When Mike McGavick first came out with "civility" as a campaign theme, I didn't initially think much of the notion. As the depth of anti-incumbent mood this year has become clear, however, the theme is clearly more meaningful than expected. Especially when Senator Maria Cantwell plays right to it.
In the hot-topic vote at the end of this past week, Cantwell voted against a bill combining an increase in the minimum wage with a compromise reduction in the estate tax. In and of itself, that would likely not be a highly significant event in policy or politics. That is until Cantwell made her position on the issue more clear.
She publicly claimed the legislation "cuts salaries for Washington state's minimum-wage tip workers, it does not make permanent the state sales tax deduction, and it would not make permanent the R&D tax credit."
However, as David Postman reports, the US Department of Labor responded to ambiguity in the text of the legislation by clarifying Washington state's minimum-wage workers would not be harmed. And as Postman also reports, Senator Frist and his staff specifically offered to clear up any ambiguity.
Moreover, Cantwell didn't have a problem being a strong supporter of the sales tax deduction when it first passed, also in temporary form, back in 2004. Furthermore, the federal R&D tax credit has been on an almost perpetual track of temporary extension since it first passed in 1981. In the past, Cantwell has supported non-permanent extensions. Now that the credit has actually lapsed, the biotech and high-tech industries Cantwell is obviously familiar with are left hanging because people like Cantwell want to play politics rather than support important industries in Washington state.
As observers of Congress, particularly the Senate, know, the sausage-making process of crafting legislation sometimes produces unexpected combinations of policy that while perhaps not ideal, are nonetheless a reasonable compromise of competing interests. Instead of prudent representation of Washington state's interests, Senator Cantwell instead provides us with this post at a local liberal blog.
In summary, the post says she wouldn't vote for the legislation because Republicans are bad. Forget the fact she has in the past supported policies she claims stop her from voting for the legislation now, forget that she was offered a chance to fix the questionable problem over which liberals made such a rallying cry. Candidly, I thought Senator Cantwell has spent enough time trying to mollify her restive liberal base, but evidently the "McGovernites with Modems" still needed some love.
Senator Cantwell has proved Mike McGaivck's message of civility and problem solving has legs, because she chose playing politics, when she had a chance to craft policy.
Ah, leadership.
YOU are the ones playing politics here. What ever happened to your call for straight up-and-down votes, from back in the Supreme Court confirming days? If we had them in this case on clean bills spared your political "sausage-making," extending Washington's sales-tax exemption WINS, raising the minimum wage WINS, and estate tax repeal LOSES.
It's pretty clear what has passed its expiration date in that particular sausage.
Posted by: Union Guy on August 7, 2006 08:50 AMYou know from my previous posts regarding compromise between Republicans and Democrats that I tend to oppose the practice due to the divergent definitions of "compromise" that the respective parties espouse. The Republicans define compromise as a means of getting important legislation through Congress. The Democrats define compromise as a means of suckering Republicans into giving in on important legislation so that they can hijack the process.
But this case is different. Cantwell's stubborn and petulant refusal to vote for this bill was not borne of her sense of obligation to the common worker, but rather to keep her base happy. I would wager that Cantwell does not give damn number one for the minimum wage worker. As a general rule, most Democrats don't bother actually doing something meaningful for the little guy unless they see some political capital to be gained from it. But that doesn't stop them from politicizing human misery and dragging the little guy onto their political platform every election cycle and for using him as lame excuse to block important legislation.
Cantwell illustrates yet another primary reason that I oppose Republican compromise with Democrats: it gets us nowhere. It really does not matter how hard Republicans try to work with Democrats. The Democrats will find a way to dilute the package, and if they can't accomplish a dilution then they inevitably fall back on obstructionist tactics "to defend (fill in the blank with a) the common worker; b) underrepresented minorities; c) the disenfranchised; d) the children".
Nice going, Cantwell. At least you're consistent.
Posted by: ERNurse on August 7, 2006 09:14 AMShe is barely above minimum on gross, but being in high school, she has limited hours. So, instead of a flexible scale, the unions need full dues from their parttime employees.
