually sign a bill into law using reconciliation. Then Reagan (R) is the first president to really use reconciliation as a regular tool for spending and tax priorities. So yes, it does look like budget reconciliation was originally created as a vehicle for overcoming the filibuster on certain types of bills.

On the other hand, this framework still makes it clear that the intent of budget reconciliation is for budget-related items, so I stand by my assessment that if there are clearly delineated parameters in place, then they should be followed. In the instant case, unless there is some budgetary justification for a minimum wage law, I don't see why this is where the fight for a $15 minimum wage needs to be fought and won.

Ultimately, the near- and mid-term viability of the Democratic party is going to rely heavily on eliminating the filibuster anyway, because unless HR1 passes, state Republicans across the country are going to rig election systems hard against Democratic-leaning voters. If the filibuster is eliminated, raising the minimum wage will become exponentially less difficult. And if at that point, Democrats at large can't find some way of convincing Joe Manchin to vote some form of a minimum wage increase, then that means doing so through budget reconciliation was and has been a lost cause to begin with and the whole current fight over including a minimum wage provision through the current budget reconciliation process was pointless.

Or TL;DR, outspoken progressives need to pick their fights better. Don't succumb to the Republican messaging that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are already a failure only 2 months after sweeping the presidency and both chambers of congress. Sure, there's a distinct possibility that a godforsaken scenario where nothing getting done indeed comes to pass, but at this moment, Biden and Democratic congressional leadership still have 1.5 years to increase the minimum wage, eliminate the covid threat, etc. If Democratic / progressive constituencies are going to bail on the party's elected officials now, then truly they are a long ways away from understanding the practical reality of how government works and that would just be a tragedy.

---

BlueAnon said:

---

Quote:

---

Or TL;DR, outspoken progressives need to pick their fights better. Don't succumb to the Republican messaging that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are already a failure only 2 months after sweeping the presidency and both chambers of congress.

---

You fool.

That's not Republican messaging. That's progressive messaging.

#BlueAnon

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

Since you appear to feel strongly about this, I'm interested in your thoughts on the question I posted upthread. Namely, what is the rationale for inserting a minimum wage provision into a reconciliation bill? Also, of the 8 Democratic senators who voted no, I suspect that a few more than just Sinema would be potentially amenable to a $15 minimum wage outside of reconciliation, so in that hypothetical scenario, would you still support primarying them?

---

I'm not interested in what Bernie Sanders calls "the archaic and undemocratic" rules of the Senate. I'm interested in results for the American people.

---

To be clear, I am in full support of a $15 minimum wage. Having said that, budget reconciliation is a completely different concept from the filibuster with a clearly delineated set of parameters that are - in my view anyway - perfectly reasonable. The filibuster, on the other hand, is a concept whose original basis is sketchy at best and whose recent history is anathema to functioning government. I guess I just don't see why the minimum wage fight isn't something better taken up as a stand-alone issue separate from a budget reconciliation bill. I think it's a virtual certainty that several more Democratic senators if not all (looking at you Manchin) would vote in favor of a $15 minimum wage if it didn't go through the reconciliation process, since there apparently isn't an actual justification for considering it a budgetary measure. So why are certain wings of the Democratic party framing this parliamentarian decision as the end-all be-all on the minimum wage question?

---

Budget reconciliation only exists as a workaround to the filibuster. To say they are different concepts is wrong. The former exists because of the problems caused by the latter.

---

This got me curious enough to look a little bit into the history of budget reconciliation and I sorta agree and disagree with you here. It looks like the initial concept of budget reconciliation was introduced via the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which Nixon (R) signed into law. Carter (D) was the first president to actually sign a bill into law using reconciliation. Then Reagan (R) is the first president to really use reconciliation as a regular tool for spending and tax priorities. So yes, it does look like budget reconciliation was originally created as a vehicle for overcoming the filibuster on certain types of bills.

On the other hand, this framework still makes it clear that the intent of budget reconciliation is for budget-related items, so I stand by my assessment that if there are clearly delineated parameters in place, then they should be followed. In the instant case, unless there is some budgetary justification for a minimum wage law, I don't see why this is where the fight for a $15 minimum wage needs to be fought and won.

Ultimately, the near- and mid-term viability of the Democratic party is going to rely heavily on eliminating the filibuster anyway, because unless HR1 passes, state Republicans across the country are going to rig election systems hard against Democratic-leaning voters. If the filibuster is eliminated, raising the minimum wage will become exponentially less difficult. And if at that point, Democrats at large can't find some way of convincing Joe Manchin to vote some form of a minimum wage increase, then that means doing so through budget reconciliation was and has been a lost cause to begin with and the whole current fight over including a minimum wage provision through the current budget reconciliation process was pointless.

Or TL;DR, outspoken progressives need to pick their fights better. Don't succumb to the Republican messaging that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are already a failure only 2 months after sweeping the presidency and both chambers of congress. Sure, there's a distinct possibility that a godforsaken scenario where nothing getting done indeed comes to pass, but at this moment, Biden and Democratic congressional leadership still have 1.5 years to increase the minimum wage, eliminate the covid threat, etc. If Democratic / progressive constituencies are going to bail on the party's elected officials now, then truly they are a long ways away from understanding the practical reality of how government works and that would just be a tragedy.

---

I don't see any evidence of Biden supporters abandoning Biden. He is hugely popular and has been a huge success so far not even 2 months in. The fight for $15 is just beginning. Senators opposing it are going to find themselves put under increasing pressure. Maggie Hassan is up for reelection in 2022. She has dug herself a deep hole.

