The Senate doesn't 'need' 60 votes. Republicans have always had the nuclear option to fund the wall if they were really that desperate for a win. Not only that but I believe they could've used recounciliation in order to force funding, which they instead used for a tax cut on the wealthy and kneecapping the ACA.

This is purely a political play by Republicans and there is absolutely no other way to view it. They're hurting federal employees for the sake of funding a fraction of the wall, and their intent was to try and blame democrats. Again.

> moderate Democrats were prevented from voting for it by minority leader Chuck Schumer.

The US doesn't have the kind of political system where the Senate minorty leader can prevent members from voting for or against things.

The majority leader, sure, by just not bringing them to a vote, so no one will vote either way. The minority leader, well, he can ask members not to, just like anyone else inside or outside the Senate.

Your Senate works weirdly, why a 60% majority is needed for budget allocation? Do you have a link that explain that well (if possible non-partisan link)?

It's not correct. Only 50% is needed. But 60% is needed to break a filibuster (which used to be when a Senator literally just keeps talking until the bill is dead, but now is just procedural). The assumption is that in our current environment, there will always be a filibuster on a budget bill, so you need 60 votes to make sure you can break the filibuster.

Oh, this is why filibusters aren't done all the time. This is weird to allow that for a budget vote though, since budget is more about the executive part of the government than legislative.

Thank you.

60% of the vote is needed to end the debate on a subject.

If 41 Senators continue to debate, the vote will never hit the floor. The technique in modern times is to have 41 Senators endlessly debate ideas they don't like. This is called a Filibuster.