BTW, despite the efforts of the MSM, McGavick is winning this battle. Cantwell and the unions need to go back to representing their constituents.
Posted by: swatter on August 7, 2006 09:29 AMAs for your statement that Frist offered to 'fix' the bill, your choice of words was made to support your implication that the bill was inherently bad- which it was not. Frist offered to clarify the bill for Cantwell, who suddenly (conveniently?) has become illiterate to the language of legislation. Which begs the question: if she can't understand the language of legislation after being in office for this many years, why should we trust her to know what she is doing?
Posted by: ERNurse on August 7, 2006 09:33 AM'union guy' has only his like to blame; protecting the incompetent and stifling innovation; not to mention political games with union dues that back socialists and diversity mongers; sure--unions did lots of good, but that was at the turn of the century--the buggy whip vanished--the union whipper remained; industry simply adapted and outsourced or went under; you need to be a partner--not demanding unrealistic things like zero medical contributions, med coverages for unlimited silly procedures and some flexibility on firings & wage increases--the rest of the workforce is under the same pressure--get real; how about firing some of your multi layers of union bureaucrats for a start? plow those useless salaries into your own fund for benefits;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 7, 2006 09:40 AMPerhaps something to hide?
Posted by: swatter on August 7, 2006 09:58 AM
After this election Maria will be free
to go back to bartending.
While Mike?(tm) said that the law would not effect tip employees in Washington, here is what the Department of Labor actually said:
Under our preliminary analysis, this proposal, in effect, appears to nullify an employer's obligation to pay the minimum wage rate in RCW 49.46.020 with regard to tipped employees. This means that Washington workers who receive tips - typically service industry workers - would see a decrease in income. However, the proposal does give states the right to amend their laws to specifically reinstate their current minimum wage rate laws. Until and unless the Washington State Legislature amends the minimum wage act to reinstate the current minimum wage rate provision for tipped employees, it would diminish workers' rights in Washington State.
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/08/cantwell_says_no_to.php
As Postman makes clear, "It doesn't sound like Frist offered a very good deal."
So it would appear that it is Mike?(tm) and his lackeys and the GOP that are lying, while Cantwell got it right. Clearly, if the law passed, Washington's employees who work for tips would take a hit to their pocketbook. And all of this in the desire to provide Paris Hilton with a tax break for doing nothing.
The House of Representatives!? Dude, with her credentials, I wouldn't let her work in the House of Pancakes!
Posted by: ERNurse on August 7, 2006 05:53 PM"...Sen. Frist told Sen. Cantwell that he would work with her on this issue and to fix the tip credit in anyway that she wanted, clearly she did not take the Senator up on this offer because she voted against the bill."
Hmm. I wonder how could you have missed that?
But it seems you overlooked this part, too:
"Frist picked up the phone, to call her and discuss her omission provision, before their release went out. She wouldn't take his call and was avoiding him on the senate floor."
But wait! There's one more detail that you missed in your haste to throw your styrofoam rocks:
"Weyforth said the Department of Labor letter was sent to Cantwell's office at the request of her staff, not as a proposed fix from the majority leader. Frist wanted to follow up but never was able to connect again with Cantwell. Weyforth said if Cantwell's office says there was no fix offered, it is "only because they didn't want to hear the solution."
Well, whaddaya know about that? Seems that Cantwell had the opportunity to change the bill any old way she wanted, and she blew her chance. There's your illustrious Senator, hard at work for the little guy as always.
Posted by: ERNurse on August 7, 2006 06:20 PMAlso, if the estate tax is repealed, that's $700 billion dollars in lost tax revenue. And the Estate Tax doesn't effect low-income families, middle-income families, or high-income families... it only effects the ultra-mega-rich. That's why it has been called the 'Paris Hilton Tax'.
Who do you think is going to pay for this lost tax revenue, in either additional taxes or lost services? Yep, everybody else.
