Remember that sneak attack from Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who snuck into the Senate budget resolution an amendment that altered the procedural requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act? UMRA created a new point of order against any bill that would impose costs on state and local governments above a specific threshold, but the vote count required to overcome the point of order and allow a bill to move forward for a final vote was only a simple majority. Alexander changed that, for the Senate at least, by raising the vote count to a 60-vote supermajority.

The Senate voted this afternoon 47 - 51 against raising the minimum wage to $6.25. 42 Democrats, 4 Republicans (Chafee, DeWine, Santorum, and Specter), and Independent Jim Jeffords (VT) voted in favor of the increase. The minimum wage has not been increased for over 8 years, the second longest drought on record.

It appears Republicans are laying the groundwork to positively spin the possible collaspe of support for an amendment to the budget resolution that would increase cuts to entitlement programs from $35 to $50 billion over the next five years. As of today, it appears the House leadership still does not have the 218 votes necessary to pass the amendment. The House leadership has already scaled back the amendment by dropping a proposal for an across-the-board 2 percent cut to discretionary programs. It remains unclear if there is enough support for increasing the mandatory cuts beyond those originally agreed upon in the resolution this past April, but a delay or cancelation of the vote on the amendment is clearly a sign of weakness for both the GOP leadership's efforts to enact deeper cuts and the Republican Study Committee's efforts to threaten the leadership for control of the House. Undetered, acting-Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-MO) declared today, "Our chairman, frankly, can do [these additional cuts] without a vote and are moving forward." He added, "I don't think the Conference is divided at all. I think we have a plan. The question is: At what point do we bring that plan to the floor." Yet Blunt did not elaborate on how he thought the leadership would be able to pass the actual reconciliation bill with $50 billion in cuts (whenever they decide to bring it to the floor) if they could not muster the suppoort for an amendment that is merely a verbal committment to pass the cuts. It is possible to use a tactic favored by this leadership group, which is holding the vote open for extended periods until they twist enough individual arms and offer enough consessions and sweateners to get the votes they need. Democracy at its finest!