Senate Dems Should Pass The Minimum Wage Bill In Spite Of....

[global1]

it being attached to a bill linking minimum wage increase to a package of tax cuts

The Republican leadership has refused to allow a straight up or down vote on the minimum wage. If they are attempting a political stunt designed to give vulnerable Republicans in tough elections the opportunity to say they voted to raise the minimum wage knowing the Dems would filibuster it and kill it - that means they really don't want to spend any money on the poor by upping the minimum wage.

The Dems should call it like it is - a political stunt - designed to put the Dems in a bad position - if they kill this bill. They should say - they are not going to be entrapped and that they are going to go ahead with passing the minimum wage - because it is important to the poor. Maybe they should even attach an amendment raising the minimum wage dollar amount more than that which came out of the house.

Let the Dems put the pressure back on the Repugs to kill the amendment raising the dollar amount or force the Repugs kill the bill.

At least if and when this bill passes - the Dems could make hay out of it for the Nov '06 elections by saying the Repugs want to minimize the raise in minimum wage. Turn the tables - I say.

Then when the Dems take control of the House and/or the Senate after the Nov. '06 elections - the Dems should call up the bill again and reverse the package of tax cuts for the rich.

[rubberducky]

1. Agree 100%

[badgerpup]

2. No...the two need to be separated.

Also IIRC, there were also some other 'poison pills' in the minimum wage bill that needed to be worked out.
It wasn't just the because of being a hostage rider on the estate tax bill...

[snowbear]

3. Which do you think the Thugs really want:

1) To actually raise the M/W, and get the wealthy tax cut deal with it..
2) To have Democrats say NO, thereby having something to campaign on?

I'm really wondering --- if they had their druthers, which of the two they would prefer happening?

I'm thinking that they'd prefer #2.. because if the M/W increase goes into effect, won't it piss off their bases like Walmart, etc??

[Kagemusha]

4. Good point.

Wonder what they'd have to add so that Democrats can't decide to just vote for it anyway and make the Republicans panic and vote against their own bill.

[snowbear]

5. I think global is 100% correct.. It's the OPPOSITE of what they expect.

We all know (and they should too) that this whole deal is a Rovian set-up.

We have a choice.. We can vote against it "as is" and hope like Hell that the media reports the reason for the no vote accurately.

But how many will do that?

What will the outcomes be?

1. We say NO WAY, they vote YES, they take take full credit for trying to increase the M/W and the media spins them into the middle class heroes.

-- or ---

2. We debate the issue like Hell, but in the end, we say that it is more important to give the millions of poverty-stricken Americans a pay raise for the first time in 12 years NOW - and revisit (to remove) the tax cut to the wealthy that they implement when Democrats are the Majority.

Doesn't it seem like #2 works best in two ways?

It definitely works for the M/W voter!!

Also, it creates a devastating blow to the Walmarts and other Bush basies.

In this particular case, they HAVE to think in "Rovian tactics" and go with the increase.

They will NOT be expecting this to happen in a million years, and we'll end up laughing all the way to the polls.

[tritsofme]

6. Its not that easy to reverse, even if we have a majority

Be assured that if Dems gained control of Congress that Bush's veto pen will be making many more appearances, and we certainly wouldn't have the votes to over-ride a veto on issues like this.

[snowbear]

7. I know... I'm simplifying it.. but still, in that scenario..

> We still have the M/W that WE voted in
> He has to be the bad guy and veto the wealth taxes once were in.

I just don't want to be Roved or Swiftboated ONE SINGLE TIME this go-around!