Debunking Republican Minimum Wage Bunk

I saw a comment over at the Gun Toting Liberal's blog about a post regarding that Congress has increased their pay by $31,000 in the past 9 years, but has done nothing to increase the minimum wage in the same amount of time.

Raising minimum wage has almost always been connected to cost of living hikes.
Raising the minimum wage is good for a minute, then the cost of groceries goes up and boom, everything is back where it started, in the crapper. Good initiative,bad judgement. [sic]

It might seem that this would be common sense. Increase the rate of pay and inflation spikes. But it is untrue.

First of all, it needs to be pointed out that a person working for minimum wage is 27% under the poverty level in the united states and has, due to inflation, become worse and worse each and every year. Think about that. You could work 40 hours a week, 52 a year, and earn only $10,712 for the year. In the 1960's and '70's minimum wage kept a family of three out of poverty and off the public dole.

Now, lets look at historical trends after minimum wage increases. Does inflation really go up?

The answer is no.

In 1996, the year before the last time that the minimum wage was increased, inflation was at 2.93%. In 1997, the year the wage increased, inflation was 2.34%. In 1998, it was 1.55%. In 1999, it was 2.19%

The minimum wage was increased in 1990-91 also. Inflation went from 5.39% and decreased every year over the next 4 years to be at 2.61% in 1994.

The minimum wage was also increased in 1974 and inflation again went down every single year for the next 4 years.

In 1963 when the minimum wage was increased, inflation held steady for the next 3 years. And the same thing in 1961.

The only time that inflation increased after a minimum wage increase was in 1968 and that was only by a little more than 1% over 3 years, and that was during the height of deficit spending on the Viet Nam war.

The other argument is that an increase in the minimum wage kills jobs. In 1996, Republican Representative Jim Saxton led a battle to stop Clinton's initiative to increase the minimum wage. He claimed that a hike in the minimum wage would lose 600,000 jobs in the united states. In actuality, the ranks of the employed continued to grow over the next 2 years (including adjustments for population growth).

In fact, the last 5 years have had the least job growth since 1964, down 1.6% from the years right after our last minimum wage increase.

So, all the GOP talking points about inflation and unemployment are just a bunch of myths cooked up to save their hides from the fact that they are not doing what they should be doing - raising the minimum wage to a respectable level.

Sources:

Inflation Data.com

Economic Policy Institute

Fiscal Policy Institute

US Department of Labor statistics

Job Watch

Bigotry Continues with the GOP

Today, the GOP canceled a vote on renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act due to a rebellion of Republican House members. One of the major reasons for their rebellion is the requirement that ballots are to be printed in Spanish or other languages where there are sufficient numbers of people who need the ballots to be printed in another language in order to understand what and who they are voting for. Their revolt against a law that requires equal opportunity for all to vote is spurred on by their revulsion to immigrants.

I am all for teaching everyone in this country English. It is the unifying language of this country. It is very difficult to succeed in this country and achieve the American dream if you do not speak English.

BUT...

To disenfranchise any vote of any single citizen of this country because of language is immoral and un-American. There is no provision in the constitution that requires that you can read English to vote... In fact, you don't even need to be able to read to vote. It is not a requirement in this country to learn English.

The only constitutional requirement in this country to be able to vote is to be a citizen of the united states.

And guess what - all Puerto Ricans are full citizens of this country. They have ever right and privilege as everyone else who was born on the main land. If they move to Topeka, they have the right to vote in the local elections. If they move to Atlanta, they have the right to vote in the local elections.

Since it is not required for all of our citizens to learn English, it is a clear violation of the constitution and the democratic principals to discriminate against them because they do not speak English.

But of course, I have met very few on the right who considers any naturalized immigrants or Puerto Rican to really be Americans anyway. Of course, they didn't think blacks were even people for 400 years either.

This rebellion by Republicans is bigoted and wrong. From the landless, to ex-slaves, to women, the movement in this country has always been to ensure full opportunity to take part in the democratic process, regardless of your background. Now the Republicans want to take us backwards.

