Republicans in Disarray!

All 233 Democrats joined by 82 Republicans voted yesterday to raise the minimum wage. Of course, the 2006 swing in congress was substantial, but it wasn't nearly that big. If 82 Republicans are prepared to raise the minimum wage, why didn't it go up last congress? And what happened to the vaunted GOP discipline? Why are the Democrats so orderly all of a sudden. In short, nothing succeeds like success.

The major perk of being in the majority is that in addition to having more votes than the other guy (the numerical difference between the majority and minority parties is not especially large, nor was it in the previous two or three congresses), you get to decide what gets voted on. A GOP majority blocks minimum wage increases but not bringing them to the floor for a vote. Or, even better, by brining them to the floor but only paired with a bunch of special interest giveaways and giant tax cuts. That way, Republicans who want to be on record as "for" a minimum wage get to vote for one, while a coalition of Democrats and other Republicans vote the bill down. With the Democrats in charge, though, things are different -- you get a vote on a clean bill. What's more, since the bill is going to pass one way or another, every even vaguely Republican member may as well vote for it. Consequently, the GOP caucus is suddenly thrown into chaos.

1/11/07 1:20PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

since the bill is going to pass one way or another, every even vaguely Republican member may as well vote for it.

As a professor of mine would sometimes icily say to a seminar participant, "What could you possibly mean by that?"

Posted by: dj moonbat on January 11, 2007 03:00 PM

Maybe "Every even vaguely moderate Republican member"?

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot on January 11, 2007 03:07 PM

The Republican plan was for the majority of the majority torules -- the Republican House caucus became a sort of meta-House. "The majority of the majority" sounds super-majoritarian, or majoritarian squared, but it actually meant that 51% of 51% ruled the House -- i.e., 26%, or a minority.

Considering that about 40% of the voters don't vote in any given election, that means that about 16% of the voters controlled the House.

Posted by: John Emerson on January 11, 2007 03:11 PM

This makes me very happy. Sigh. I knew it was all worth it.

Posted by: MDtoMN on January 11, 2007 03:14 PM

Nice, except the Democrats running the Senate are going to pair the minimum wage with a buncha tax cuts...

Posted by: alphie on January 11, 2007 03:18 PM

The real story so far, to me, is the party discipline on the Dem side. 233 votes for Pelosi as speaker; 233 votes for the minimum wage; 231 (with 2 NV) for the 9/11 Commission recs; 232 (1 NV) on the ethics rules... Shocking, in the most pleasant sort of way.

Posted by: Glenn on January 11, 2007 03:57 PM

"Maybe "Every even vaguely moderate Republican member"?"

"Vaguely Republican" is the way I would have put it. Nicely partisan. There are no moderate Republicans, just Democrats who haven't switched yet.

And in a more factual sense, many of the "moderate Republicans" lost their seats in November.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on January 11, 2007 03:58 PM

Here's my question: The left theory is that raising the minimum wage doesn't cost any jobs. Well fine, if that's the theory, then why not support either:

-- a variable minimum wage based on local cost of living (lower in Mississippi, higher in NYC)
-- a minimum wage of, say, $20/hour

If the goal is to "give people a living wage", and it doesn't cost anything, why do you stop at $7.15?

Posted by: James Robertson on January 11, 2007 04:03 PM

James,

Nobody is saying that a minimum wage at a certain level (say, $20/hr) wouldn't cost anything. But the evidence is, at best, inconclusive as to whether a hike of a couple of bucks costs jobs (the research done to date shows that it would not kill jobs).

A variable minimum wage is a decent idea in theory, and I'm guessing it hasn't been seriously floated is because of its complexity (including political complexity).

Posted by: Justin on January 11, 2007 04:13 PM

James - I think you're missing two things.

1) The States do provide a variable minimum wage - something like 29 States have minimum wages above the Federal Minimum wage. The Federal minimum wage is the minimum wage for places like Mississippi and Alabama.

2) Liberals don't believe that laws like the minimum wage do not cost any jobs. The question is the trade off between lost jobs and increasing wages. The left believes that a wage of $7.15 will not lead to a huge loss in jobs, and the improvement for the remaining workers and for the economy will be sufficient to offset any negative effects. This is quite different from a belief that a $20 minimum wage would be a good idea.

