Yesterday I admonished Rep. Dave Reichert for repeatedly blocking a vote on raising the minimum wage, which at $5.15/hour is now mired at a 50-year low. (Although as far as I know he’s never objected to a Congressional pay raise.)
I implied that opposing a living minimum wage was simply a Republican Party value, but according to the National Journal’s Hotline this isn’t necessarily true of the party’s real “moderates”:
A group of 25 moderate House Republicans — most of them affiliated with the Northeast/Midwest-heavy GOP labor caucus — has penned a letter to Maj Leader John Boehner seeking a vote to increase the minimum wage before the August recess. The list of signees includes many of the House GOP Conference’s most vulnerable members: All three from CT, NY Rep’s John Sweeney and Jim Walsh, plus PA’ans Curt Weldon and Michael Fitzpatrick.
Hmm.
Reichert is one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the House. Vulnerable moderate Republicans are seeking a vote on raising the minimum wage. Yet Reichert is not amongst them.
So… is Dave Reichert a moderate?
UPDATE:
Hotline is quick with an update…
Looks like Boehner and Co released the Conference. By a margin of 260-159, the House this afternoon passed a non-binding “motion to instruct” procedure in support of upping the minimum wage to $7.25 per-hour. Though symbolic, the vote allows the vulnerable GOPers to point to an actual vote matching their promises. All the endangered GOPers on the letter voted ‘yea,’ as did Ney and Gerlach.
The vote also provides the Dems with a record of which GOPers voted ‘nay.’ Those opposing it, as Rahm surely scribbled down, included: Mike Sodrel (IN), Charlie Taylor (NC), Thelma Drake (VA), Dave Reichert (WA) and J.D. Hayworth (AZ).
So Reichert refuses to join vulnerable moderate Republicans in supporting a vote on the minimum wage. I suppose that just shows Reichert for what he really is: a vulnerable conservative.
UPDATE, UPDATE:
I just want to be clear about why this vote is so important. Vulnerable, moderate Republicans voted for the minimum wage, yet even when freed to vote his conscience, Reichert voted against it. That surely says something about Reichert’s conscience.
Don’t give him so much credit, Goldy, Reichert is a vulnerable neo-con wingnut who only votes the way he’s told — by the White House and Boner.
Well, he’s nothing if not consistent.
Consistently wrong, consistently out of touch with his constituents and consistently outside his area of competence.
The real news, and where the policy credit belongs, is with the 2003 tax cuts. They’ve succeeded even beyond Art Laffer’s dreams, if that’s possible. In the nine quarters preceding that cut on dividend and capital gains rates and in marginal income-tax rates, economic growth averaged an annual 1.1%. In the 12 quarters–three full years–since the tax cut passed, growth has averaged a remarkable 4%. Monetary policy has also fueled this expansion, but the tax cuts were perfectly targeted to improve the incentives to take risks among businesses shell-shocked by the dot-com collapse, 9/11 and Sarbanes-Oxley.
This growth in turn has produced a record flood of tax revenues, just as the most ebullient supply-siders predicted. In the first nine months of fiscal 2006, tax revenues have climbed by $206 billion, or nearly 13%. As the Congressional Budget Office recently noted, “That increase represents the second-highest rate of growth for that nine-month period in the past 25 years”–exceeded only by the year before. For all of fiscal 2005, revenues rose by $274 billion, or 15%. We should add that CBO itself failed to anticipate this revenue boom, as the nearby table shows. Maybe its economists should rethink their models.
Remember the folks who said the tax cuts would “blow a hole in the deficit?” Well, revenues as a share of the economy are now expected to rise this year to 18.3%, slightly above the modern historical average of 18.2%. The remaining budget deficit of a little under $300 billion will be about 2.3% of GDP, which is smaller than in 17 of the previous 25 years. Throw in the surpluses rolling into the states, and the overall U.S. “fiscal deficit” is now economically trivial.
The same crowd that said the tax cuts wouldn’t work, and predicted fiscal doom, are now harrumphing that the revenues reflect a windfall for “the rich.” We suppose that’s right if by rich they mean the millions of Americans moving into higher tax brackets because their paychecks are increasing.
Individual income tax payments are up 14.1% this year, and “nonwithheld” individual tax payments (reflecting capital gains, among other things) are up 20%. Because of the tax cuts, the still highly progressive U.S. tax code is soaking the rich. Since when do liberals object to a windfall for the government?
