Originally Posted by
Andy
I don't know where you came up with it not being able to be added without 60 votes; there are only 9 memebers on the subcommittee so it only requires 5 votes to be added in a markup session (which needs to happen prior to leaving subcommittee).
1) the FAA Reauthorization Act cannot leave subcommittee without a majority vote in favor of it. Please count the votes as it stands.
2) There's a huge amount of funding tied to the FAA Reauthorization Act. Senior Dems will not allow this bill to be stuck in subcommittee forever.
3) Even if the Senate version doesn't include 67, House members are likely to demand it be including during the reconciliation process.
4) When the age changed to 65, it firmly opened the door to further age increases.
5) Congress sees a pilot shortage and sees age 67 as a way to help mitigate that shortage.
6) Having pilots work longer means that they will continue to contribute to the Social Security Trust Fund instead of drawing payments from it. This is actually a bigger issue than most others here.
Our opinions on this matter don't count for anything. If you want to try to move the needle, contact your representatives and tell them you oppose this change. And make sure you get a lot of non pilot voters to contact their representatives to oppose the change. And send lots of money to your representative to influence them.
You need to play the DC game. No discussion on this forum is going to make any difference in the outcome.
I meant 60 votes for a floor amendment after final language is drafted and amendments are added. I think only budget reconciliation allows vote-a-romma simple majority.
Age 67 could have been added before they went to recess and it wasn’t, so the question is what leverage will change to add it.
DC is a pay to play town, whoever writes the biggest tactical checks gets what they want. It’s likely the majors are lobbing against it also.
I didn’t mean why should it pass according to what they will tell constituents. I meant why do you think the status quo of it not already being in there will change since DC is a pay to play town and it isn’t already there now.
If the senate doesn’t want it to pass, and doesn’t want to be seen voting against it then it stands to reason it will not be in the final language and will have to be added via amendment by LG or someone, but that will need 60 and they can just say “present” to duck it again.
Why do you think the House will have a authority to demand it in conference committee if the WH and Senate don’t want it and that is all backroom closed session stuff.
It seems like all RAA and pro age 67 did was lobby/pay a single house committee to get it slipped into final language on a bill that was going to pass no matter if it was in there or not. That singular event is now being labeled as the “will of the people” or “authentic need” and not the most actual truth which is they paid to play.