Republicans were so excited about the tax-cut package put together for a House vote last week that they couldn't help but boast.

Their tone was best captured by Tennessee Rep. Zach Wamp, a Mayberry Machiavelli if ever there was one, who could not restrain himself from telling House Democrats, "You have seen us really outfox you on this issue tonight."

Republican leadership had cobbled together a bill they called the "trifecta" that included repeal of the estate tax, an increase in the minimum wage and extension of a bunch of tax breaks — including for Microsoft and Weyerhaeuser and for the state's sales tax credit against the federal income tax. The theory was that Republicans would embrace the bill for the estate tax and tax breaks and Democrats would do the same for raising the minimum wage.

The House passed the bill Saturday morning on a 230-180 vote, with 34 Democrats voting with the Republican majority. It's now in the Senate.

And GOP leaders continue to crow about the clever packaging of a bill that gives a raise to some of America's lowest paid workers and a tax break for the wealthiest.

Even if they do not win enactment of the "trifecta" bill, they said they would be able to blame Democrats for standing in the way of both parties' policy goals.
"There's no risk. It's all reward," said Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "It's a very compelling political package."

But even in Washington, D.C., there is such a thing as too clever.

Also in the bill was a provision that would effect Washington and six other states and could mean a cut in the hourly wage paid to workers who earn tips.

And that has Republican Congressman Dave Reichert hustling to make sure his vote for the trifecta isn't read as a vote against service workers.

The tip credit, pushed for at least 10 years by the National Restaurant Association, is in place already in 43 states and allows employers to pay tipped workers less than the minimum wage.

There's a dispute about exactly how the tip credit would work. The short story is Democrats and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service says it could mean a drop of $3 an hour in the minimum wage for tipped employees. Republicans and the restaurant association say the effect would be much less.

The Democratic reading of the bill was enough to bring labor activists and Democrats out to a rally in Seattle yesterday to protest the bill. It was billed as an "emergency rally" and Reichert's Democratic opponent, Darcy Burner, was an advertised headliner.

Republicans seem to have gone from self-congratulations for their legislative acumen to damage control.

Yesterday Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist got a letter from a top Department of Labor official saying the administration would read the law "as protecting the current minimum wages of the tipped employees in the seven states." Victoria Lipnic, the assistant secretary for employment standards, wrote Frist that the department was aware some thought the wage provisions in the bill were ambiguous:

"We would be pleased to work with the Congress to clarify that the intent of Congress is to protect the current minimum wages of tipped employees."

Reichert wrote a letter yesterday to House Speaker Dennis Hastert making it clear he didn't vote for the bill thinking Washington workers would see a drop in their minimum wage.

There are competing opinions regarding how this provision will be interpreted. If the Tipped Wage Fairness provision becomes law I will monitor its interpretation as I do not believe it would be proper, nor do I think it is Congress's intent, to interpret it in a way to use the "date of enactment" language to retroactively apply the current $2.15 tip credit amount to Washington State and the six other states.

Ultimately a legislative fix may be necessary to correct the Tipped Wage Fairness provision to ensure that workers in Washington State do not suffer adverse effects due to this provision.

Rep. Cathy McMorris also moved to distance herself from the tip credit vote. She wrote a letter to the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce saying:

"I firmly believe that these provisions should not be interpreted to allow employers to reduce employees' base pay for the purpose of meeting federal minimum wage requirements."

Reichert also asked for a quick vote on a bill to allow tipped workers to exempt the first $10,000 they get in tips from their federal income tax.

I asked Reichert's chief of staff, Mike Shields, yesterday if this was a case of Republican leadership being too clever about what they thought was a brilliant legislative strategy. He said he'd describe it as the results of "sausage-making" that resulted in a bill the size of a phone book.

"The Democrats were saying they didn't have a chance to read it. Dave didn't have a chance to read it either. That's not an excuse for any vote that is contained therein. Dave voted for this bill because overall this is good legislation. ... But when the leadership forces bills like this together inevitably there are going to be provisions contained within that are going to be problematic."

Shields said Reichert never heard anything about the tip provision from labor lobbyists prior to last week's vote. He said Reichert is willing to work with labor and the restaurant association on the issue, but he seemed bugged that Reichert was a target of yesterday's "emergency rally."

"It makes it a little more difficult when people go the route of immediately attacking and using things in a partisan way."

UPDATE: I'm not sure what the labor guys are smoking. But on the website of the Washington State Labor Council, spokesman David Groves goes off on an unbelievable rant about The Seattle Times, praising every other paper in town for its coverage of the tip issue. He writes that we "offered NO COVERAGE of the tip-penalty issue today." Of course, as anyone who reads the papers knows, the Times has the most coverage of the issue today. It is our banner story. It could not be more prominent in the paper. It got more prominent play than any other paper in the area. There was a story on our website yesterday as well. And he links to my post yesterday about Frank Blethen as evidence of some evil doing, though it is not clear exactly what.

(NOTE: THIS WAS THE LINK TO THURSDAY'S FRONT PAGE THAT SHOWED THE BANNER STORY, NOW IT SHOWS TODAY'S PAPER, SO IS OUT OF DATE.) Here's what our front page looks like today. I'm not sure how we could have given the issue any more prominence.

UPDATE: Groves has deleted his bashing of the Times. Now he just ignores what the paper did today to try to make it look like we're not covering this issue. Just click the link above and decide if you think The Seattle Times underplayed this story today.

SENATE UPDATE: The Senate tonight stopped the bill. The AP reports the bill got a 56-42 vote, four votes short of what Republicans needed to advance it.

Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray both announced earlier they'd vote no.
Cantwell posted a statement on the NPI blog. She also released a state Department of Labor and Industries letter on the bill's tip credit provisions. It says in part:

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.

I didn't realize the current minimum wage could be reinstated like that, which shouldn't be tough if Democrats retain control of the Legislature.

Mike McGavick's not buying the argument that state wages would be hurt. His statement tonight shows no worry about tipped employees.

Contrary to Sen. Cantwell's claim, the bill would not lower the wages of employees receiving tips below Washington state's minimum wage of $7.63 and hour. In response to Democrat claims, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a letter stating that the Department interprets the bill as protecting the current minimum wage in Washington state.