Tax cuts WORK
In 2001, when GWB was selling his tax cuts after four years of budget surpluses and eight years of peace and prosperity under Bill Clingon, he said that this year there would be a $300 billion SURPLUS. Several rounds of tax cuts, including Bush’s signature $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, also contributed to the return of deficits four years ago after four years of budget surpluses.
So, after first adjusting the surplus brag to $318 billion, the White House fudged the numebers earlier this year to $429 billion, and now crow when it is “only” $296 billion.
There still $600 billion away from their original claim.
Bill Clingon = Bill Clinton
numebers = numbers
If you believe that a minimum wage really helps working people why not set it at a living wage level of twenty or thirty bucks per hour and not seven or eight bucks per hour? Aren’t you really legitimizing sub-living wage employment by advocating a minimum wage which is far less than a living wage? Be consistent for a change. If you hate Wal-Mart sub-living wage jobs so much why not a minimum wage of at least $20/hour?
“Moderate Republican” is an oxymoron, just like “compassionate conservative.” Anyone who can maintain membership in the present Republican Party necessarily has thrown moderation aside. Of course, Dave Reichert isn’t smart enough to figure out on his own what he is. He relies on others to figure that out for him.
5
I love that line…”The real news, and where the policy credit belongs, is with the 2003 tax cuts.”
I love it because you suggest that the TWO YEARS of anemic economic growth AFTER the 1002 and 2002 tax cuts, and the ridiculous rebate checks. Those TWO YEARS of anemic growth are what made the recovery from the recession that neded in November 2001 the SLOWEST recovery from recession ever.
And you also leave out that wartime spending that has artifically heated up our economy. OF COURSE we’ve had GDP growth since we went to war in March 2003. Duh. Of course, it’s not sustainable, but we’ve had growth. Also not sustainable is our reckless borrowing that finances our bloody and imbecilic foreign adventuring. That bill is going to have to be paid, and I’m sure, ASS, that you’ll be first in line to blame the Democrats when our current long bender ends and the fiscal hangover begins.
Seriously ASS, what a load of crap.
First, your opinion journal cut and paste job from whoever-the-fuck rather typically (for “supply side” apologists) confuses sequentiality with causation. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is probably the first logical fallacy referred to wheRever they are explained. You should crack a fucking book. Here’s the $.50 lesson: Just because event A follows event B does NOT mean that event B CAUSED event A. Economies are dynamic entities, and the American $11.6 trillion international economy is dependent on more than Bush’s tax policy.
If you need a nice, simple case for you to understand, here’s one. GHW Bush raised taxes as part of a 1990 budget agreement (attributed at the time to a declining economy, ballooning budget deficits, and the need to compromise with the Democrat-controlled Congress). Bill Clinton raised taxes again in 1993 in yet another attempt to lower the budget deficit that had been out of control in teh Reagan years. Th years following the 1992 recession were the LONGEST ECONOMIC EXPANSION IN AMERICAN HISTORY, with an accompanying 2.2 million jobs a year created. How does Laffer explain it? Answer: he can’t.
Here’s another nice, simple case for you to understand. The annual American economy generates $11.6 trillion in GDP. We owe around $8.5 trillion, adding about a half-trillion a year (when you take all the fakery out of the deficit figures). How long would YOU continue add 5 percent of your own annual income to your accumulated debt and make interest-only payments, and why?
Tax revenues are up, but we’re spending $300 billion more this year than we take in. Smart Republicans.
Reichert is vulnerable, all right. But he’ll fight tooth and nail to keep his soft, brown-nosing job. I loved the shots of him walking around in his tight-fitting T-shirt. He looked like he should have been in the gay pride parade.
As Goldy’s post makes clear, minimum wage posturing is much more about political tactics than about real legislative action. Ask any policy wonk, Republician or Democrat, and he will tell you that the earned income credit is a better way to help the working poor than the minimum wage. But a minimum wage is simple enough for even the least wonkish voters to understand, and Democrats hope that a minimum wage debate will help galvanize their voters.
The trouble is, looking at Golddy’s last couple of minimum wage posts as a political experiment, the minimum wage would seem to galvanize more conservative antis than progressive pros. Perhaps Democrats should try to find a different symbolic issue to galvanize their voters.
we don’t need a minimum wage, we have great unions to defend the poor folks. Did all you chaps crying about minimum wage have a Union Card or do you depend on them keep your job? No! Yes! Roger is the funny bunny with the cards and will defend you for just the $50 a month for the dues. The Rabbit really loves supporting union members for reduce costs.