GOP Rebellion Stops Voting Rights Act
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 22, 2006; Page A07

House leaders abruptly canceled a vote to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act yesterday after rank-and-file Republicans revolted over provisions that require bilingual ballots in many places and continued federal oversight of voting practices in Southern states.

The intensity of the complaints, raised in a closed meeting of GOP lawmakers, surprised Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and his lieutenants, who thought the path was clear to renew the act's key provisions for 25 years. The act is widely considered a civil rights landmark that helped thousands of African Americans gain access to the ballot box. Its renewal seemed assured when House and Senate Republican and Democratic leaders embraced it in a May 2 kickoff on the Capitol steps.

(Full Story)

GOP Kills Minimum Wage Increase

Republicans in the Senate defeated a bill today that would have increased the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour by January 1, 2009. This would have been the first increase in the minimum wage in a decade. Currently, inflation adjusted, minimum wage is the lowest it has been since WWII.

Since the last time that minimum wage has been increased, the congress has increased their own pay by more than $31,000. That is almost 3 times the amount that someone working minimum wage takes home in a year (assuming a 40 hour work week and no vacation or sick time taken during the year).

This is absolutely sickening. After all, the guy who is serving me fries with my burger hasn't voted to tripled the national debt in those ten years.

A person making minimum wage makes $10,712 a year. This puts them under the poverty line and makes them a ward of the state for financial assistance. Mega companies like Wal-mart shift the burden from the consumers to the tax payers in order to support the lower end of the economic spectrum. How can a person have dignity in their work when they can't even be paid enough for their services to hit the poverty line.

Those of you how say, "well, Economics 101 tells you that if you get rid of the minimum wage, wages will increase... blah, blah, blah." Anyone who says this obviously never took Economics 201, 301, or any other economics other than Economics 101. If they did, they would know that statement is full of crap. It only works in text book perfect settings. Of course, Marxism works in text book perfect settings too, but we know that it doesn't work in real life.

It is time that congress gets off its fat bloated pompous ass and raise the minimum wage. Otherwise, people are just working... not working for a living.

Senate defeats Democrats' minimum wage increase

North Korea Set To Test Missle

Things are not getting any better with our relations with North Korea. North Korea is a rogue state, without question. But 6 years of grid lock show that Bush foreign policy towards North Korea has been a failure as well. Shortly after Bush took office, he decided to take a hard line with NK, and relations have deteriorated ever since. Bush's one-size-fits-all foreign policy has done nothing to heel the progression of our two most dangerous adversaries, North Korea and Iran.

Sometimes, confrontation is a self fulfilling prophesy. It does not take a genius to figure out why these two countries are moving the path that they are.

N. Korea Warned On Testing Missile

A North Korea Missile Test: Background and Fast Facts

Speaker of the House Makes a Mint

Dennis Hastert is another Republican who may have some questions to answer about shady land deals. It was recently discovered that Hastert turned a tidy little profit from a land sale he made after appropriating money to build a highway close to his investment properties. Four years ago, he started purchasing land through a anonymous land trust, and then resold the property three months after the bill to appropriate money for the new highway was signed. Hastert will pocket $3 million in the deal. Ironically, the Land trust was titled "Little Rock Trust."


Records reveal Hastert's hand in land deal
By Mike Dorning and Andrew Zajac
Washington Bureau
Published June 15, 2006


WASHINGTON -- Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert and two partners turned a profit of more than $3 million on property they accumulated and sold in just over three years near the route of a proposed controversial freeway on the western fringe of suburban Chicago, according to land records and financial disclosure reports released Wednesday.

Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean rejected the notion that the land, located 5 1/2 miles from the proposed Prairie Parkway route, rose in value because of the highway project. The speaker long has been an aggressive proponent of the highway and helped secure more than $200 million in federal funding through an earmark in federal transportation legislation.

The property near Plano, Ill., was sold three months after the transportation bill was signed into law. It was purchased by a real estate developer who is planning to build more than 1,500 homes on the land.

(Full Story)

Bush Creates a New Natural National Monument

Bush is using the 1906 National Antiquities Act in order to create a massive marine sanctuary in Hawaii. (Bush Plans Vast Protected Sea Area in Hawaii )

I wonder if Republicans will attack this as vehemently as they attacked Clinton when he used the 1906 Notional Antiquities Act, or, as usual, show their hypocrisy by not offending their King-in-chief.