Let me ask you a question since we both know HR1 (a bill intended to ensure the rights of the American people) can't get through the undemocratic Senate. After Republicans use state power to disenfranchise enough Americans to have power despite minority support, will you still support the U.S. Constitution that props up this tyranny over the American people in the name of this useless construct called states rights? If so, why do you believe states having rights is more important than the American people having rights?

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

Since you appear to feel strongly about this, I'm interested in your thoughts on the question I posted upthread. Namely, what is the rationale for inserting a minimum wage provision into a reconciliation bill? Also, of the 8 Democratic senators who voted no, I suspect that a few more than just Sinema would be potentially amenable to a $15 minimum wage outside of reconciliation, so in that hypothetical scenario, would you still support primarying them?

---

I'm not interested in what Bernie Sanders calls "the archaic and undemocratic" rules of the Senate. I'm interested in results for the American people.

---

To be clear, I am in full support of a $15 minimum wage. Having said that, budget reconciliation is a completely different concept from the filibuster with a clearly delineated set of parameters that are - in my view anyway - perfectly reasonable. The filibuster, on the other hand, is a concept whose original basis is sketchy at best and whose recent history is anathema to functioning government. I guess I just don't see why the minimum wage fight isn't something better taken up as a stand-alone issue separate from a budget reconciliation bill. I think it's a virtual certainty that several more Democratic senators if not all (looking at you Manchin) would vote in favor of a $15 minimum wage if it didn't go through the reconciliation process, since there apparently isn't an actual justification for considering it a budgetary measure. So why are certain wings of the Democratic party framing this parliamentarian decision as the end-all be-all on the minimum wage question?

---

Budget reconciliation only exists as a workaround to the filibuster. To say they are different concepts is wrong. The former exists because of the problems caused by the latter.

---

This got me curious enough to look a little bit into the history of budget reconciliation and I sorta agree and disagree with you here. It looks like the initial concept of budget reconciliation was introduced via the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which Nixon (R) signed into law. Carter (D) was the first president to actually sign a bill into law using reconciliation. Then Reagan (R) is the first president to really use reconciliation as a regular tool for spending and tax priorities. So yes, it does look like budget reconciliation was originally created as a vehicle for overcoming the filibuster on certain types of bills.

On the other hand, this framework still makes it clear that the intent of budget reconciliation is for budget-related items, so I stand by my assessment that if there are clearly delineated parameters in place, then they should be followed. In the instant case, unless there is some budgetary justification for a minimum wage law, I don't see why this is where the fight for a $15 minimum wage needs to be fought and won.

Ultimately, the near- and mid-term viability of the Democratic party is going to rely heavily on eliminating the filibuster anyway, because unless HR1 passes, state Republicans across the country are going to rig election systems hard against Democratic-leaning voters. If the filibuster is eliminated, raising the minimum wage will become exponentially less difficult. And if at that point, Democrats at large can't find some way of convincing Joe Manchin to vote some form of a minimum wage increase, then that means doing so through budget reconciliation was and has been a lost cause to begin with and the whole current fight over including a minimum wage provision through the current budget reconciliation process was pointless.

Or TL;DR, outspoken progressives need to pick their fights better. Don't succumb to the Republican messaging that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are already a failure only 2 months after sweeping the presidency and both chambers of congress. Sure, there's a distinct possibility that a godforsaken scenario where nothing getting done indeed comes to pass, but at this moment, Biden and Democratic congressional leadership still have 1.5 years to increase the minimum wage, eliminate the covid threat, etc. If Democratic / progressive constituencies are going to bail on the party's elected officials now, then truly they are a long ways away from understanding the practical reality of how government works and that would just be a tragedy.

---

I don't see any evidence of Biden supporters abandoning Biden. He is hugely popular and has been a huge success so far not even 2 months in. The fight for $15 is just beginning. Senators opposing it are going to find themselves put under increasing pressure. Maggie Hassan is up for reelection in 2022. She has dug herself a deep hole.

Let me ask you a question since we both know HR1 (a bill intended to ensure the rights of the American people) can't get through the undemocratic Senate. After Republicans use state power to disenfranchise enough Americans to have power despite minority support, will you still support the U.S. Constitution that props up this tyranny over the American people in the name of this useless construct called states rights? If so, why do you believe states having rights is more important than the American people having rights?

---

To your first point, I don't view it as Biden supporters (presumably you mean everyone who voted for him this past November) abandoning him so much as them dropping in enthusiasm and thus less inclined to show up to vote. Semantic I suppose, but I don't consider not showing up to vote as withdrawing support per se but still just as bad in terms of electoral effectiveness. As far as someone like Maggie Hassan goes, I still say there is over a year to go to raise the minimum wage. To me, there were two ways to do so: the facially "incorrect" way (reconciliation) and the "power move" way (filibuster). It's my argument that between these two, the latter is the preferable, more defensible way of doing so. Given that the opportunity for the former has now come and gone, the Democrats are now virtually obligated to do so using the latter, and if they do ultimately do so by the 2022 elections, I don't see any reason for complaint against the 8 in the Democratic caucus who voted against just now. In other words, I think it's too early for launching broadsides the likes of which many of those senators have already been seeing.