I'm no fan of Maria Cantwell, but I agree with her on this point. As far as being civil and working with the Majority Leader... what have the Republicans done to deserve this civility? Threaten the nuclear option? Forget that.
Posted by: Ryan on August 7, 2006 09:55 PMIt will cost me around a thousand bucks and I'm not rich.
Posted by: sgmmac on August 7, 2006 11:37 PMThe mega rich (like John Kerry, Bill Gates, Paris Hilton, Howard Dean, John Corzine, Ned Lamont--these people are rolling in millions, unlike the rest of us) are not the same as the little guy who started with nothing at age 25 and worked and saved his whole life to accumulate a few million. Let's face it, a few million is shoe money to Gates and Paris Hilton.
Yet these little guys who made it after a lifetime of work avd careful savings exemplify what you can accomplish in America, even if you aren't Bill Gates or John Kerry. And yet, liberals don't acknowledge that these saved-all-their-lives guys with a few million at the end are hurt the most by this death tax! Why would you do that??? Let's let the Americans who worked and saved their whole lives and ended up with a few million keep their few million.
They'll never see the kind of money Gates has, so don't lump them in with Gates and Buffet-type wealth. It makes no sense. At least raise the ceiling and cut the rate. This death tax is evil.
And the Senate is supposed to be more deliberate (with 6 year terms, they don't have to worry about reelection on every vote they take). That is where you are supposed to find the statesmen of the country (or women, if you will).
So, with Cantwell refusing to meet with the Majority Leader, she has put herself into the squirrelly House of Representatives behaviors.
Posted by: swatter on August 8, 2006 07:25 AM"As far as being civil and working with the Majority Leader... what have the Republicans done to deserve this civility?"
Ummmm....they won a majority in the Senate AND House of Representatives?
Like it or not, the Republicans have a majority and the Democrats have to work with them or stay home. Cantwell chose to stay home. Is that really the best option for her constituents? Of course not - it's a purely political ploy.
She cost the residents of this state thousands of dollars EACH per year - for a purely political ploy.
Posted by: Larry on August 8, 2006 10:06 AMEveryone in this state who has followed this issue -- except for nutty right-wing bloggers and other paid political apologists -- recognizes this GOP sausage-making as blackmail. If you're really worried about losing your sales-tax exemption -- which "each" of us don't get, BTW, unless we itemize -- how can you absolve your Party Bosses in D.C. who are holding it hostage and refuse to make it permanent?
Posted by: Union Guy on August 8, 2006 03:01 PMYou got one thing right, you are a HYPOCRITE of the first order.
Posted by: Smokie on August 8, 2006 04:01 PMhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/business/23tax.html?ex=1311307200&en=b03aaef959e9ae64&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Check out the following link (with statistics from 2004) and tell me the estate tax is harming the average working family of Washington. You think I'm going to cry for someone who has to pay a tax of 15.5% on their inheritated estate of $10M-$20M? Give me a break, people. I stand by my initial post.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/TMTemplate.cfm?DocID=734&topic2ID=40&topic3ID=41&DocTypeID=
Posted by: Ryan on August 9, 2006 12:39 AMThe problem is, the Republicans only want to work with the Democrats when they suddenly find that they can't slam the legislation through the House and Senate unopposed. Otherwise, they don't consult w/ Democrats at all.
Now you're going to get offended when Dems don't suddenly go gaga and goosepimpled b/c that boner Bill Frist wants to 'work something out'? Whatever.
Posted by: Ryan on August 9, 2006 12:42 AMYour last paragraph was full of adult verbage
"gaga, goosepimpled, boner, and the famous WHATEVER"
Try HA, more your style....
And Mr. Union Guy, that deduction on my Federal taxes is to even the playing field for those States that have deductions for state income tax. Me thinks, Hmmmm!!! Not so bright is this one.
Posted by: swatter on August 9, 2006 07:30 AMAwww... can't take a few funny words? Why I don't you talk about the CONTENT OF WHAT I POSTED. You haven't added anything to the discussion.
Whatever, boner.
Posted by: Ryan on August 9, 2006 09:27 PM