Gee, isn't it reasonable to expect Americans to live on $5+/hr? I mean, there's lots of rent-to-own and stuff. What do they think this is, anyway? The "Land of Opportunity" or something? Sheesh. Just tell all those poor folk to become Congressmen. That's where the money is. Shit, you dont' even have to ask for a raise. You just put it into effect. Shoot, I think I'll do that right now.

Oh, wait I can't. I'm not a Congressman. Darnit.

As far as the politics go, it seems like you're advocating for only one of the lessons of the '96 elections.  Another is that taking a hardline stance on an issue with bipartisan support (even when the two parties are advocating different approaches) and thus forcing an unneccesary showdon on an important legislative agenda could backfire big time.  That's what happened to the GOP in the budget fights, which was really the turning point for Clinton's re-election prospects.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't put up a good fight against bad amendments, but I think making that our headliner bout with the GOP would be a mistake, especially if it in anyway endangers the actual passage of a minimum wage increase.  

Cannot cave, huh? There about 50 DINOs who do it for a living.

The only thing that will stop them are credible threats from a united leadership. But then, Hoyer himself is one those who has voted against Democrats in the past.

My political nose, which has grown quite sensitive the the stench of Democratic treachery, smells another cave-in coming down the pike.

The argument for it will be that voting against a poisoned minimum wage increase will hurt Democrats -- despite the fact that all the public-at-large will know is that Republicans are traditionally against an increase, and it didn't happen.

My understanding is that some kind of poison pill has been the GOP's standard play on the minimum wage.

The last increase in 1997 was in a bill stuffed with tax breaks - that was called linkage. (A 2005 CRS Report has useful background.)

Since then, I guess the pills have got more poisonous.

Of course, in the House, we have several GOP reps whose seats are in danger. A batch of 15 or 20 going off the reservation and voting with (most of ) the Dems is a regular occurence.

The GOP leadership will have two ways to go: to be on the safe side, they'd send a bill to the floor with the poison pill in it under a closed rule, giving the Dems a Hobson's choice.

They might find it more amusing, though, to allow a vote on an amendment striking the poison pill, and let the votes of renegade GOPs be cancelled out by votes from Boehner's deep bench of Dem enablers.

(As has happened with a good many bills during the Bush regime, including the Gulf drilling bill HR 4761, I seem to remember.)

If Pelosi can keep her troops united, though losing the minimum wage battle, that would, I suppose, be some kind of moral victory.

Of course, the alternative play for the Dems would be to pass the increase and say nothing about the poison pill.

(Would Matt's low information voters understand the poison pill point anyway?)

The Dem angle would be that the GOP might be loathe to crow about passing the increase for fear of splitting their own base.

On the other hand, those opposed (the mega-corps) would understand the subtlety whilst the values voters probably don't froth at the mouth about such matters. Some might even feel good about the increase.

On balance, I don't like the alternative much!

Stymie, I think.

This reminds me of a question I was wondering about earlier.

It being "If democrats get the house or the senate what exacly will change"?

The obvious answer is "If they are the type that cave into republican demands, nothing"

There's a helpful CRS Report Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay, and Child Labor: An Inventory of Proposals in the 109th Congress to Amend the Fair Labor Standards Act dated June 16 2006 which reminds me (p6) that there is already a minimum wage amendment in a must-pass bill which has been reported out of a House committee:

During consideration of the appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (2007) on June 13, 2006, by the Appropriations Committee, an amendment was offered by Representative Steny Hoyer that would increase the federal minimum wage to "not less than $5.85 an hour beginning on January 1, 2007, not less than $6.55 an hour beginning on January 1, 2008, and not less than $7.25 an hour beginning on January 1, 2009."  The Hoyer amendment was approved by a vote of 32 yeas to 27 nays and, thereafter, the measure was approved by a voice vote.

I say reminds because it eventually came to me that I'd written at some length on the Hoyer Amendment before!

Let's just say the CRS Report doesn't hint at the complexities: the bottom line seems to be that, last time they were heard from, the GOP leadership was threatening/promising to get the bill to the floor with §525 deleted from the text.

(My researches suggested that was something the Rules Committee could do.)

In this case, the Dems could vote against the rule on HR 5467 - the Rules Committee site has no mention of discussions of a rule on the bill yet.

But I'd expect the GOP to win that vote even if there were enough votes to pass the Hoyer Amendment if it were put fair and square.

Normally, I gather, appropriations bill are given open rules: any amendments permitted on the floor.

Clearly, if HR 5467 is given an open rule, that to an extent rubs out the benefit the GOP would get from having the Rules Committee strike out the Hoyer Amendment: because, if there was an open rule, Hoyer would then move his amendment in the floor proceedings, and its supporters would get a clean vote on it.

(If the Amendment is left in the bill, that's the best of all: because then it would require an amendment to strike it out of the bill. Which would be a much harder vote for GOP reps in marginal districts to cope with!)

If I were asked how the Democrats can turn the tables on the Republicans with regard to this minimum wage bill, I would argue they need to point out the hypocrisy evident in the GOP's tax cutting strategy. By giving small businesses tax cuts to offset the wage increase, they are actually enacting a subsidy that is ultimately funded through taxpayer generated revenues...in essence they are creating a new tax funded social program...even though they repeatedly espouse the need to cut back on such funding. The measure would ultimately becomes an added burden for the already struggling middle class while at the same time shielding corporations from sharing in the cost of the much needed wage increase.

read the full article here:

www.thoughttheater.com

I doubt if the Dems will cave, but who cares? You Blog Birchers will criticize whatever they do.

Do you realize how shallow and immoral you sound? You are more concerned about political victory than about laws. In other words, a (in your opinion) good law is not as important as political victory. You are more concerned with power than principles. This is why the Democratic Party is so weak, because of non-principled people who only care about power.

Personally I don't care if a law is being passed by Republicans or Democrats. I care about the law.

Maybe you think that being so concerned about wedge issues make you look smart. It doesn't. It just make you look corrupt.

I detest The Republicans every time they use things like abortion and immigration to distract voters from real issues. Those are their wedge issues. I detest Democrats who do (or try to do) the same thing.