A little over a month ago the House of Representatives passed an increase to the minimum wage by a 315 to 116 margin. Earlier this month, the Senate passed its own version of a minimum wage increase with a sweetner in the form of tax cuts for small businesses by a 94 to 3 marging. In order to come closer to reconciling the two slightly different pieces of legislation, the House passed a tax cut of its own yesterday by a 360 to 45 margin. From here, leaders from the two chambers will work informally leading into a conference committee where the House and Senate works to combine all of the legislation into one bill that can pass both chambers. This is a textbook example of how the legislative process works and is, frankly, a quick example at that. But how does The New York Times spin the story? Under the headline Familiar Problem Stalls Minimum Wage Bill.

When Democrats campaigned last fall to recapture control of Congress, few domestic issues seemed to have as much winning potential as raising the minimum wage.

[...]

Yet after six weeks in power, the Democratic-led House and Senate have yet to agree on a final bill. The obstacle is the same one that stymied Republicans time after time when they had control: paralyzingly thin margins in the Senate.

According to the reporter, Edmund L. Andrews, the chief Senate negotiator, Max Baucus, believes that the two sides are -- grasp -- "within weeks of reaching their goal". My gosh, the Democrats might take as long as two or three months to send legislation increasing the minimum wage to the White House. Sure, the previous four Republican Congresses were not able to do so, but still, two or three months... what an outrage!

The editors and reporters over at The Times might be well served going back to school to learn a little bit about how the legislative process works, about how, with the exception of bills that are bumping up against real or perceived to be real deadlines (like, say, a potential government shutdown), legislation takes time to pass through committees, both chambers, a conference committee and again both chambers. It may be an unfortunate fact about American politics, but it is a fact. And if those folks at The Times did go back and take a gander at their old college textbooks, they might realize that their lede should instead be, "Democrats moved one step closer to increasing the minimum wage, which Republicans were unable or unwilling to do in nearly a decade."

There's more...

Reviewing yesterday's Daily Digest (or durable), as all good boys and girls should (ha!), I see that, following his coup on S1 (ethics bill), DeMint is trying his hand at mischief once more.

DeMint has submitted an amendment (SA 158) to SA 100, the bipartisan substitute, which would mandate a different Federal minimum wage for each state, based on the minimum wage law rates in that state.

The DeMint amendment applies the proposed increases in the Federal minimum wage (in HR 2 as passed by the House) but not to the current Federal rate of $5.15 but to the current rate applicable in the state in which the employee lives.

There's more...

The minimum wage bill HR 2 arrived yesterday on the Senate floor - a rather different milieu to whence it had come!

No closed rule, of course; and Uncle Harry needing to reach across the aisle and stroke egos as a prerequisite to getting the bill passed.

There is a substitute (SA 100) - which is the bill as passed by the House, plus the Baucus-Grassley tax sweeteners in the form of the text of S 349, the Small Business and Work Opportunity Act (information on, and previous drafts of, which can be found at this Finance Committee page).

There's more...

Based on this Post piece, that is.

Baucus is apparently offering $10bn over ten years in sweeteners. The GOP are asking for twice that.

They're also thinking of pressing the idea of small business healthcare purchasing pools - designed to bust state employer mandate schemes.

There's more...

The bill (HR 2) passed at 1710 ET by the score of 315 to 116: Dems voted all 233, the GOP were split more or less down the middle.

I assume it was a clean bill (THOMAS is way behind).

Which raises the question, Why, if so many GOP reps are willing to vote for a clean bill, does the Dem Senate leadership think it needs to rush to a compromise bill with tax sweeteners (Jonathan's piece)?

Are the House GOP more centrist than their Senate counterparts all of a sudden? (That wasn't the impression when they were under the DeLay lash!)

There's more...