I applaud Bush for doing this. I don't know his motivation behind the move to create the sanctuary, and I really don't care all that much. If it were not for the Antiquities Act, we would not have Yellow Stone or Yosemite or many of the other parks and national natural monuments that we visit today. The Antiquities Act, along with several other similar acts have saved millions of square acres of some of this countries most precious natural treasures. Without them, we would have condos overlooking the Grand Canyon tight now.

I am just waiting to see if the Republicans read Bush the riot act as they did to Clinton when he used the Act to protect a bug chunk of the Grand Canyon from development along with 5 other national treasures.

But for people like R.J. Smith ot the Competitive Enterprise Institue (CEI seems to also hate clear air and advocate more pollution because pollution is the "foundation of life"), find it more important for someone to make a buck than to have something that every American can enjoy.

"I think this is a blatant attempt by President Clinton to use the Antiquities Act for political purposes to essentially shut out the democratic process," says R.J. Smith, senior environmental scholar with the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington.

...

When the proposals were announced by Babbitt in December, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, said Clinton had no right to make such a move "unilaterally."

Arizona officials have urged Clinton to include state residents in any such decision, while Republican lawmakers say Clinton is using his executive privilege to bypass the Republican-led Congress.

McCain, Arizona Gov. Jane Dee Hull and other Arizona lawmakers rebuked Clinton in a joint letter for creating the two national monuments in their state.

Clinton declares new national monuments

Webb Wins Va. Democratic Primary

It looks like it may be an interesting Senate election in Virginia this year. George Allan, who has presidential aspirations, may be getting a bigger run for his money in the 2006 mid-terms than he was planning on.

James Webb, a fairly conservative Democrat received the nod in the Democratic primaries yesterday. Webb, a decorated Viet Nam war vet and 2nd amendment supporter will probably draw away some of the moderate Republicans, as well as lock up most of the moderate Democratic vote. The far left liberals might not like his style, but it the base can mobilize, it may just be a close one. Webb is one of the many former Republicans who have left the party since they no longer feel welcome in the increasingly religious right GOP.

Allen has recently come under criticism for his admiration of the confederate flag and allegations of racial graffiti back in his high school days will have a hard time with the moderate vote. I believe it was as late at '92 that Allen had displayed the confederate flag in a campaign photo. Allen, who has always run fairly far right will now have to move even farther right in his re-election bid.

Chuck Schumer of New York has already endorsed Webb, which has got him some grief from the far left in the party. But, Webb probably does have the best shot at derailing Allen's Senate campaign. And depending on how this election is run, may derail his presidential aspirations, even if Allen is able to win re-election.

I give the odds to Allen at this point, but if he starts swift boating Webb, I think that it will play poorly on a national level since Webb does not have the same history as Kerry, and Allen has no service record of his own. The Va. Democratic party also has a long way to go in solidifying its party behind Webb.

Webb Will Try To Turn Past GOP Loyalty Into Advantage

Webb Wins Democratic Nomination In Virginia

Red Rover, Red Rover... Make the EPA Roll Over

Well, Rove has been given a pass on the Valerie Plame investigation (Karl Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case). I trust that Fitzy made the decision on the merits of the case and not on political reasons. I was doubtful that Rove would be indicted from the beginning. Although, I still do believe that he did act un-ethically in the entire situation, and the fact remains that Bush covered up his involvement from the beginning.

Rove is back in full force and will undoubtedly be behind one of the most partisan mid term elections in our nations history. He was in NH yesterday giving a speech to party loyalist (In Manchester, Rove mum on phone-jamming scandal)(Rove's Speech to N.H. Republicans Keeps to Partisan Line).

And, he is still in the oval office, screwing up domestic policy giving political payoffs to the oil industry(EPA Rule Loosened After Oil Chief's Letter to Rove). For get the billions in tax breaks and the record profits, the White House's "no oil exec left behind" program is still in full swing. What is a little childhood leukemia after all. Isn't a $400 million retirement package more important.