To your second point/question, if the Republicans do end up successful in passing their whole spate of voter suppression laws and the Supreme Court upholds (seemingly more likely than not), then I would consider that the biggest middle finger to the Constitution as it exists that we have ever seen in U.S. history and a perfectly good reason to say "F*** it, I guess it's anarchy now until we can write a new one." So this ties back into my belief that if the Democrats don't nuke the filibuster to pass a sufficient minimum wage raise, that means that they aren't nuking the filibuster to pass HR1, and we as a country thus have a far greater problem on our hands than poverty wages anyway.

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

Since you appear to feel strongly about this, I'm interested in your thoughts on the question I posted upthread. Namely, what is the rationale for inserting a minimum wage provision into a reconciliation bill? Also, of the 8 Democratic senators who voted no, I suspect that a few more than just Sinema would be potentially amenable to a $15 minimum wage outside of reconciliation, so in that hypothetical scenario, would you still support primarying them?

---

I'm not interested in what Bernie Sanders calls "the archaic and undemocratic" rules of the Senate. I'm interested in results for the American people.

---

To be clear, I am in full support of a $15 minimum wage. Having said that, budget reconciliation is a completely different concept from the filibuster with a clearly delineated set of parameters that are - in my view anyway - perfectly reasonable. The filibuster, on the other hand, is a concept whose original basis is sketchy at best and whose recent history is anathema to functioning government. I guess I just don't see why the minimum wage fight isn't something better taken up as a stand-alone issue separate from a budget reconciliation bill. I think it's a virtual certainty that several more Democratic senators if not all (looking at you Manchin) would vote in favor of a $15 minimum wage if it didn't go through the reconciliation process, since there apparently isn't an actual justification for considering it a budgetary measure. So why are certain wings of the Democratic party framing this parliamentarian decision as the end-all be-all on the minimum wage question?

---

Budget reconciliation only exists as a workaround to the filibuster. To say they are different concepts is wrong. The former exists because of the problems caused by the latter.

---

This got me curious enough to look a little bit into the history of budget reconciliation and I sorta agree and disagree with you here. It looks like the initial concept of budget reconciliation was introduced via the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which Nixon (R) signed into law. Carter (D) was the first president to actually sign a bill into law using reconciliation. Then Reagan (R) is the first president to really use reconciliation as a regular tool for spending and tax priorities. So yes, it does look like budget reconciliation was originally created as a vehicle for overcoming the filibuster on certain types of bills.

On the other hand, this framework still makes it clear that the intent of budget reconciliation is for budget-related items, so I stand by my assessment that if there are clearly delineated parameters in place, then they should be followed. In the instant case, unless there is some budgetary justification for a minimum wage law, I don't see why this is where the fight for a $15 minimum wage needs to be fought and won.

Ultimately, the near- and mid-term viability of the Democratic party is going to rely heavily on eliminating the filibuster anyway, because unless HR1 passes, state Republicans across the country are going to rig election systems hard against Democratic-leaning voters. If the filibuster is eliminated, raising the minimum wage will become exponentially less difficult. And if at that point, Democrats at large can't find some way of convincing Joe Manchin to vote some form of a minimum wage increase, then that means doing so through budget reconciliation was and has been a lost cause to begin with and the whole current fight over including a minimum wage provision through the current budget reconciliation process was pointless.

Or TL;DR, outspoken progressives need to pick their fights better. Don't succumb to the Republican messaging that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are already a failure only 2 months after sweeping the presidency and both chambers of congress. Sure, there's a distinct possibility that a godforsaken scenario where nothing getting done indeed comes to pass, but at this moment, Biden and Democratic congressional leadership still have 1.5 years to increase the minimum wage, eliminate the covid threat, etc. If Democratic / progressive constituencies are going to bail on the party's elected officials now, then truly they are a long ways away from understanding the practical reality of how government works and that would just be a tragedy.

---

I don't see any evidence of Biden supporters abandoning Biden. He is hugely popular and has been a huge success so far not even 2 months in. The fight for $15 is just beginning. Senators opposing it are going to find themselves put under increasing pressure. Maggie Hassan is up for reelection in 2022. She has dug herself a deep hole.

Let me ask you a question since we both know HR1 (a bill intended to ensure the rights of the American people) can't get through the undemocratic Senate. After Republicans use state power to disenfranchise enough Americans to have power despite minority support, will you still support the U.S. Constitution that props up this tyranny over the American people in the name of this useless construct called states rights? If so, why do you believe states having rights is more important than the American people having rights?

---

To your second point/question, if the Republicans do end up successful in passing their whole spate of voter suppression laws and the Supreme Court upholds (seemingly more likely than not), then I would consider that the biggest middle finger to the Constitution as it exists that we have ever seen in U.S. history and a perfectly good reason to say "F*** it, I guess it's anarchy now until we can write a new one." So this ties back into my belief that if the Democrats don't nuke the filibuster to pass a sufficient minimum wage raise, that means that they aren't nuking the filibuster to pass HR1, and we as a country thus have a far greater problem on our hands than poverty wages anyway.

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

Since you appear to feel strongly about this, I'm interested in your thoughts on the question I posted upthread. Namely, what is the rationale for inserting a minimum wage provision into a reconciliation bill? Also, of the 8 Democratic senators who voted no, I suspect that a few more than just Sinema would be potentially amenable to a $15 minimum wage outside of reconciliation, so in that hypothetical scenario, would you still support primarying them?

---

I'm not interested in what Bernie Sanders calls "the archaic and undemocratic" rules of the Senate. I'm interested in results for the American people.