First - Econ 101 does not teach you everything you need to know about economics. For instance, the supply and demand curves are not these simple curves that are drawn as examples. The exact shapes and results are difficult to figure out. The elasticity of a good or labor will be different at different points on the curve. Counter-intuitive things will happen. You need to do extensive research to know the answers.

Second - if you want the left to admit that we will not support a minimum wage of $100/hour or 100% taxes on investment income in the foreseeable future, I will promise you that we will not. Econ 101 logic and accurate economic research teach us that this is a bad idea. However, Econ 101 logic doesn't tell us much of anything about the change from a 35% tax rate to a 40% tax rate or the raise of the minimum wage to $7.15. You need a lot of research to determine the effects of something like that.

Posted by: MDtoMN on January 11, 2007 04:21 PM

Perfect! This is exactly the kind of bipartisanship I believe in. Within the Democratic Party, there should be a public-spirited debate, in which it's possible for good people to have honest differences of opinion. Republicans, who are generally neither, should not be invited. Then, after Democrats compromise with one another and pass a bill, whatever Republican who doesn't want to get left on the ash bin of history should be welcomed to sign on.

Those 82 Republicans should now be praised for their bipartisanship.

Posted by: Jalmari on January 11, 2007 04:25 PM

Nice, except the Democrats running the Senate are going to pair the minimum wage with a buncha tax cuts...

As it stands, the Democrats are likely to go along with a couple of minor tax breaks for small businesses, which are arguably good policy anyway.

The only reason to reject such a notion out of hand is to play some kind of politically-motivated "50%+1" game like Tom DeLay did. That's not a good idea for many reasons, and not just because the Senate allows filibusters.

Posted by: Steve on January 11, 2007 04:42 PM

Vaguely related - has antone thought about pressuring Arnold S. to switch? He is useful, in a way, as well tamed Republican for Democratic interests - the Republican Universal health care plan, for example, but he would make a much more credible anti-Zell Miller, and he has to realize by now that despite the low quality of Dems in his state, that the Californian Repuplicans are orders of magnitude worse.

Posted by: theCoach on January 11, 2007 04:45 PM

A federal minimum wage floats the boat for all the red states who don't have one. Like Texas. The blue states (and many blue municipalities) already have local minimum wages. Local minimum wages are common.

Think of this legislation as a little gift from the Democratic Party to the working men and women in red state America.

As for losing jobs, the burden of proof is on the opponents to the minimum wage: show us the numbers instead of citing Econ 101. Econ 101 doesn't seem to be supported by the data. The minimum wage has literally been raised over a thousand times in various locations, so you should be able to cite a thousand economic catastrophes in the data if Econ 101 is the definitive word. Economics just isn't that simple.

May I recommend Max Sawicky and Dean Baker on this topic.

Posted by: Nat on January 11, 2007 04:48 PM

MdToMn: you were faster and better. Kudos.

Posted by: Nat on January 11, 2007 04:51 PM

Matt:

I'd like your thoughts on something, because this seems to compliment an argument I have been making lately when arguing with my friends. Some of them were in the camp saying that the democratic victory in 06 and taking both chambers hurt their '08 standings because they now could be tied in to policies re: Iraq.

My response to this argument is that this is actually the strongest position the democrats can be in at this point for the following reasons reasons:

a) Iraq is Bush's, both that it is so tightly tied to him and he won't allow others to even somewhat control policy there. Last night's talk confirmed this. By ignoring the easy ISG way out, Bush has cornered the market on Iraq responsibility and his fate totally rides on his surge's success.

b) Furthermore, Congress can not really control much of the strategy or tactics there on a realistic level. Congress could try withhold funding, but that is probably unlikely to pass both chambers. The strongest tool for the democrats right now is their power of subpoena and ability to hold meaningful investigations. Stay away from hearings on the "intel" and lead up to the war, but instead work on present day issues of troop body armor, troop healthcare, VA funding, waste of taxpayer dollars in contracting, etc. Take a populist / pro-troop stance to protect the wounded and deployed. Toughen laws prohibiting eviciting spouses, dependents, and others of soldiers serving.

c) The dems have a workable majority on most issues, especially the popular social agenda that they ran on. Work with the Republicans that will be seeking anyway to distance themselves for a virulently toxic president as the 2008 election cycle bears down. Pass the social agenda you promised, work with defecting Republicans everytime you can, and force Bush to veto everything. Overturn as many vetos as you can. Any vetos of popular policies instantly become campaign platforms for a democratic president.

