Would the Republicans really filibuster minimum wage  in this environment?

McConnell himself would probably filibuster. Anyway,  although I'm not certain as to what the exact federal revenue impact will be, I don't particularly think that a change to the small business depreciation timeline is 'giving away the house'. The important thing is to get the minimum wage bill passed. If anything, allowing them the opportunity to filibuster the bill, even if temporarily, gives them a 'victory' to rally around, and could feed a media narrative of Democratic ineptness.

They're going to filibuster the Part D negotiation bill.  I'm not sure they wouldn't filibuster minimum wage as well.  But Matt's right - the problem isn't the GOP this time, it's the Dems.

What are the other sweeteners?  Changing the depreciation schedule doesn't seem like a big deal to me.  So it moves from 29 to 15 years...and?  So they get to write off investments twice as fast.  It's still the same amount (not factoring an inflation difference in years 16-29).

(Full disclosure:  I own a couple very small businesses, so this could possibly be a benefit for me...but I see little overall impact to my bottom line)

I certainly understand not caving in, but I don't really see this one part as being a huge compromise.  In fact, if something like this gets a deal done, I think it should be considered.

I don't think we owe it to anyone to be bipartisan, but I also don't think it wise to be partisan at the cost of scuttling good legislation.

Compared to previous "sweeteners" that were proposed by the GOP majority, this change to the depreciation schedule is extremely mild. Besides, Democrats should support small businesses, as many here claim whenever Walmart comes up. Apparently that "support" rings pretty hollow.

This is not a giveaway to Exxon, it's a break for the local pizza shop when they buy a new oven. This and other blogs take the anti-business positions to the extreme just to stick it to the GOP, but it often gets in the way of common sense issues. This change is a very small price to pay for easy passage of a minimum wage increase. With the stance taken in your post, the first 100 hours will be more like the first 1000 hours.

I agree that Uncle Harry is giving way too quickly and too easily.

But I suspect that the 100 Hours timetable may have something to do with it.

Now, the timetable was always, in its terms, ambiguous: it promised that various bills would be passed within the time limit, but not whether passed meant passed Congress or merely passed the House.

But the fact that the House is under the gun, and turning round a good handful of bills in short order would naturally (100 Hours or no 100 Hours) puts any Senate Dem leadership under some pressure to follow suit.

Which, given the rules the Senate works under, is close to Mission Impossible, without cutting deals that are worse for the Dems than if nature had taken its course in the Senate.

Absent the 100 Hours, the best way to handle the possibility of a GOP filibuster would, I suspect, have been kick things around for a while, feel senators out, let the interest groups have a go them; then move to a vote on cloture, and see the color of senators' money.

A failed cloture vote would be a welcome douche of realism for supporters with unrealistic expectations, and, as others have said upthread, would hopefully allow the Dem leadership to buy off enough no votes to turn the vote around the second time.

But - are we sure this is all Baucus? If Reid wants to play it long, how does Baucus get his shake-n-bake compromise bill to the floor?

My strong suspicion is that this is a leadership bill, and will go forward to a passage vote.

A jolly little conference that'll make!

Also, can't we always fiddle around during the period when the House & Senate bills are reconciled?

It does not appear that too many of you folks know anything about running a business.  A fifteen year depreciation schedule is probably the kind of support for small business that we Democrats should be advocating.

Of course, that attitude would interfer with an opportunity to attack a moderate Democrat from a red state.  You don't want to miss out on that fun.

I don't want to piss on the outrage parade, but is he submitting four proposals, or four OPTIONS on the same proposal (raising the minwage)?

If we're already taking down BlueDogs because they have the temerity to include alternate proposals that may in some way evince a measure of compromise, it's going to be a looooong two years...

Just sent email to Reid, Baucus, and Durbin with quotation from above. Thanks for writing this, making it easy to pounce with a sensible argument.

This isn't about small business. It's about sticking your face in his face when he threatens to filibuster. "I can talk longer than you!" Think Saturday morning cartoons, not Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Hey, you guys won. Act like winners and wait for the other guy to make good on his threats, before you start talking compromise. Negotiate from strength. Geeze, didn't you guys learn anything from Clint Eastwood? On the Waterfront, anyone?

Since we're all always annoyed when the MSM omits important context:  what is the cost of this change, measured in US dollars?

I'm not sure I'd call this a tax break as much as a tax rule.   This is really a technical fine point of accounting.  The same total amount is going to be on the returns, summed over the years.  

So the only difference is the marginal tax rate on the difference in net present value of the out-years.  Use anything like a reasonable discount rate of 4% and you're looking at less than a 20% difference in NPV of depreciation deductions claimed.  Actual receipts will be reduced only by that amount multiplied by the marginal tax rate.  As small businesses typically devote only a small fraction of their expenses to capital investments, it's hard to imagine this being a big-ticket item.

I find it impossible to gather outrage over a change from 29 years to 15.  In fact, if anything, 15 probably more reasonably corresponds to reality for most investments; especially small-business investments.

I suppose to the extent it shows weakness in the face of a Republican filibuster threat, one might be annoyed.  But this is a case where the actual cost of "showing weakness" is awfully close to zero.  I don't think winning a fight over a technical accounting rule will encourage Mitch McConnell to be more aggressive on Iraq.  On issues like that, he's just gonna do what he's gonna do.

History has passed Baucus by and he has yet to realize it.

Breaks to truly SMALL busineses would be fine, in my opinion -- BUT, there should be clear lines drawn regarding who is and who is not a small business. Mom & Pop operations should get a few breaks, I think.

Not everything has to be a political fight from the get go. Accelerating the depreciation for small business seems like a small price to pay to get this passed quickly.

And the depreciation itself seems like a good idea to me as well. Will help small businesses with early cash flow issues!

A) If the "sweeteners" are really so rotten, House Democrats can strip them out in conference.  Republicans used to do this all the time.

B) This concession seems like a minor, tiny little thing.  It might even, as many here suggest, be a good thing.  Unless you can substantiate that it is in fact a "massive giveaway," as you call it, I'd recommend chilling out.