---

To be clear, I am in full support of a $15 minimum wage. Having said that, budget reconciliation is a completely different concept from the filibuster with a clearly delineated set of parameters that are - in my view anyway - perfectly reasonable. The filibuster, on the other hand, is a concept whose original basis is sketchy at best and whose recent history is anathema to functioning government. I guess I just don't see why the minimum wage fight isn't something better taken up as a stand-alone issue separate from a budget reconciliation bill. I think it's a virtual certainty that several more Democratic senators if not all (looking at you Manchin) would vote in favor of a $15 minimum wage if it didn't go through the reconciliation process, since there apparently isn't an actual justification for considering it a budgetary measure. So why are certain wings of the Democratic party framing this parliamentarian decision as the end-all be-all on the minimum wage question?

---

Budget reconciliation only exists as a workaround to the filibuster. To say they are different concepts is wrong. The former exists because of the problems caused by the latter.

---

This got me curious enough to look a little bit into the history of budget reconciliation and I sorta agree and disagree with you here. It looks like the initial concept of budget reconciliation was introduced via the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which Nixon (R) signed into law. Carter (D) was the first president to actually sign a bill into law using reconciliation. Then Reagan (R) is the first president to really use reconciliation as a regular tool for spending and tax priorities. So yes, it does look like budget reconciliation was originally created as a vehicle for overcoming the filibuster on certain types of bills.

On the other hand, this framework still makes it clear that the intent of budget reconciliation is for budget-related items, so I stand by my assessment that if there are clearly delineated parameters in place, then they should be followed. In the instant case, unless there is some budgetary justification for a minimum wage law, I don't see why this is where the fight for a $15 minimum wage needs to be fought and won.

Ultimately, the near- and mid-term viability of the Democratic party is going to rely heavily on eliminating the filibuster anyway, because unless HR1 passes, state Republicans across the country are going to rig election systems hard against Democratic-leaning voters. If the filibuster is eliminated, raising the minimum wage will become exponentially less difficult. And if at that point, Democrats at large can't find some way of convincing Joe Manchin to vote some form of a minimum wage increase, then that means doing so through budget reconciliation was and has been a lost cause to begin with and the whole current fight over including a minimum wage provision through the current budget reconciliation process was pointless.

Or TL;DR, outspoken progressives need to pick their fights better. Don't succumb to the Republican messaging that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are already a failure only 2 months after sweeping the presidency and both chambers of congress. Sure, there's a distinct possibility that a godforsaken scenario where nothing getting done indeed comes to pass, but at this moment, Biden and Democratic congressional leadership still have 1.5 years to increase the minimum wage, eliminate the covid threat, etc. If Democratic / progressive constituencies are going to bail on the party's elected officials now, then truly they are a long ways away from understanding the practical reality of how government works and that would just be a tragedy.

---

I don't see any evidence of Biden supporters abandoning Biden. He is hugely popular and has been a huge success so far not even 2 months in. The fight for $15 is just beginning. Senators opposing it are going to find themselves put under increasing pressure. Maggie Hassan is up for reelection in 2022. She has dug herself a deep hole.

Let me ask you a question since we both know HR1 (a bill intended to ensure the rights of the American people) can't get through the undemocratic Senate. After Republicans use state power to disenfranchise enough Americans to have power despite minority support, will you still support the U.S. Constitution that props up this tyranny over the American people in the name of this useless construct called states rights? If so, why do you believe states having rights is more important than the American people having rights?

---

To your second point/question, if the Republicans do end up successful in passing their whole spate of voter suppression laws and the Supreme Court upholds (seemingly more likely than not), then I would consider that the biggest middle finger to the Constitution as it exists that we have ever seen in U.S. history and a perfectly good reason to say "F*** it, I guess it's anarchy now until we can write a new one." So this ties back into my belief that if the Democrats don't nuke the filibuster to pass a sufficient minimum wage raise, that means that they aren't nuking the filibuster to pass HR1, and we as a country thus have a far greater problem on our hands than poverty wages anyway.

---

Sorry to be a stickler for the constitution. You are not one of them, but I have seen so many people who don't have the first clue on what the constitution provides raging against it.

Just from a sense of history on the constitution, the founders were very split on voting rights and who should have it. Until the 14th amendment, the states had complete power to decide who would have voting rights. The 14th amendment also didn't mandate voting right, but only provided a punitive measure in the form of reduced representatives in the house for abridging voting rights. The 15th amendment itself was the first time voting rights was specifically addressed, but only to the extent that it directly and intentionally abridges voting rights on account of race, color or servitude. What was key was that it also gave Congress the authority to make laws to enforce the 15th amendment (remember that the 10th amendment reserves for the states all rights not expressly reserved under the constitution for the federal government).

The main constitutional debate has been (i) is there a law that intentionally and directly discriminates based on race or color (generally no) and, therefore violates Section 1 of the 15th Amendment or (ii) is the voting protection laws beyond the authority granted to the federal government under the 15th amendment. What you are probably thinking about is not the constitution but the Voting Rights Act of 1965 promulgated under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment. That was the first time when even laws that did not patently discriminate based on race but had the effect of discriminating based on race could be made illegal.