Republicans criticize the State of Washington, accusing it of driving jobs away to the “sun belt” because the State minimum wage is higher than the federal minimum wage. But when we propose to raise the federal minimum wage, they start arguing that we will not be competative with other nations if we have a higher national minimum wage.
Memo to Republicans: That horse already left the barn. In a global economy, you cannot compete on wages alone. Following your logic, the appropriate minimum wage should be about thirty cents an hour in order to compete with sweatshops in China, Indonesia, and Pakistan. The key is not to bring our pay level down to the poorest of the poor, but instead to use infrastucture investment and real universal education to make our citizens more productive, and hence more valuable.
But then, that’s never really been your point, is it? Republicans have been vehemently opposed to ANY minimum wage since it was first enacted in 1933 as part of the National Recover Act (which was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court), and then re-enacted in 1938 at .25 per hour. The highest “real” minimum wage was in 1968, when the $1.65 per hour rate applicable then translates into $9.12 in 2005 dollars. The current wage rate of $5.15 has not increased in almost ten years, since 1997, although the cost of housing in Western Washington has more than doubled in the same period.
Partial Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage (Yes, it’s Wikipedia, but I don’t have time to do ALL your homework for you).
Of course, because Washington State already has a higher minimum wage, any change in the National rate won’t raise the minimum wage in Washington by any large degree. What it will do, however, is level the playing field between the states, potentially increasing (or at least retaining) employment levels in Washington State. But “Sheriff Dave” has a problem with that? Just who does he think he really represents? Perhaps he thinks that his Mercer Island neighbors don’t care about the minimum wage, as none of them have ever worked at a minimum wage job. But those “management” workers might find themselves quite perplexed, if they find their jobs dissapearing when their company CEO decides to move the company to Mississippi, where there is no state minimum wage and the federal minimum wage is considered to be “pretty good pay”.
The only thing I think Bush’s recent pronouncement about the budget indicates is that he’s managed to impose “Enron-style” accounting practices on most of the government. I don’t think that’s what most of us assumed when the righties first spoke of “running government like a business”. We should have known better, even then.
Say it isn’t so!
You voted for him, ArtFart? Ew! Interesting perspective, rhp, about the comparison between states and the possibility that Washingtonians might find themselves out of work because their employers moved to Mississippi. Seems like the only people that actually make that minimum wage are laborers who labor at jobs that are not likely to move: agriculture, restaurants, childcare . . . Where else do you actually find minimum wage that would dictate a move to another state?
There’s nothing Republicans enjoy more than a good race to the bottom. When the states compete to treat their workers the worst (no minimum wage, unlivable unemployment and worker’s compensation benefits, right-to-work laws), the corporate boardroom Republicans sit around with erections (Viagra-assisted, of course). A society that ignores a growing gap between its rich and poor does so at its own peril.
To be clear, this resolution was nothing but posturing. I was a non-binding reslution that did nothing but enable “moderate” Republicans (what are those?) to say that they voted for a minimum wage hike without totally lying.
It was a b.s. resolution, yet he still voted against it. Never mind being *conservative*, he’s just plain stoopid.
How did GOP leader Boner vote? (I’d say Bayner, if his name was spelled that way, but Boehner? I’d even buy Bonner.) That will give insight into Davie’s choice.
I should mention that Western Washington has generally benefited from a high amount of Federal investment in the area for defense spending (army, navy, air force, coast guard, port subsidies, Boeing defense contracts, highways, etc.) which doesn’t necessarily occur in other locations.
Also, as a trade portal it has actually benefited from the decline in U.S. manufacturing, as it imports goods from China and exports empty containers.
Boeing can really locate anywhere it wants to, but the already-built infrastucture (in large part “given” to Boeing by the State of Washington and the City of Everett), and the presence of a large pool of experienced and skilled labor, makes a difference to this high-technology manufacturer. But most of its production of aircraft parts has already been outsourced, with the goal of making Boeing only a “final assembler”. Remember, this was similar to the strategy IBM used to put its personal computers on the market quickly, but the availablity of generic parts produced by other manufacturers gave rise to the PC clones, and virtually put IBM out of the personal computer business.
