You all know how I feel about the filibuster, but the parliamentarian was right to rule that minimum wage changes don't fit budget reconciliation rules. That's not what budget reconciliation is for. The answer here is to end the filibuster, not abuse other rules.
Not to get all Coen Brothers on this, but the coin has no say here, and nor does the parliamentarian. This is all a distraction. Every Senate rule can be changed with 51 votes. The issue isn't what the parliamentarian wants to do, but what Manchin, Sinema, etc, want to do.
As I wrote here, this weird dance around the rules is just cowardice, and it comes with real costs. nytimes.com/2021/02/04/opi…
Honestly, just take a step back for a minute. If the unelected parliamentarian agreed that a minimum wage increase fit the byzantine strictures of a 1974 act meant to expedite budget bills, Manchin and Sinema would agree to pass it with 51 votes rather than 60?
When you just say what is going on here aloud you sound like you've lost it. But you haven't. The Senate has.
This is where this nonsense gets you. What Wyden is considering can probably pass through budget reconciliation. The best legislative minds of my generation are thinking about how to game Senate rules, not write the best policies.
https://twitter.com/AshleySchapitl/status/1365117077808373761
I'm not criticizing Wyden and Sanders for trying to do their best to help workers given the constraints of the Senate. I'm criticizing those who would keep these constraints, and continue forcing policymakers into these bizarre, inefficient workarounds.
It's easy not to click the link on these threads, but I really tried, in this piece, to lay out how insane the current equilibrium in the Senate is. Most people don't realize just how weird it's all gotten. nytimes.com/2021/02/04/opi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