The litigation will be whether the new state laws violate the Voting Rights Act. Congress can also make further laws under Section 2 of the 15th Amendment (remember, it is not an amendment to the constitution but only an exercise of authority granted under the constitution and, therefore, only requires a majority in both houses) to make what the states are proposing illegal under the argument that it has the effect of abridging voting rights on account of race or color. I suspect however that even if they tried, they will **** themselves by adding unrelated items on woke bull**** that will then get overturned as violating the the 10th amendment since it does not directly relate to enforcement of the 15th amendment.

---

dajo9 said:

---

You seem awfully triggered by the fact you made a casual comment about the 10th amendment and got it wrong.

Here's something else I know that lawyers hate. The 9th Amendment gives whatever rights the Supreme Court says it gives.

---

dajo9 said:

---

You seem awfully triggered by the fact you made a casual comment about the 10th amendment and got it wrong.

Here's something else I know that lawyers hate. The 9th Amendment gives whatever rights the Supreme Court says it gives.

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

Since you appear to feel strongly about this, I'm interested in your thoughts on the question I posted upthread. Namely, what is the rationale for inserting a minimum wage provision into a reconciliation bill? Also, of the 8 Democratic senators who voted no, I suspect that a few more than just Sinema would be potentially amenable to a $15 minimum wage outside of reconciliation, so in that hypothetical scenario, would you still support primarying them?

---

I'm not interested in what Bernie Sanders calls "the archaic and undemocratic" rules of the Senate. I'm interested in results for the American people.

---

To be clear, I am in full support of a $15 minimum wage. Having said that, budget reconciliation is a completely different concept from the filibuster with a clearly delineated set of parameters that are - in my view anyway - perfectly reasonable. The filibuster, on the other hand, is a concept whose original basis is sketchy at best and whose recent history is anathema to functioning government. I guess I just don't see why the minimum wage fight isn't something better taken up as a stand-alone issue separate from a budget reconciliation bill. I think it's a virtual certainty that several more Democratic senators if not all (looking at you Manchin) would vote in favor of a $15 minimum wage if it didn't go through the reconciliation process, since there apparently isn't an actual justification for considering it a budgetary measure. So why are certain wings of the Democratic party framing this parliamentarian decision as the end-all be-all on the minimum wage question?

---

Budget reconciliation only exists as a workaround to the filibuster. To say they are different concepts is wrong. The former exists because of the problems caused by the latter.

---

This got me curious enough to look a little bit into the history of budget reconciliation and I sorta agree and disagree with you here. It looks like the initial concept of budget reconciliation was introduced via the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which Nixon (R) signed into law. Carter (D) was the first president to actually sign a bill into law using reconciliation. Then Reagan (R) is the first president to really use reconciliation as a regular tool for spending and tax priorities. So yes, it does look like budget reconciliation was originally created as a vehicle for overcoming the filibuster on certain types of bills.

On the other hand, this framework still makes it clear that the intent of budget reconciliation is for budget-related items, so I stand by my assessment that if there are clearly delineated parameters in place, then they should be followed. In the instant case, unless there is some budgetary justification for a minimum wage law, I don't see why this is where the fight for a $15 minimum wage needs to be fought and won.

Ultimately, the near- and mid-term viability of the Democratic party is going to rely heavily on eliminating the filibuster anyway, because unless HR1 passes, state Republicans across the country are going to rig election systems hard against Democratic-leaning voters. If the filibuster is eliminated, raising the minimum wage will become exponentially less difficult. And if at that point, Democrats at large can't find some way of convincing Joe Manchin to vote some form of a minimum wage increase, then that means doing so through budget reconciliation was and has been a lost cause to begin with and the whole current fight over including a minimum wage provision through the current budget reconciliation process was pointless.

Or TL;DR, outspoken progressives need to pick their fights better. Don't succumb to the Republican messaging that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are already a failure only 2 months after sweeping the presidency and both chambers of congress. Sure, there's a distinct possibility that a godforsaken scenario where nothing getting done indeed comes to pass, but at this moment, Biden and Democratic congressional leadership still have 1.5 years to increase the minimum wage, eliminate the covid threat, etc. If Democratic / progressive constituencies are going to bail on the party's elected officials now, then truly they are a long ways away from understanding the practical reality of how government works and that would just be a tragedy.

---

I don't see any evidence of Biden supporters abandoning Biden. He is hugely popular and has been a huge success so far not even 2 months in. The fight for $15 is just beginning. Senators opposing it are going to find themselves put under increasing pressure. Maggie Hassan is up for reelection in 2022. She has dug herself a deep hole.

Let me ask you a question since we both know HR1 (a bill intended to ensure the rights of the American people) can't get through the undemocratic Senate. After Republicans use state power to disenfranchise enough Americans to have power despite minority support, will you still support the U.S. Constitution that props up this tyranny over the American people in the name of this useless construct called states rights? If so, why do you believe states having rights is more important than the American people having rights?

---

To your first point, I don't view it as Biden supporters (presumably you mean everyone who voted for him this past November) abandoning him so much as them dropping in enthusiasm and thus less inclined to show up to vote. Semantic I suppose, but I don't consider not showing up to vote as withdrawing support per se but still just as bad in terms of electoral effectiveness. As far as someone like Maggie Hassan goes, I still say there is over a year to go to raise the minimum wage. To me, there were two ways to do so: the facially "incorrect" way (reconciliation) and the "power move" way (filibuster). It's my argument that between these two, the latter is the preferable, more defensible way of doing so. Given that the opportunity for the former has now come and gone, the Democrats are now virtually obligated to do so using the latter, and if they do ultimately do so by the 2022 elections, I don't see any reason for complaint against the 8 in the Democratic caucus who voted against just now. In other words, I think it's too early for launching broadsides the likes of which many of those senators have already been seeing.