The real wild cards in this state are the software companies (Microsoft, Real Networks, etc.), and the bio-tech companies. Their work can really be done just about anywhere now, the only limiting factors being security concerns. Countries such as India and Russia realize this, and they are pushing education in these areas so that they can compete for these jobs. The fact that Microsoft is importing workers from these countries, and arguing that they cannot find enough qualified workers in the U.S., says a lot about how successful those countries have been in these areas.
Apparently liberals are perplexed by my modest proposal that the minimum wage be set to a living wage of at least $20/hr. They must wonder, why are liberal stalwarts like Kennedy and Feingold supporting a lousy seven or eight buck/hour minimum wage instead of $20/hr anyway? Is the vast rightwing conspiracy even greater than we thought? Have Kennedy and Feingold sold out to the cheap labor corporate Dems just like Cantwell(D-Mexico, voted for NAFTA and CAFTA)bought off Wilson(D-Where’s My Money?). Cantwell(D-Mexico, voted to give social security benefits to illegal aliens who use stolen social security numbers) may need to keep the minimum wage down to $7 or $8/hr so she can afford to buy off other candidates like Wilson(D-I’m Not Changing Sides Until You Show Me The Money,Maria!), but what about Kennedy and Feingold? They have even more money than Cantwell(D-Mexico, voted against building a fence on the southern border because illegal aliens are good cheap labor) made selling her dotcom stock to suckers just before it tanked, and they don’t need to buy off candidates like Wilson(D-To Those Liberals Who Donated To My Campaign-Thanks,Suckers!!).
Thanks for stating it clearly and completely. I do know that quality of life and educational needs do make differences in the decision by companies on where to locate. Not everybody has gone south . . . I think minimum wage is not generally the deciding factor. It certainly is one factor but I would guess that it is bears little weight.
The south has been the recipient of a lot of manufacturing jobs because of low environmental laws, low taxes, lots of space. Yeah, cheap labor as well. But look at the south! You don’t get a very positive picture when you think “trailer trash” and “Appalachia poor” – high divorce rates, illiteracy, garbage, pollution . . . Maybe it isn’t all deserved, but that’s what I think of when I think Tyson’s!
17 “You voted for him, ArtFart?”
Who? Bush? No way! Reichert? I live in Seattle, so I couldn’t have even if I wanted to. Mind you, I was one of many who had the mistaken impression that his record as a cop suggested that once he got to Foggy Bottom he’d at least maintain some degree of personal propriety, and maybe even a degree of outrage at all the white-collar crime this administration seems all to eager to facilitate. Well, we got snookered on that one, didn’t we? Hell, even in his committee assignment regarding “emergency preparedness”, where he should have been expected to bring some real expertise to the table, there’s scant evidence that he’s been doing anything but sitting on his own thumb.
Bush ALWAYS gave me the creeps. In fact, prior to the 2000 election, most of the people I knew couldn’t stand him, including my Dad, who’d voted for Republicans for president since was first old enough to vote. Even that being said, neither I nor most anyone I knew would have imagined then, how quickly our once great nation would devolve under his “leadership”.
15
Citation please
I sort of liked Bush at the very beginning because of his indifference to pc stuff and his independent ways were attractive. But, I started listening to his words and checking on some of his actions. I got creeped out, too. He seemed to have no depth at all. And, you know, somehow he seemed to lack any sort of compassion, empathy, heart – I don’t know what to call it. Anyway, I got the same feeling you did. He scared me.
I want to say too bad there weren’t enough of us. But, as we all know now, Gore was elected President.
Sillyguy – my weak attempt at the “Enron” reference: two budgets? The Iraq War is off-line. Also, his numbers he cites do not take into account the fact that he’s robbing social security to keep the numbers down. Social security wouldn’t be in such trouble if little bush weren’t using it to pay for his war, tax cuts and everything else.
28
Skagit, are you ArtFart? I thought I referenced item 15…Politicians from both sides have always miscounted the Social Security receipts to hid things so that is nothing new. I don’t know if the current administration is doing it. It might be interesting to look it up. I did not realize that the defense budget was ‘off-line’
Re the ss receipts – they’ve all done it. Like it?
Skagit at 24: Well, I kinda like the South, or at least parts of it. I grew up in eastern Tennessee, so I’m a mountain guy. My wife grew up in San Diego, so she loves the ocean. We found Seattle was a pretty good compromise – I got the mountains, she got the ocean.
When I moved out here, the wages here were easily twice what they were back in Tennessee. But so were housing costs. But last week I just saw a survey which showed that wage rates in Tennessee are now only about 10% below what they are here in Seattle, but housing costs here are twice that of Tennessee.
