Reconciliation, The Parliamentarian, and The Wall St Senate Getting Everything It Wants, And Nothing It Doesn't Want.

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,341
3,700
113
Byrd Rule

The Byrd Rule, named for Senator Robert Byrd, was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990.[10] The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous"—and therefore ineligible for reconciliation—in six cases:[2]


  1. If it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
  2. If it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
  3. If it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
  4. If it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
  5. If it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure (usually a period of ten years);[c] or
  6. If it recommends changes in Social Security.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1), If it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A), a $15 hr min wage would obviously have a significant effect on individual earnings, thus tax revenues, thus obviously should qualify under article 1 above.

so how exactly is it that the Wall St owned DNC appointed parliamentarian, rules that increasing tax revenues doesn't qualify?

that doesn't even remotely make sense, no matter how you try and twist it.


B), so how is it that the media, (totally controlled by Wall St), doesn't even bring this not so minor detail up even once?

or ever even question the Parliamentarian so much as once, as to exactly why the min wage bill didn't qualify, when it obviously would have a significant effect on tax revenues..

or question anyone representing the Parliamentarian so much as once?

never so much as one question or comment as to htf the wage bill magically and mysteriously didn't qualify, by any reporter or talking head anywhere.

Rachel and Tucker both just went, "oh well, that's that".

"nothing to see here, move along".


C) so exactly why is it that Wall St is ok with the stimulus, but vetoes the wage hike?

oh yeah, because with the stimulus, the govt prints all the money for the stimulus, and all that govt printed money eventually makes it's way to Wall St, thus to the shareholders, as money literally always trickles up.

but with the wage hike, Wall St as the nation's mega employer, has to pay out much of the money, not the govt, and even though said money will eventually all make it's way back to Wall St through trickle up anyway, Wall St doesn't like the little people even touching it if they can help it, and whatever time the little people do have it, is time Wall St doesn't.


on a side note,

Screen-Shot-2021-03-05-at-3.35.38-PM-scaled-e1614976638577.jpg



equals


4.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: GregJM24

HooDatGuy

Junior
Sep 10, 2020
1,751
1,797
113
Byrd Rule

The Byrd Rule, named for Senator Robert Byrd, was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990.[10] The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous"—and therefore ineligible for reconciliation—in six cases:[2]


  1. If it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
  2. If it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
  3. If it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
  4. If it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
  5. If it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure (usually a period of ten years);[c] or
  6. If it recommends changes in Social Security.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1), If it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A), a $15 hr min wage would obviously have a significant effect on individual earnings, thus tax revenues, thus obviously should qualify under article 1 above.

so how exactly is it that the Wall St owned DNC appointed parliamentarian, rules that increasing tax revenues doesn't qualify?

that doesn't even remotely make sense, no matter how you try and twist it.


B), so how is it that the media, (totally controlled by Wall St), doesn't even bring this not so minor detail up even once?

or ever even question the Parliamentarian so much as once, as to exactly why the min wage bill didn't qualify, when it obviously would have a significant effect on tax revenues..

or question anyone representing the Parliamentarian so much as once?

never so much as one question or comment as to htf the wage bill magically and mysteriously didn't qualify, by any reporter or talking head anywhere.

Rachel and Tucker both just went, "oh well, that's that".

"nothing to see here, move along".


C) so exactly why is it that Wall St is ok with the stimulus, but vetoes the wage hike?

oh yeah, because with the stimulus, the govt prints all the money for the stimulus, and all that govt printed money eventually makes it's way to Wall St, thus to the shareholders, as money literally always trickles up.

but with the wage hike, Wall St as the nation's mega employer, has to pay out much of the money, not the govt, and even though said money will eventually all make it's way back to Wall St through trickle up anyway, Wall St doesn't like the little people even touching it if they can help it, and whatever time the little people do have it, is time Wall St doesn't.


on a side note,

Screen-Shot-2021-03-05-at-3.35.38-PM-scaled-e1614976638577.jpg



equals


4.jpg

Such a simple, binary worldview.

Wall Streer oppressors and the oppressed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66

Aloha Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 30, 2001
29,154
10,678
113
Byrd Rule

The Byrd Rule, named for Senator Robert Byrd, was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990.[10] The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous"—and therefore ineligible for reconciliation—in six cases:[2]


  1. If it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
  2. If it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
  3. If it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
  4. If it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
  5. If it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure (usually a period of ten years);[c] or
  6. If it recommends changes in Social Security.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1), If it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A), a $15 hr min wage would obviously have a significant effect on individual earnings, thus tax revenues, thus obviously should qualify under article 1 above.

so how exactly is it that the Wall St owned DNC appointed parliamentarian, rules that increasing tax revenues doesn't qualify?

that doesn't even remotely make sense, no matter how you try and twist it.