To your second point/question, if the Republicans do end up successful in passing their whole spate of voter suppression laws and the Supreme Court upholds (seemingly more likely than not), then I would consider that the biggest middle finger to the Constitution as it exists that we have ever seen in U.S. history and a perfectly good reason to say "F*** it, I guess it's anarchy now until we can write a new one." So this ties back into my belief that if the Democrats don't nuke the filibuster to pass a sufficient minimum wage raise, that means that they aren't nuking the filibuster to pass HR1, and we as a country thus have a far greater problem on our hands than poverty wages anyway.

---

I see three items here. Biden support, the minimum wage path now, and the state of the Constitution.

As for Biden support, I'm not sure what you are measuring. Midterm voters always decrease, so you will always be able to claim there was a drop in support. Also, historically, the President's party has almost always been defeated in the midterms. So the Democrats have a lot going against them in 2022. On the other hand, Democrats have three things working for them. (1) Demographic changes that strengthen their hand with every passing day, (2) Trump waging war on the Republican Party, and (3) the opportunity to do something to do generate enthusiasm. It is on the elected Democrats to generate results that turns into enthusiasm. The norm would be disaster for Democrats in 2022.

As for the minimum wage, the next step is a much smaller minimum wage increase tied to something like the defense appropriations bill, which is something many Senators will feel compelled to vote for. That is how the last minimum wage hike was passed. Is tieing a minimum wage to a defense appropriations bill so much better than tieing it to a budget reconciliation. Legislation is sausage making. I'm indifferent to how the job gets done. Personally, I think the minimum wage should be tied to the defense appropriations bill every year and the minimum wage should go up in the same % amount as defense spending.

As for the state of the Constitution and the greater problems coming our way if we don't strengthen our democracy - I agree with you.

---

Quote:

---

Do yourself a favor and actually read Shelby vs. Holder instead of spending all your time trying to act like you know anything.

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

Since you appear to feel strongly about this, I'm interested in your thoughts on the question I posted upthread. Namely, what is the rationale for inserting a minimum wage provision into a reconciliation bill? Also, of the 8 Democratic senators who voted no, I suspect that a few more than just Sinema would be potentially amenable to a $15 minimum wage outside of reconciliation, so in that hypothetical scenario, would you still support primarying them?

---

I'm not interested in what Bernie Sanders calls "the archaic and undemocratic" rules of the Senate. I'm interested in results for the American people.

---

To be clear, I am in full support of a $15 minimum wage. Having said that, budget reconciliation is a completely different concept from the filibuster with a clearly delineated set of parameters that are - in my view anyway - perfectly reasonable. The filibuster, on the other hand, is a concept whose original basis is sketchy at best and whose recent history is anathema to functioning government. I guess I just don't see why the minimum wage fight isn't something better taken up as a stand-alone issue separate from a budget reconciliation bill. I think it's a virtual certainty that several more Democratic senators if not all (looking at you Manchin) would vote in favor of a $15 minimum wage if it didn't go through the reconciliation process, since there apparently isn't an actual justification for considering it a budgetary measure. So why are certain wings of the Democratic party framing this parliamentarian decision as the end-all be-all on the minimum wage question?

---

Budget reconciliation only exists as a workaround to the filibuster. To say they are different concepts is wrong. The former exists because of the problems caused by the latter.

---

This got me curious enough to look a little bit into the history of budget reconciliation and I sorta agree and disagree with you here. It looks like the initial concept of budget reconciliation was introduced via the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which Nixon (R) signed into law. Carter (D) was the first president to actually sign a bill into law using reconciliation. Then Reagan (R) is the first president to really use reconciliation as a regular tool for spending and tax priorities. So yes, it does look like budget reconciliation was originally created as a vehicle for overcoming the filibuster on certain types of bills.

On the other hand, this framework still makes it clear that the intent of budget reconciliation is for budget-related items, so I stand by my assessment that if there are clearly delineated parameters in place, then they should be followed. In the instant case, unless there is some budgetary justification for a minimum wage law, I don't see why this is where the fight for a $15 minimum wage needs to be fought and won.

Ultimately, the near- and mid-term viability of the Democratic party is going to rely heavily on eliminating the filibuster anyway, because unless HR1 passes, state Republicans across the country are going to rig election systems hard against Democratic-leaning voters. If the filibuster is eliminated, raising the minimum wage will become exponentially less difficult. And if at that point, Democrats at large can't find some way of convincing Joe Manchin to vote some form of a minimum wage increase, then that means doing so through budget reconciliation was and has been a lost cause to begin with and the whole current fight over including a minimum wage provision through the current budget reconciliation process was pointless.

Or TL;DR, outspoken progressives need to pick their fights better. Don't succumb to the Republican messaging that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are already a failure only 2 months after sweeping the presidency and both chambers of congress. Sure, there's a distinct possibility that a godforsaken scenario where nothing getting done indeed comes to pass, but at this moment, Biden and Democratic congressional leadership still have 1.5 years to increase the minimum wage, eliminate the covid threat, etc. If Democratic / progressive constituencies are going to bail on the party's elected officials now, then truly they are a long ways away from understanding the practical reality of how government works and that would just be a tragedy.

