Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Purveyor

(29,876 posts)
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 03:00 PM Jan 2015

Republicans Have a Veto-Proof Math Problem

Behold Washington's new math.

The first anti-Obamacare bill of the new Congress, the Save American Workers Act of 2015, was written to undo the part of the law that defines "full employment" as holding a job for as little as 30 hours per week. It passed, and on the way, it became even more partisan in color than the 2014 version of the bill. In the last Congress, 18 Democrats voted with every Republican to pass the bill, but Thursday only 12 did, including all but one of the 2014 supporters (not Georgia Rep. Sanford Bishop) and two new Blue Dogs (Florida Rep. Gwen Graham, Nebraska Rep. Brad Ashford).

By turning on the bill, the Democrats made clear that they would sustain the veto already promised by President Obama, and, yes, they have the votes to do so. If every member of the 114th House of Representatives shows up for a vote, 48 Democrats need to join every Republican to override a veto. Three times this week, when the GOP brought forward bills to approve the Keystone pipeline and delay part of the Volcker Rule, the Democrats denied them all but a handful of votes.

“Time for the laugh track!”
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin

Just as interesting as the Republican math problem were the arguments Democrats used to hold back their votes. In its veto message, the White House said the 30-hour work week bill "would significantly increase the deficit" and cited 2014 numbers from the Congressional Budget Office to say it would "increase the budget deficit by $45.7 billion over the 2015 to 2024 period." In the Senate yesterday, in a conversation with reporters, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin repeatedly mocked Republicans for offering changes to the ACA without offering up the mechanisms to pay for them.

"I’m just not going to buy the premise Republicans now want to sell, that deficits don’t count," Durbin said. "Since they’re in the majority, they’re going to use dynamic scoring—time for the laugh track!—they’re going to use dynamic scoring to prove that they can cut any tax without an impact on the deficit. That doesn’t work. That’s why we’ve stopped short of repealing the medical device tax, because the payfor has never been explained."

more...

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-09/republicans-have-a-vetoproof-math-problem

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

on point

(2,506 posts)
1. The full time definition as threshold for coverage was a bad idea
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 04:01 PM
Jan 2015

That led to foreseeable perverse consequences. They should have left the definition at 40 hrs / week, but mandated that employers pay out equivalent per hr insurance rate so coverage cost wouldn't figure into how many hrs to employ someone

They should still fix this and broaden it to all benefits to eliminate one the games corps play that is hurting average workers

Justice

(7,188 posts)
2. No, the 30 hour week was the right threshold. If they had made it 40 hours, many, many, many
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 04:44 PM
Jan 2015

people would have been cut from 40 hours to 39 hours to avoid having to provide health care.

People don't realize the enormously negative impact it would have on 40 hour employees who hours are cut to avoid the healthcare mandate.

on point

(2,506 posts)
3. You misunderstood. If not full-time, then pay out per hr the same amount equivalent
Fri Jan 9, 2015, 04:59 PM
Jan 2015

ANY threshold 40, 39, 30, 24 would STILL have the same perverse incentive. Eliminate the problem by mandating benefits are paid per hour, regardless of the amount of hrs worked, so there is no incentive at all for corps to play the 'sorry you're not full time' game.

Eliminate the game altogether!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Republicans Have a Veto-P...