B), so how is it that the media, (totally controlled by Wall St), doesn't even bring this not so minor detail up even once?

or ever even question the Parliamentarian so much as once, as to exactly why the min wage bill didn't qualify, when it obviously would have a significant effect on tax revenues..

or question anyone representing the Parliamentarian so much as once?

never so much as one question or comment as to htf the wage bill magically and mysteriously didn't qualify, by any reporter or talking head anywhere.

Rachel and Tucker both just went, "oh well, that's that".

"nothing to see here, move along".


C) so exactly why is it that Wall St is ok with the stimulus, but vetoes the wage hike?

oh yeah, because with the stimulus, the govt prints all the money for the stimulus, and all that govt printed money eventually makes it's way to Wall St, thus to the shareholders, as money literally always trickles up.

but with the wage hike, Wall St as the nation's mega employer, has to pay out much of the money, not the govt, and even though said money will eventually all make it's way back to Wall St through trickle up anyway, Wall St doesn't like the little people even touching it if they can help it, and whatever time the little people do have it, is time Wall St doesn't.


on a side note,

Screen-Shot-2021-03-05-at-3.35.38-PM-scaled-e1614976638577.jpg



equals


4.jpg
The only thing I could read is what you copied and pasted. I recommend all your posts be copied and pasted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing and dahldc

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,341
3,700
113
Such a simple, binary worldview.

Wall Streer oppressors and the oppressed.

sometimes things are simple, and those trying to portray them as more complicated than they are, are just looking to distract.

it is what it is, and it's nothing new..

it's not personal, it's just business.

that said, still wondering how absolutely no one points out that the parliamentarian saying the wage bill doesn't fit Byrd rule standards, absolutely doesn't make sense.

perhaps the board's legal wizards can help me out here, and explain why the wage bill isn't suitable for reconciliation.

that said, this just reinforces that there is no liberal media on anything economic in nature, only right, far right, and far far right. (overwhelmingly far far right).

that said, can there even be liberal media on anything economic, when the media itself is corporate, and all it's revenue either comes from corporations, or is controlled by corporations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,661
2,278
113
Byrd Rule

The Byrd Rule, named for Senator Robert Byrd, was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990.[10] The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous"—and therefore ineligible for reconciliation—in six cases:[2]


  1. If it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
  2. If it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
  3. If it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
  4. If it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
  5. If it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure (usually a period of ten years);[c] or
  6. If it recommends changes in Social Security.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1), If it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A), a $15 hr min wage would obviously have a significant effect on individual earnings, thus tax revenues, thus obviously should qualify under article 1 above.

so how exactly is it that the Wall St owned DNC appointed parliamentarian, rules that increasing tax revenues doesn't qualify?

that doesn't even remotely make sense, no matter how you try and twist it.


B), so how is it that the media, (totally controlled by Wall St), doesn't even bring this not so minor detail up even once?

or ever even question the Parliamentarian so much as once, as to exactly why the min wage bill didn't qualify, when it obviously would have a significant effect on tax revenues..

or question anyone representing the Parliamentarian so much as once?

never so much as one question or comment as to htf the wage bill magically and mysteriously didn't qualify, by any reporter or talking head anywhere.

Rachel and Tucker both just went, "oh well, that's that".

"nothing to see here, move along".


C) so exactly why is it that Wall St is ok with the stimulus, but vetoes the wage hike?

oh yeah, because with the stimulus, the govt prints all the money for the stimulus, and all that govt printed money eventually makes it's way to Wall St, thus to the shareholders, as money literally always trickles up.

but with the wage hike, Wall St as the nation's mega employer, has to pay out much of the money, not the govt, and even though said money will eventually all make it's way back to Wall St through trickle up anyway, Wall St doesn't like the little people even touching it if they can help it, and whatever time the little people do have it, is time Wall St doesn't.


on a side note,

Screen-Shot-2021-03-05-at-3.35.38-PM-scaled-e1614976638577.jpg



equals


4.jpg
 

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,661
2,278
113
IGW, your Wiki explanation of the Byrd Rule not only didn't include a link but failed to include the following,

