Greedy Democrats? Say it isn't so...
Last year, Dems violated the agreed upon practice of not using congressional pay as a campaign issue. Both parties realize that Americans think they are overpaid, spoiled and underworked, so for years, the parties have not made political hay out of annual raises. When Dems played the pay card to their advantage, suggesting deceitfully, that only the GOP wanted to up the salary, it helped to sweep them into office. Today, however, we know who the real whiners are when it comes to not being able to line their pockets with taxpayer dollars...
DEMOCRATS are upset that the GOPers blocked annual COLA increase. Say it ain't so, Joe! Not those lovely folks who refused to support a pay raise unless the minimum wage was also increased. It can't be! Even knowing that minimum wage has no measurable impact on the percentage of impoverished citizens, a number that has remained stable between 8 and 11 percent for fifty years, minimum wage increases notwithstanding, the Dems played to the poor underclass, all the while intending to fleece them with the yearly pay raise after blackmailing GOP congressmen into supporting this failed fiscal policy. Well, on this issue at least, it appears republicans grew a spine.
Thank heavens for, at least a little, fiscal conservatism.
For questions regarding the minimum wage, I suggest contacting Senators Kerry or Kennedy since Mass. has a much higher minimum wage than most states. Perhaps you can meet them in Boston to discuss the issue over your $8 big mac. (Yep, wage goes up, prices go up...)
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Myself, I'm a federalist on this issue, and think it should be entirely up to the states to decide if, and how much, of a minimum wage they want to institute. The economic conditions in Alaska are not comparable to those in Alabama, so I don't think federal legislation ought to give the false impression that they might be.
On an individual state level, I'm a mild supporter- minimum wages are a small bastion against corporate greed. They are not the panacea most Democrats would make it out to be- generally the only people it helps are folks who probably didn't need the help any way. Nor are they the death knell to the economy that Republicans would make it seem- that Bostonian Big Mac would cost you $8 whether or not the minimum wage went up. If there were enough people to pay $8 for a Big Mac, that's what they'd charge... and it's not the minimum wage workers who generally define such discretionary spending, it's those at the higher income levels.
In 2006, the minimum wage for New York state, California and Massachussets was $6.75/hr. And the Cost of Living for those three states were among the highest in the country as well. But Washington state had a minimum wage of $7.93, almost a buck and a quarter more, but it's cost of living was not significantly different from Virginia or New Mexico- states with no minimum wage (other than the federal rate of $5.15.
-----
COLA limits...
This one really pissed me off the more I looked into it.
27th Amendment
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
And yet, since this amendment took effect, the REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress has given themselves cost-of-living increases in 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. To be completely accurate, they didn't refuse themselves those increases- because the law requires Congress to actively vote any pay raise down. So, technically, they didn't violate the Constitution... right?
Except in 2000, they passed through a new law- which clearly did violate the Constitution. Trouble is- how does anyone hold them accountable? Turns out that the few lawsuits filed were thrown out because it wasn't clear who was 'damaged.'
Not only should COLA be denied to Congress, the Democrats should immediately revoke the law that was passed, in direct violation of the Constitution. And yes, it's amazingly hypocritical of the Republicans to have voted themselves automatic COLA pay raises, while never once passing a minimum wage raise.
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/01 @ 01:05 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/01 @ 02:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/01 @ 04:03 PM — (Reply)
Say, is it possible for you to turn off your CAPS LOCK? It makes your posts hard to read.
Anyway, do you want me to agree that Congress has a long and glorious history of sucking off the public teat? You got it. That's what politicians are- pirates who we choose to rob us slowly, hopefully to protect us from pirates who would do worse to us.
My only point was that since 1992, they have been acting arguably unconstitutionally, and it does not seem as though anyone is even able to call them into account. Prior to that, there was no Constitutional amendment limiting the pay raises they gave themselves.
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/02 @ 10:13 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/02 @ 11:52 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/02 @ 11:54 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/02/01 @ 02:07 PM — (Reply)
As I said before, I'm merely a mild supporter of minimum wage, and chiefly on a state level, not federal, so I don't know that I ought to be the one 'defending' it. But you are right, EB- raising the minimum wage does have a rippling effect. Raising the minimum wage does tend to raise wages further up the scale, though by decreasing amounts, the further you progress.
How about this for an analogy:
"Trickle Down" economics posits the seemingly paradoxical tenet that by decreasing tax rates, tax revenue actually increases. Personally, I think it's a load of hooey, but I'll concede that there is, perhaps, some evidence to suggest there might be something to this.
"Trickle Up" economics (to coin a phrase for raising the minimum wage) posits an almost equally paradoxical assertion: that raising wages actually spurs job growth.
Well, at the least, Cate will concede that it hasn't hurt job growth (she confirms that unemployment stays largely constant regardless of minimum wage levels), and there are a few studies out there that suggest it is a mild spur for increase.
Yeah, mostly it's pandering, because fundamentally, we're looking at a $12 billion increase in a $13 trillion economy. Less than 0.1% is not going to have a major effect on anyone, really.
Can we talk about corporate executive compensation now??
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/02 @ 10:07 AM — (Reply)
Thanks in advance
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/01 @ 02:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/02/01 @ 03:11 PM — (Reply)
We are privileged to have disability deducted from retirement pay... aren't they spoiling us?
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/01 @ 03:17 PM — (Reply)
Brief pause while I Yahoo! up the phrase...
Okay, you're talking about the law that required VA disability payments to be deducted from military retirement pay? If I'm reading that page correctly, hasn't the law already been changed to phase that in? Or should I be writing my congressman to speed up the implementation?
Okay, digging a little further, I see that it's only been extended to those with at least a 50% disability, or those with a combat-related disability of at least 10%. (I also found that former Secretary Rumsfeld said he would advise President Bush to veto any legislation containing Concurrent Receipt. What the heck is THAT about?)
So, we're looking at the veterans with a disability rating of 40% or lower, who did not receive those disabilities as a result of combat... is that right?
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/02 @ 09:02 AM — (Reply)
"It is fundamentally unfair to deny our service men and women the compensation they both earned and deserve. In fact, our military personnel are the only federal employees who are not eligible to collect both veteran’s disability and retirement compensation.
So Michael , a soldier who is injured in a training accident (not combat) or in action in a "peace-keeping" mission like Bosnia (not combat), do they receive the same benefits as the congressman who experiences some hearing loss during his shouting matches on the senate floor? Nope. Mr. Smitth in Washington gets full retirement PLUS disability, as does the beuracrat in the IRS office who gets carpal tunnel.
Not so for our soldiers who experience chronic back pain from repeated jumps from a C-130 or hearing loss due to demolitions training.
And most people don't know that we now pay for our medical care as well - it's no freebie. If you can get into a military treatment facility, there's no co-pay only the annual premium, but if you are out of town, like us, you pay co-pays, for meds, etc. Not the bennie it used to be.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/02 @ 01:58 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/05 @ 04:14 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/02 @ 11:56 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/02 @ 11:56 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/02 @ 11:58 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/02 @ 12:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/01 @ 04:20 PM — (Reply)