Bipartisanship is the key to Democratic strength and success in 2008. Use the 100 hrs to grandstand, but in February begin to seek strong republican allies who will work with you.

Any thoughts?

Posted by: Dpa on January 11, 2007 05:02 PM

>Vaguely related - has antone thought about pressuring Arnold S. to switch? He is useful, in a way, as well tamed Republican for Democratic interests - the Republican Universal health care plan, for example, but he would make a much more credible anti-Zell Miller, and he has to realize by now that despite the low quality of Dems in his state, that the Californian Repuplicans are orders of magnitude worse.

The republicans in the California legislature are seriously pissed at Arnold because of the health care plan. There is speculation that he will switch to be an independent. The TV news in SF asked Arnold about this and he says he is still a republican. Despite the health care plan, Arnold doesn't make a good democrat.

Posted by: joeo on January 11, 2007 05:40 PM

Speaking of a party in disarray... hope you all are following the Senate antics on earmark reform. Apparently, the pro-corruption Senate Democrats like Reid and Kennedy are outraged - OUTRAGED - that the Republicans (Sen. DeMint) offered Nancy Pelosi's genuine earmark reform bill (which passed the House) as an amendment to their Senate earmark bill.

And Reid tried to table (kill) the Nancy Pelosi earmark reform bill! And then, guess what, Reid lost, 51-46. So Nancy Pelosi's earmark reform was going to become law. But then Kennedy didn't like that, so he held the vote open longer and longer... just like the Republicans in the House did on the prescription drug bill.

So the Senate Democrats... in disarray! Pro-corruption Democrats in the Senate are trying to beat back the bill offered (and passed in the House) by anti-corruption Democrats like Nancy Pelosi. Too funny...

Posted by: Al on January 11, 2007 06:08 PM

If you only had a deck to go with those chairs, Al...

From memory, you were objectively pro-corruption up until November yourself, flip-flopper.

Posted by: Pooh on January 11, 2007 06:26 PM

Yes, it's good to be in charge. You've discovered the reason that people want to be chairman/chairperson/chair of various deliberative bodies-- you get to set the agenda. Even if the minority manages to bring up its favorite issues, you can bedevil them by bringing up anything you want-- and over and over again.

Posted by: MattF on January 11, 2007 06:28 PM

Objectively pro-corruption! Heh. Nah, I wanted all the corrupt politicians voted out. I actually voted against Alan Hevesi, for example.

Posted by: Al on January 11, 2007 06:38 PM

Well, you didn't speak out against it...I'm just trying shoes on other feet here.

(and in case you're wondering my tongue is firmly in cheek, as it was in the original comment)

Posted by: Pooh on January 11, 2007 07:12 PM

So the Senate Democrats... in disarray!

I guess you've been following some pretty obscure news outlets. All the headlines I'm seeing are talking about how the Dems are united in their opposition to Bush's wildly unpopular escalation of the war.

Posted by: dj moonbat on January 11, 2007 07:20 PM

I wonder how much of Al's post will turn out to be complete bullshit on closer inspection.

Posted by: Steve on January 11, 2007 07:42 PM

The New York Times had an interesting article this morning about how conservatives had complained in Washington State that raising the minimum wage would hurt the local economy. The minimum wage there is now among the highest in the US. Instead, the economy improved. Low-wage workers saw their wages go up, thus allowing them to have more disposable income that is spent locally. In addition, workers in neighboring Idaho - which has one of the lowest minimum wages - have been crossing the border daily to go to work in seek of higher wages. Employers just have access to a larger pool of high-quality workers availible when making hiring decisions.

Posted by: Reality Man on January 11, 2007 07:53 PM

conservatives had complained in Washington State that raising the minimum wage would hurt the local economy. . .Instead, the economy improved.

Conservative orthodoxy can't stand up to empirical testing? Who'da thunk it?

Posted by: dj moonbat on January 11, 2007 07:55 PM

The Republicans are not in disarray until the main stream media declares them to be in disarray, and Congressional votes have nothing to do with the state of disarrayness. The Democrats are in disarray. The media has spoken.