The Byrd Rule does not prevent the inclusion of extraneous provisions, but relies on objecting senators to remove provisions by raising procedural objections.[12] Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian: a vote of 60 senators is required to overturn their ruling. While the Vice President (as President of the Senate) can overrule the parliamentarian, this has not been done since 1975.[13]
In 2001, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott fired Parliamentarian Robert Dove after dissatisfaction with his rulings, and replaced him with Alan Frumin.[14]
Other restrictions[edit]
Congress can pass up to three reconciliation bills per year, with each bill addressing the major topics of reconciliation: revenue, spending, and the federal debt limit. However, if Congress passes a reconciliation bill affecting more than one of those topics, it cannot pass another reconciliation bill later in the year affecting one of the topics addressed by the previous reconciliation bill.[2] In practice, reconciliation bills have usually been passed once per year at most.[15]
Other restrictions have also been applied to reconciliation. For example, from 2007 to 2011, Congress adopted a rule preventing reconciliation from being used to increase deficits.[16]
 

Charlesroast

Freshman
Aug 4, 2013
414
355
63
No legal wizard here, but I offer the following:

Item 1 requires the provision produce a change in federal revenue or outlays but the provision is also subject to items 2,3,& 4. I don’t know but doubt they would have blown it on 2 or 3. However, your change in revenues is incidental to the mandatory wage provision as it directly changes individual’s wages and then incidentally ultimately federal revenue and actually outlays. If you recall one solution briefly discussed to get something done wrt $15/hr minimum was was to directly tax businesses that did not pay at least $15/hr. That would satisfy 4 because the tax provision of the reconciliation bill directly produced revenues. That approach had practical problems & it was dropped.

The 15/hr. Federal minimum wage was most likely not going to be able to get to 50 votes under any approach. Bless Bernie he took a shot but couldn’t get close. had to stir the pot again. He did give the Majority Leader a nice place to stall voting while his leaders worked to “improve” the unemployment supplementary payments.


It is interesting to me that this bill started at 1.9B and was pushed through notwithstanding viable vaccines, an improving economy, some trillion in as yet unspent prior approved stimulus dollars, and 6.2% unemployment. Interestingly it seemed very important that the bill keep the original target spending level which it turns out is slightly more than the 1.8B bill passed almost unanimously during the lockdown last year with unemployment around 15% and vaccines if possible were expected to be even years away.
 

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,341
3,700
113
IGW, your Wiki explanation of the Byrd Rule not only didn't include a link but failed to include the following,

The Byrd Rule does not prevent the inclusion of extraneous provisions, but relies on objecting senators to remove provisions by raising procedural objections.[12] Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian: a vote of 60 senators is required to overturn their ruling. While the Vice President (as President of the Senate) can overrule the parliamentarian, this has not been done since 1975.[13]
In 2001, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott fired Parliamentarian Robert Dove after dissatisfaction with his rulings, and replaced him with Alan Frumin.[14]
Other restrictions[edit]
Congress can pass up to three reconciliation bills per year, with each bill addressing the major topics of reconciliation: revenue, spending, and the federal debt limit. However, if Congress passes a reconciliation bill affecting more than one of those topics, it cannot pass another reconciliation bill later in the year affecting one of the topics addressed by the previous reconciliation bill.[2] In practice, reconciliation bills have usually been passed once per year at most.[15]
Other restrictions have also been applied to reconciliation. For example, from 2007 to 2011, Congress adopted a rule preventing reconciliation from being used to increase deficits.[16]


appreciate the response, but that seemed to just reword what was already given, and i didn't see anything there that would impact or affect my original question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoot1

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,341
3,700
113
No legal wizard here, but I offer the following:

Item 1 requires the provision produce a change in federal revenue or outlays but the provision is also subject to items 2,3,& 4. I don’t know but doubt they would have blown it on 2 or 3. However, your change in revenues is incidental to the mandatory wage provision as it directly changes individual’s wages and then incidentally ultimately federal revenue and actually outlays. If you recall one solution briefly discussed to get something done wrt $15/hr minimum was was to directly tax businesses that did not pay at least $15/hr. That would satisfy 4 because the tax provision of the reconciliation bill directly produced revenues. That approach had practical problems & it was dropped.

The 15/hr. Federal minimum wage was most likely not going to be able to get to 50 votes under any approach. Bless Bernie he took a shot but couldn’t get close. had to stir the pot again. He did give the Majority Leader a nice place to stall voting while his leaders worked to “improve” the unemployment supplementary payments.


