Democrats regained the congressional House. Now they should immediately confront the federal minimum wage rate issue.
I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.
It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.
Possible House’s negotiating positions:
The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.
The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.
I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.
Respectfully, Supposn
I’m among those that advocate a minimum wage rate gradually increased to higher purchasing power and thereafter monitored and (when necessary to retain its targeted purchasing power), it should be updated prior to New Year’s date of the following year. In my opinion, annual increases of 12% until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power is reasonable.
It would be possible, but politically problematic for the Republican majority U.S. Senate not to pass an alternative bill responding to the Democratic House’s bill. Usually, there are differences between bills that may, (or may not) be reconciled by negotiators from each chamber. A bill sent to the president for his consideration must be passed by both houses with exactly the same drafted language. That usually requires both chambers to again vote and pass a draft of the bill that’s a mutually agreed upon update.
Possible House’s negotiating positions:
The Senate will be displeased by the concept of pegging the rate’s purchasing power.
The House’s alternative position could be, lose the purchasing power provision but give us 15% annual increase for 10 years.
The Senate may then find the purchasing power concept less objectionable but they're then displeased with the 12%.
The House’s alternative position could be, 8% increase every Labor Day until the rate achieves 125% of its February 1968 purchasing power, but the rate’s additionally annually updates reflecting changes in the CPI-U will begin prior to the New Year’s day following the enactment day of the Bill.
I hope the Democratic negotiators would be polite and respectful beyond civility, but FIRM! they should not acquiesce or attempt to placate to the opposition. Democrats should be fully prepared to leave the negotiating table and permit the differences to be resolved by the 2020 general elections.
Respectfully, Supposn