---

I don't see any evidence of Biden supporters abandoning Biden. He is hugely popular and has been a huge success so far not even 2 months in. The fight for $15 is just beginning. Senators opposing it are going to find themselves put under increasing pressure. Maggie Hassan is up for reelection in 2022. She has dug herself a deep hole.

Let me ask you a question since we both know HR1 (a bill intended to ensure the rights of the American people) can't get through the undemocratic Senate. After Republicans use state power to disenfranchise enough Americans to have power despite minority support, will you still support the U.S. Constitution that props up this tyranny over the American people in the name of this useless construct called states rights? If so, why do you believe states having rights is more important than the American people having rights?

---

To your second point/question, if the Republicans do end up successful in passing their whole spate of voter suppression laws and the Supreme Court upholds (seemingly more likely than not), then I would consider that the biggest middle finger to the Constitution as it exists that we have ever seen in U.S. history and a perfectly good reason to say "F*** it, I guess it's anarchy now until we can write a new one." So this ties back into my belief that if the Democrats don't nuke the filibuster to pass a sufficient minimum wage raise, that means that they aren't nuking the filibuster to pass HR1, and we as a country thus have a far greater problem on our hands than poverty wages anyway.

---

Sorry to be a stickler for the constitution. You are not one of them, but I have seen so many people who don't have the first clue on what the constitution provides raging against it.

Just from a sense of history on the constitution, the founders were very split on voting rights and who should have it. Until the 14th amendment, the states had complete power to decide who would have voting rights. The 14th amendment also didn't mandate voting right, but only provided a punitive measure in the form of reduced representatives in the house for abridging voting rights. The 15th amendment itself was the first time voting rights was specifically addressed, but only to the extent that it directly and intentionally abridges voting rights on account of race, color or servitude. What was key was that it also gave Congress the authority to make laws to enforce the 15th amendment (remember that the 10th amendment reserves for the states all rights not expressly reserved under the constitution for the federal government).

The main constitutional debate has been (i) is there a law that intentionally and directly discriminates based on race or color (generally no) and, therefore violates Section 1 of the 15th Amendment or (ii) is the voting protection laws beyond the authority granted to the federal government under the 15th amendment. What you are probably thinking about is not the constitution but the Voting Rights Act of 1965 promulgated under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment. That was the first time when even laws that did not patently discriminate based on race but had the effect of discriminating based on race could be made illegal.

The litigation will be whether the new state laws violate the Voting Rights Act. Congress can also make further laws under Section 2 of the 15th Amendment (remember, it is not an amendment to the constitution but only an exercise of authority granted under the constitution and, therefore, only requires a majority in both houses) to make what the states are proposing illegal under the argument that it has the effect of abridging voting rights on account of race or color. I suspect however that even if they tried, they will **** themselves by adding unrelated items on woke bull**** that will then get overturned as violating the the 10th amendment since it does not directly relate to enforcement of the 15th amendment.

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

About 90% of Democratic legislators voted for the $15 minimum wage. I support primarying all 8 of the Democratic Senators who voted against it.

I also support defeating the 100% of Republicans that voted against it.

---

Since you appear to feel strongly about this, I'm interested in your thoughts on the question I posted upthread. Namely, what is the rationale for inserting a minimum wage provision into a reconciliation bill? Also, of the 8 Democratic senators who voted no, I suspect that a few more than just Sinema would be potentially amenable to a $15 minimum wage outside of reconciliation, so in that hypothetical scenario, would you still support primarying them?

---

I'm not interested in what Bernie Sanders calls "the archaic and undemocratic" rules of the Senate. I'm interested in results for the American people.

---

To be clear, I am in full support of a $15 minimum wage. Having said that, budget reconciliation is a completely different concept from the filibuster with a clearly delineated set of parameters that are - in my view anyway - perfectly reasonable. The filibuster, on the other hand, is a concept whose original basis is sketchy at best and whose recent history is anathema to functioning government. I guess I just don't see why the minimum wage fight isn't something better taken up as a stand-alone issue separate from a budget reconciliation bill. I think it's a virtual certainty that several more Democratic senators if not all (looking at you Manchin) would vote in favor of a $15 minimum wage if it didn't go through the reconciliation process, since there apparently isn't an actual justification for considering it a budgetary measure. So why are certain wings of the Democratic party framing this parliamentarian decision as the end-all be-all on the minimum wage question?

---

Budget reconciliation only exists as a workaround to the filibuster. To say they are different concepts is wrong. The former exists because of the problems caused by the latter.

---

This got me curious enough to look a little bit into the history of budget reconciliation and I sorta agree and disagree with you here. It looks like the initial concept of budget reconciliation was introduced via the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which Nixon (R) signed into law. Carter (D) was the first president to actually sign a bill into law using reconciliation. Then Reagan (R) is the first president to really use reconciliation as a regular tool for spending and tax priorities. So yes, it does look like budget reconciliation was originally created as a vehicle for overcoming the filibuster on certain types of bills.

On the other hand, this framework still makes it clear that the intent of budget reconciliation is for budget-related items, so I stand by my assessment that if there are clearly delineated parameters in place, then they should be followed. In the instant case, unless there is some budgetary justification for a minimum wage law, I don't see why this is where the fight for a $15 minimum wage needs to be fought and won.

Ultimately, the near- and mid-term viability of the Democratic party is going to rely heavily on eliminating the filibuster anyway, because unless HR1 passes, state Republicans across the country are going to rig election systems hard against Democratic-leaning voters. If the filibuster is eliminated, raising the minimum wage will become exponentially less difficult. And if at that point, Democrats at large can't find some way of convincing Joe Manchin to vote some form of a minimum wage increase, then that means doing so through budget reconciliation was and has been a lost cause to begin with and the whole current fight over including a minimum wage provision through the current budget reconciliation process was pointless.

