House Democrats Push Minimum Wage Raise in Covid-19 Relief Bill Despite Senate Concerns

WASHINGTON—House Democrats are preparing to stitch together a legislative version of President Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief proposal next week, which will include an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour despite a second Senate Democrat opposing it this week.

House committees spent the past week shaping portions of the legislation, including the proposal to gradually increase the federal minimum wage to $15 over four years. Early next week, the House Budget Committee is expected to assemble all the pieces into one bill, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said should pass the full House by the end of the month.

Democrats can’t afford to lose a single vote from their ranks in the evenly divided Senate. But the office of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.) said this week that she wouldn’t support including the minimum wage increase in the coronavirus relief package, joining Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) and most Republicans in opposing its inclusion. Politico first reported her decision.

House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D., Ky.) said in an interview Friday that the minimum wage increase was always expected to be hard to pass. “We always knew it was going to be probably the roughest thing to both get through the floor” and procedural constraints, Mr. Yarmuth said.

Democrats are trying to use a process known as reconciliation that would allow the Senate to pass the Covid-19 relief bill with simple majority, rather than the usual 60 votes. It is unclear whether the minimum wage increase is eligible to be passed this way.

If the minimum wage increase is stripped out in the Senate, discussions are already under way about tackling it separately, Mr. Yarmuth said. “I would almost guarantee there will be a standalone bill if this doesn’t make it through,” he said.

"House Democrats Push Minimum Wage Raise in Covid-19 Relief Bill Despite Senate Concerns"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

From a related thread...

Patriots are reminded that the states have never amended the Constitution to give the unconstitutionally big federal government the specific power to regulate INTRAstate labor.

In fact, Justice Joseph Story had used “the wages of labor” as an example of a power that Congress does not have.

"Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour [emphasis added], the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments." —"Justice Joseph Story, Commerce Clause (1.8.3), 1833.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Many lawmakers need to lose their job under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for rebelling against the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers by making bills that unconstitutionally expand the already unconstitutionally big federal government’s powers imo.

"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [emphases added], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.