It is interesting to me that this bill started at 1.9B and was pushed through notwithstanding viable vaccines, an improving economy, some trillion in as yet unspent prior approved stimulus dollars, and 6.2% unemployment. Interestingly it seemed very important that the bill keep the original target spending level which it turns out is slightly more than the 1.8B bill passed almost unanimously during the lockdown last year with unemployment around 15% and vaccines if possible were expected to be even years away.


Mirriam Webster, Definition of incidental
(Entry 1 of 2)


1a : being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence
b : minor sense 1


2 : occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation

Definition of minor

: inferior in importance, size, or degree : comparatively unimportant
------------------------------------------------------------------------

dictionary.com

incidental
[ in-si-den-tl ]




adjective
happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else.
incurred casually and in addition to the regular or main amount: incidental expenses.
likely to happen or naturally appertaining (usually followed by to).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


"likely", "unplanned", "by chance", seem to be the operative words here.

but when the income and fica tax rates are already directly tied to personal income, any increase or decrease in tax and FICA revenues resulting from an increase or decrease in personal revenues, is directly and inextricably tied, guaranteed, and an absolute.

thus i'm not sure how this would apply to the definition of "incidental".

all that said, if one were to apply a definition of "incidental" so broad that it would apply, then wouldn't any "revenue" increase or decrease thru increasing or decreasing tax rates, also be deemed merely "incidental" to the tax rate changes?

the change was to the tax rates themselves, the revenue change was merely incidental to the tax rate change, if going down this road as to how "incidental" should be applied.

thus would any tax rate changes not also be excluded from eligibility in reconciliation, being the subsequent changes in revenues were merely incidental to the changes in tax rates?

and did the GOP not pass Trump's massive tax breaks largely for the rich and corporations under reconciliation.


all that said, i think the broader question here is, how is there absolutely zero discussion or even questioning of the parliamentarian's ruling, anywhere, by anyone, or even a request by the media for the parliamentarian, or a representative of, to explain said ruling.

that there was zero discussion or questioning anywhere, by anyone, on any side, or here, when they parse and debate everything else ad infinitum, seems pretty indicative of my original conclusion, as put forth in my thread title.

Wall St killed the wage act on both sides of the isle, and then killed any discussion of what so ever by the media..
 

Charlesroast

Freshman
Aug 4, 2013
414
355
63
Mirriam Webster, Definition of incidental
(Entry 1 of 2)


1a : being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence
b : minor sense 1


2 : occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation

Definition of minor

: inferior in importance, size, or degree : comparatively unimportant
------------------------------------------------------------------------

dictionary.com

incidental
[ in-si-den-tl ]




adjective
happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else.
incurred casually and in addition to the regular or main amount: incidental expenses.
likely to happen or naturally appertaining (usually followed by to).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


"likely", "unplanned", "by chance", seem to be the operative words here.

but when the income and fica tax rates are already directly tied to personal income, any increase or decrease in tax and FICA revenues resulting from an increase or decrease in personal revenues, is directly and inextricably tied, guaranteed, and an absolute.

thus i'm not sure how this would apply to the definition of "incidental".

all that said, if one were to apply a definition of "incidental" so broad that it would apply, then wouldn't any "revenue" increase or decrease thru increasing or decreasing tax rates, also be deemed merely "incidental" to the tax rate changes?

the change was to the tax rates themselves, the revenue change was merely incidental to the tax rate change, if going down this road as to how "incidental" should be applied.

thus would any tax rate changes not also be excluded from eligibility in reconciliation, being the subsequent changes in revenues were merely incidental to the changes in tax rates?

and did the GOP not pass Trump's massive tax breaks largely for the rich and corporations under reconciliation.


all that said, i think the broader question here is, how is there absolutely zero discussion or even questioning of the parliamentarian's ruling, anywhere, by anyone, or even a request by the media for the parliamentarian, or a representative of, to explain said ruling.

that there was zero discussion or questioning anywhere, by anyone, on any side, or here, when they parse and debate everything else ad infinitum, seems pretty indicative of my original conclusion, as put forth in my thread title.

Wall St killed the wage act on both sides of the isle, and then killed any discussion of what so ever by the media..

I found this Huffpost article that fleshes this out quite a bit. IMO at this time the issue is more important to the new ’majority‘ than an actual increase in the Federal minimum wage.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
22,376
20,647
113
Am I right in thinking that they are only allowed to do this Reconciliation process once or twice a year?
 

Latest posts