Or TL;DR, outspoken progressives need to pick their fights better. Don't succumb to the Republican messaging that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are already a failure only 2 months after sweeping the presidency and both chambers of congress. Sure, there's a distinct possibility that a godforsaken scenario where nothing getting done indeed comes to pass, but at this moment, Biden and Democratic congressional leadership still have 1.5 years to increase the minimum wage, eliminate the covid threat, etc. If Democratic / progressive constituencies are going to bail on the party's elected officials now, then truly they are a long ways away from understanding the practical reality of how government works and that would just be a tragedy.

---

I don't see any evidence of Biden supporters abandoning Biden. He is hugely popular and has been a huge success so far not even 2 months in. The fight for $15 is just beginning. Senators opposing it are going to find themselves put under increasing pressure. Maggie Hassan is up for reelection in 2022. She has dug herself a deep hole.

Let me ask you a question since we both know HR1 (a bill intended to ensure the rights of the American people) can't get through the undemocratic Senate. After Republicans use state power to disenfranchise enough Americans to have power despite minority support, will you still support the U.S. Constitution that props up this tyranny over the American people in the name of this useless construct called states rights? If so, why do you believe states having rights is more important than the American people having rights?

---

To your second point/question, if the Republicans do end up successful in passing their whole spate of voter suppression laws and the Supreme Court upholds (seemingly more likely than not), then I would consider that the biggest middle finger to the Constitution as it exists that we have ever seen in U.S. history and a perfectly good reason to say "F*** it, I guess it's anarchy now until we can write a new one." So this ties back into my belief that if the Democrats don't nuke the filibuster to pass a sufficient minimum wage raise, that means that they aren't nuking the filibuster to pass HR1, and we as a country thus have a far greater problem on our hands than poverty wages anyway.

---

Sorry to be a stickler for the constitution. You are not one of them, but I have seen so many people who don't have the first clue on what the constitution provides raging against it.

Just from a sense of history on the constitution, the founders were very split on voting rights and who should have it. Until the 14th amendment, the states had complete power to decide who would have voting rights. The 14th amendment also didn't mandate voting right, but only provided a punitive measure in the form of reduced representatives in the house for abridging voting rights. The 15th amendment itself was the first time voting rights was specifically addressed, but only to the extent that it directly and intentionally abridges voting rights on account of race, color or servitude. What was key was that it also gave Congress the authority to make laws to enforce the 15th amendment (remember that the 10th amendment reserves for the states all rights not expressly reserved under the constitution for the federal government).

The main constitutional debate has been (i) is there a law that intentionally and directly discriminates based on race or color (generally no) and, therefore violates Section 1 of the 15th Amendment or (ii) is the voting protection laws beyond the authority granted to the federal government under the 15th amendment. What you are probably thinking about is not the constitution but the Voting Rights Act of 1965 promulgated under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment. That was the first time when even laws that did not patently discriminate based on race but had the effect of discriminating based on race could be made illegal.

The litigation will be whether the new state laws violate the Voting Rights Act. Congress can also make further laws under Section 2 of the 15th Amendment (remember, it is not an amendment to the constitution but only an exercise of authority granted under the constitution and, therefore, only requires a majority in both houses) to make what the states are proposing illegal under the argument that it has the effect of abridging voting rights on account of race or color. I suspect however that even if they tried, they will **** themselves by adding unrelated items on woke bull**** that will then get overturned as violating the the 10th amendment since it does not directly relate to enforcement of the 15th amendment.

---

I appreciate the more nuanced take, especially in how you see the 15th Amendment and the 1965 Voting Rights Act coming into play. I think you and I differ on this in a couple key ways though. First, I get the sense that you're taking a bit of a textualist approach to the 15th Amendment, which is to say that you're approaching its provisions from a more strictly literal perspective. I personally take, more often than not, a more "general spirit" approach. In this case, I believe that if we are to premise our adjudication of all the upcoming voter suppression laws on the 15th Amendment, we have to look at their net effect and not just their facially intended effect. Take one of the Georgia proposals, for instance, where they want to limit Sunday voting to just one Sunday during the voting period. On its face, it doesn't seem too difficult to make at least the token argument that people of all races and ethnicities go to church on Sunday and thus this proposed law affects everyone equally. But it appears patently obvious that given the fact that black churches in Georgia predominantly use Sunday services to drive their congregations' turnout, the net effect of the law is to suppress black turnout.

And while I know that the Voting Rights Act is at the heart of the current case before the Supreme Court, I'm not relying on that as the end-all be-all of voting rights litigation, because we've already seen that the current Supreme Court composition doesn't care much for common sense when it comes to that law (See Shelby County). Instead, I'm personally looking at this more through the lens of the 14th Amendment - argument being that there are clear and distinctive groups of people whose right to vote is not being protected nearly as much as other constituencies and demographics. So that is why I am framing this as a constitutional argument rather than a legislative one, because of we are going to start interpreting that Constitution to allow for certain groups of people to be discriminated against in their right to vote in net, then we are fundamentally undermining the proper function of Articles I, II, and III in properly representing the people. And if that's the case, then I'm of the view that that Constitution and its corresponding amendments are not worth defending any longer.

---