Now, Seattle has a peculiar problem with housing costs. With Puget Sound on the West, Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish, and eventually the Cascades on the East, it tends to narrow the available real estate, thereby driving up housing costs. In Tennessee, if you don’t like the cost of housing in the city, you can usually just drive a little further out to find it cheaper.
But the main difference seems to be the average wage rates. Here the average wage is about $44,000 per year, if my memory serves correct. In Knoxville, Tennessee, it is just a hair under $40,000, acording to the study I just read. It seems that the wages in Tennessee have been rising, but the wages here have remained relatively static. Interesting.
Perhaps I should sell my home, take the profits and go back to living in Tennessee? I could buy a similar house to the one I own for cash, just by selling my existing house.
want to say too bad there weren’t enough of us. But, as we all know now, Gore was elected President.
Commentby Skagit— 7/12/06@ 6:44 pm
Yawn…… Yeah sure. I would take the left seriously on this issue if they were pushing for election reform. We need to reregister every voter and match every vote to every registration. I doubt that Gore even won the popular vote if you took away all the illegal votes. We all know why the left doesnt want election reform.
You moonbats need to learn how the real world works. Read “The World Is Flat” by Thomas Friedman. Increasing the minimum wage beyond what a person’s work is worth diminishes the strength of our economy in the context of the global economy.
But most of you guys can’t see beyond the end of your nose…
Bill Clingon = Bill Clinton
numebers = numbers
Commentby Harry Tuttle— 7/12/06@ 3:38 pm
You got that right Mummified!
Why don’t the “progressive” libs Democrats raise the minimum wage to 50 dollars an hour in WASH State. Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry, et al tell us that raising the mimimun wage does NOT cause unemployment. Why not a test? hehe, JCH
Barnyard Ass:
“The real news, and where the policy credit belongs, is with the 2003 tax cuts. They’ve succeeded even beyond Art Laffer’s dreams, if that’s possible.”
This claim is so wildly wrong as to defy belief. Are you simply mendacious or just plain stupid?
Maybe Democrats libs should volunteer to pay more taxes. A lot more. Youknow………”A tax me more fund”! Oh they tried that in MASS, and almost nothing came into the state govenment? hehe, JCH
Man not much global warming today… at least not in Seattle. I hope we get more global warming by the end of the week.
“We must redistribute the wealth!” [Karl Marx and Hillary Clinton]
38
Yeah Kerry even marked no and he is almost a billionaire. Goes to show you libs are all talk and no show.
Barnyard Ass,
Let’s make it simple….when your interest expense grows faster than your income, you are on an financially unsustainable fiscal path.
Simple loan shark logic. Figure it out.
Goldy,
Back on topic…I’d be willing to bet money Reichert didn’t even know what he was voting on…just voting his prejudices.
Just sayin’
Washington – Senators from border states want to shut the door on tunnels running from Mexico and Canada into the United States by banning the underground passages that can transport drug smugglers, illegal aliens or terrorists. ”You would think this would be illegal but it’s not,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said, referring to the construction and financing of tunnels between borders. /break/ Under Feinstein’s amendment, a 20-year prison sentence could be imposed on anyone who constructs or helps build a tunnel from Mexico or Canada into the United States. […………………………………………………………………….SEN Boxer, DEMOCRAT, CA and SEN Kennedy, DEMOCRAT, Oldsmobile, were photograghed standing behind the tunnel with shovels and pikes hidden behind their backs.]
I bet you that Democrat Maria Cantwell is paying her former primary opponent Mark Wilson a helluva lot more than the minimum wage.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....elled.html
UPDATE, UPDATE:
I just want to be clear about why this vote is so important. Vulnerable, moderate Republicans voted for the minimum wage, yet even when freed to vote his conscience, Reichert voted against it. That surely says something about Reichert’s conscience.
Maybe it says that Reichert is not vulnerable, as opposed to not moderate?
46.
What difference does it make to me?
46. (Cont’d)
Anyone who votes for, or is a representative of, today’s Republicans is a radical, anti-American, authoritarian loving, midnless nut.
midnless = mindless
One, and only one, reason that modern day Republicans are radicals
Bush Administration Rejects U. S. Uniform Code of Military Justice for Alleged Terror Defendants
Ability to introduce evidence gathered through coercion [known to the non-double-speak English language world as torture] or through sensitive intelligence sources [paid witnesses] would be compromised.
