With Minnesota still not seating anyone and Ted Kennedy still unable to participate due to illness, they need more than 2 cross-over votes. They need at least 3, assuming they lose no one from their party, which is unlikely since there are conservative Democrats. In any case, I don't know if they want to just force it through. They probably want at least some semblance of bipartisan support, which probably means more compromise.
And all of those non-salary items are referred to as "psychic benefits". Meaning, they have no concrete value, but are a factor in choosing a job. You can also include things like lifestyle, commute time, hours required, stress level, culture, etc. When you apply monetary values to those items and add them to the difference in salary, they generally turn out to be close if not surpassing the private sector position. If you want to stimulate the economy, give people incentives. I think fear is among the best. Everyone should feel as if they don't perform at their best every day, they will be fired.
Do they need 60 votes or do they need 60%? Because I guarantee you they'll wheel Sen. Kennedy in to cast that vote, even if he's expired. Chuck Hegel is another potential crossover. Heck, the new Senator from NH may swing that way too.
60%, but fractions are rounded up. Even counting only 99 members, that's 59.4 votes needed, which gets rounded up to 60 (according to what I've read).
Yup, what's known as a cloture vote. McConnell has made threats of a possible filibuster, so it might be a relevant number.
They don't need any crossover votes to pass the bill, and Reid should force McConnell's hand on the filibuster if the package is such a home run.
Or, if the GOP filibusters, Reid rushes out to the steps of the Capitol and complains to an adoring media about the GOP blocking people from putting food in their kids' mouths. It's really that simple if the bill is the greatest thing ever. If it has problems, Reid still gets to blame the GOP for obstruction while tweaking the bill to make it more effective.
Presumably because it would be politically embarrassing to have "their" bill blocked from even reaching vote. In most cases, the Senate majority leader (regardless of party) doesn't take a bill to the floor until he/she already knows he/she has the votes, which is why filibusters rarely happen. Occasionally, to make a point, the majority party will force the minority party's hand and spin a filibuster as "obstructionist." But I don't think Obama and Democrats want to be involved in such partisan rancor on this bill. There will be partisan fights without question over the next four years, but I think Obama wants to open with a tone of bipartisan work to "help fix" the economy. This is just what I am interpreting.
Depends on whose weighting scheme you use. Obviously not yours or mine, or we'd be in government, right? Or killed. Killing them would instill a higher level of fear, I'd think. barfo
I find it fascinating that you would post this considering what Obama said directly to the GOP today regarding their lack of support for this bill and their "failed policies", which is a laugher considering Obama has been in the Senate majority for 2 years. I was astonished that the President would directly call out the GOP when no GOP support is needed to pass the bill. I also wonder how, if this is such a grave emergency that needs immediate action, why the Democrats would put politics before their passage of the bill. The longer this goes on, and the more we hear from Democrats how urgently this needs to be passed when they won't even try for cloture, the more political damage they accumulate.
They need Republican support to get the bill to an up/down vote. And certainly Obama and the Democrats are playing politics. They're no better or worse than Republicans in terms of playing political games. You won't hear me defend Democrats as any less about "playing politics" than Republicans.
I'm just guessing this, but there are quite a few Senate Dems from red states who may not want to see this come to a vote.
But in this case, PapaG, conditions changed. I mean, union workers have been forced to take pay cuts and cuts in benefits. They signed onto a job with certain pay and fringes and had to give back. So it's hardly iron clad. And I can't see it as a whim. The idea behind high salary and bonus is to reward success and to bring in the best. Well, if a company needs billions in OUR money to stay afloat, they have not succeeded and their people are not the best.
So it turns out (according to this morning's Oregonian) that the new wage limits do not apply retroactively to firms that have already received bailouts, but only to future bailout firms. There is thus no issue about changing terms after the loan is signed. So this discussion we had, delightful as it was, was all for naught. But at least the post count went up. barfo