Back From Vacation

1) What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.

2) Hats off to the people who finally killed Zarqawi. And to both Republicans and Democrats, a plague on anyone who uses this for partisan politics. It was a victory for the troops. Plain and simple.

3) To DeLay - don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out (DeLay Pulls No Punches In Final Speech to House)

4) Ann Coulter, not surprisingly, is still a c*nt (Coulter calls 9/11 widows "witches"). But I am sure all the wingnuts still thinks she is funny and cute.

5)If it were anyone other than Cheney, they would be held on obstruction (Republican senator blasts Cheney over NSA oversight)

On Vacation

Will be back mid next week

Department of Homeland What?

The Department of Homeland Security - and I have no idea how they can call themselves that - slashed the grants to New York and Washington D.C. to secure ourselves from future terrorist attack.

One of the reasons New York's budget was slashed?

Because apparently, DHS doesn't consider New York to have any landmarks or monuments.

No Landmarks or monuments in New York?!?!?

Umm... Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty, Grand Central Station, Brooklyn Bridge, Times Square, etc, etc, etc.

Seriously, if they can't find a landmark in New York, how the hell can we expect them to find their own ass with both hands.

How about this - I will send you a free map of all the landmarks in New York. They are printed right on the freakin subway maps.

Anti-Terror Funding Cut In D.C. and New York

Electoral College Proposal

This is an interesting proposal that has been coming up in several states regarding the electoral college. It has been proposed in the past, but has never gained much traction. Each state would award its electoral votes to the overall popular vote winner instead of each states individual winner. It has both its benefits and it draw backs. It would make a candidate run a 50 state campaign instead of only really hitting the swing states. But, it would also give large urban populations more pull than rural areas. Either way, the current electoral college is not what the founding fathers envisioned anyway, so taking a look at how to correct the problem is not a bad idea, even if many of the ideas may not pan out in the end.

Bill to Bolster Election Clout Gains
By Nancy Vogel, Times Staff Writer
May 31, 2006

SACRAMENTO — Seeking to force presidential candidates to pay attention to California's 15.5 million voters, state lawmakers on Tuesday jumped aboard a new effort that would award electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationwide.

As it is now, California grants its Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state. Practically speaking, that means Democrat-dominated California spends the fall presidential campaign on the sidelines as candidates focus on the states — mostly in the upper Midwest — that are truly up for grabs.

Under a bill passed by the Assembly, California would join an interstate compact in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes not for the winner in their jurisdictions but for the winner nationwide. Proponents say that would force candidates to broaden their reach to major population centers such as California.

The bill is part of a 3-month-old movement driven by a Bay Area lawyer and a Stanford computer science professor. The same 888-word bill is pending in four other states and is expected to be introduced in every state by January, its sponsors say. The legislation would not take effect until enough states passed such laws to make up a majority of the Electoral College votes — a minimum of 13 states, depending on population.

"This is a bill that would allow California to be able to play a role in presidential elections," said Barry Fadem, the Lafayette, Calif., lawyer spearheading the drive. Now, because the state is largely ignored, he said, "A vote in California is not equal to a vote in Ohio, and everyone would concede that."

The bill — AB 2948 by Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Anaheim) — cleared the Assembly 49 to 31 with a single Republican vote from Assemblyman Rick Keene (R-Chico). To become law, it must be passed by the Senate and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.

Fadem said he was surprised by the partisan divide in the Assembly vote. In the New York Legislature, Republicans introduced the bill, he said, and they support it in Illinois, Missouri and Colorado.

But Republican Assembly members warned that the bill would empower big cities — whose residents tend to vote for Democrats — at the expense of small states.

"Small states suffer here," said Assemblyman Michael Villines (R-Clovis). "Yes, California is a big state. But I don't want a candidate to go to 10, 12 big urban centers, win a majority and walk away with the presidency."

"This would simply say if you're in Miami, Los Angeles, New York, Boston … you can elect the president," Villines said.

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) argued that the Electoral College was created by the drafters of the U.S. Constitution after great debate and thought, and he said it should not be altered lightly.
(Full Story)