Posted by: della Rovere on January 11, 2007 11:52 PM

The more pragmatic GOPers have realized that this is a big loser issue for them, as it comes up for vote in state after state. They very much want to get the issue off the table before 2008. The rightwing ideologues will hiss and spit like drenched cats but Bush and the Senate GOP will go along meekly. Their corporate puppet-masters are not the ones paying minimum wage and really don't care, and the link between the GOP and small business died and rotted years ago.

Posted by: JonF on January 12, 2007 08:39 AM

I wonder how much of Al's post will turn out to be complete bullshit on closer inspection.

Well, why don't you compare my version to TPM Muckraker's version?

I think the lineups are Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell and most Senate Democrats on the fake-reform, pro-corruption side. And Barack Obama, Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Nancy Pelosi, House Democrats, Jim DeMint and most Senate Republicans on the real-reform, anti-corruption side.

It's disarray, I tell ya!

Posted by: Al on January 12, 2007 09:44 AM

And Barack Obama, Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Nancy Pelosi, House Democrats, Jim DeMint and most Senate Republicans on the real-reform, anti-corruption side.

Oh yeah, most Republicans are on the side of reform... only somehow we never got a reform like this until the Democrats took over. HOW STRANGE.

And somehow when you aligned the sides, you forgot to include all the folks who voted against earmark reform in the House. I wonder why that could be? Maybe because the "no" votes included 152 Republicans - over 75% of their caucus - and not a single Democrat?

Believe me, I'm not happy at all with Senate Democrats who apparently want to run the same old gravy train - although even their "fake" reform would have been a vast improvement over anything the Republicans gave us. But don't blow sunshine up my skirt by claiming that the Republicans have somehow been transformed into the "anti-corruption" party. Aside from maybe a half-dozen genuine spending hawks, the only reason they want to shut off the spigot is because they no longer control the committees and the conference. These exact same people were thrilled to earmark the fuck out of everything just a few months ago.

I'm happy to get a good reform even if it gets passed in a cynical political way. And I hope the Dem leadership learns something so they don't continue coming across like it's Amateur Hour. But trying to spin this as a Republican victory over corruption is positively laughable, particularly considering it's Nancy Pelosi's reform they're passing in the first place!

Posted by: Steve on January 12, 2007 11:29 AM

This bugged me during the election night coverage too. You watched, right? It was all done with a "balance of power" meme.

It's not a balance. If congress splits 217 / 218, the 218 get all the leadership posts, and they get to decide what gets voted on, like you said. That's not anywhere near balanced.

It's still bugging me...

Posted by: The Black Monk on January 12, 2007 12:33 PM

"conservatives had complained in Washington State that raising the minimum wage would hurt the local economy. . .Instead, the economy improved.

Conservative orthodoxy can't stand up to empirical testing? Who'da thunk it?"

Just because Washington state makes one bad move doesn't mean that will have enough effect to outweigh all the things the state is doing right.

Posted by: pjgoober on January 13, 2007 10:16 AM

sohbet
chat sohbet
mynet sohbet
kızlarla sohbet
sohbet siteleri
islami sohbet
sesli sohbet
kameralı sohbet
sohbet odaları
sohbet net
kelebek sohbet
alem sohbet
canlı sohbet
bedava sohbet
dini sohbet
ideal sohbet
erotik sohbet
internet sohbet
almanya sohbet
bol sohbet
yazgülü sohbet
seks sohbet
isvec sohbet
sohbet odasi
chat sohbet muhabbet
chat mynet sohbet
almanya sohbet chat
zurna sohbet
sex sohbet
canli sohbet
cet kelebek sohbet
sohbet com
ingilizce sohbet
gay sohbet
cinsel sohbet
mynet odalari sohbet
35 sevgi sohbet
sohbet gen tr
kahkaha sohbet
istanbul sohbet
odasi sohbet turk
chat.tc sohbet
sevgi sohbet
yonca sohbet
makas sohbet
cinsellik sohbet
kraltv sohbet
turkce sohbet
ara sohbet
chat cinsellik sohbet
lesbian sohbet
sohbet cet
chat muhabbet sex sohbet
sohbet et
hotmail.com sohbet
keriz sohbet
izmir sohbet
sohbet sohbet
cam sohbet
islam sohbet
sohbet tr zurna
bayan msn sohbet
sohbet sohbet.com
seviyeli sohbet
sohbet sitesi
yazili sohbet
sohbet ankara
kardelen sohbet
konya sohbet
7 islami kanal sohbet
web cam sohbet
java sohbet