Harry Tuttle: Did you read Geneva Convention Article 4?
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Where are the Al Qaeda from Harry? Please name the country we are at war with Harry? If you say Iraq, does that mean they were there before we went in? The lefty logic leads one there. If you say other countries are we at war with them? I see why Puddy calls you mummified. No significant brain synaptic responses there!
See how silly the moby troll moonbat lefties arguments are? So the SCOTUS just conferred rights to your good friends the islamofascists who are countryless!
So Mummified, we should not have gotten Khaled Sheik Mohammed to speak to us and stop the Brooklyn Bridge bombing plot? Huh, huh, huh? You are dumb and still built that way!!!!!!!! These dickless wonders want to kill you Harry, and STILL, you don’t get it?
BTW: Hijack Harry Tuttle stole the thread. I answered and now we come back to the regularly scheduled blog topic.
I say let’s raise the MW to $8.00. Then the prices of goods and services will rise what … 10, 15, 20%?
How much an hour is an islamofascist worth Harry?
First of all, no, I am not Skagit. We need to get EVERYONE together one of these Tuesdays, put on name tags and figure out for real who’s who. Methinks that includes Janet and Richard.
All the blather from JCH Bitchslap Brainless Copy-And-Paste Expert aside, I rather think the Dems’ scheme of hinging the rest of this year’s campaign on the minimum wage is pretty lame. It certainly won’t arouse the raw emotional reaction that immigration and gay marriage do from all the xenophobes, homophobes and whatever-else-phobes out there. Everyone knows that the minimum wage shouldn’t have to apply to heads of households trying to support their families. If the economy were really working the way it should, the minimum wage should only be important to kids in high school working their first summer jobs.
Campaigning on energy issues makes more sense, but it’s still not strong enough all by itself. BushCo can derail it all by simply calling on Dubya’s friends in the oil biz to push the price of gas down by a buck or so starting in mid September. Everyone will think it’s so wonderful–we’ll still be getting screwed, just not quite as hard.
It’s too bad that the Dem leadership couldn’t be persuaded to stick their necks out and pledge that if the voters gave them back control of Congress, they’d:
(1.) Impeach Bush.
(2.) Impeach Cheney right after him.
(3.) Give up on the stupid fiasco in Iraq and get our troops out of their before they commit or fall victim to any more atrocities.
(4.) Actually find Osama, bring him back here and parade him around the country so people can throw rocks at whatever’s left of him.
(5.) Outlaw electronic voting.
(6.) Tax the bleeding crap out of the oil companies and spend the money on public transportation so we don’t have to waste our time and money sitting on our butts in traffic.
REP Pat (bitch) @36
Why don’t you cheap labor conservatives boast to your constituents that you voted against raising the minimuum wage instead of trying to hide it. For G-d sakes, show some spine and be proud of the fact that you are screwing the middle class.
And for all you clueless ones stupid enough to believe cheap labor conservative bullsh-t that a high minimum wage hurts the economy, you are smoking, and it is not tobacco:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/.....4619c.html
OLYMPIA: High tax collections produce nearly $85 million state windfall
THE NEWS TRIBUNE
Published: July 12th, 2006 01:00 AM
Washington’s sizzling economy is being closely watched for signs of cooling, but in the past month, robust tax collections have produced an unexpected windfall of nearly $85 million, officials said Tuesday.
The surging collections, reflecting strong growth in nearly every sector of the state economy, will push the state’s reserves to more than $1.5 billion, counting money that lawmakers socked away into savings accounts.
Damn evil Libruls demanding that bidness pay a fair wage.
33
You moonbats need to learn how the real world works. Read “The World Is Flat” by Thomas Friedman. Increasing the minimum wage beyond what a person’s work is worth diminishes the strength of our economy in the context of the global economy.
But most of you guys can’t see beyond the end of your nose…
Commentby Mark The Redneck Kennedy— 7/12/06@ 8:27 pm
And you seem to be very selective about what your read. First of all, he also wrote The Lexus and the Olive Tree which certainly hasn’t proven prophetic. Also, he was for going into Iraq which certainly hasn’t proven successful. Finally, how much of a global economy are we going to have when energy costs become prohibitive? You might read James Kunstler who doesn’t always get it right either, but sure has more depth of analysis and insights into the future than Friedman has shown.
Might burst some of your bubbles, huh “Faux Redneck?”
RPKKK . . . if I could, I would raise the minimum wage significantly. But, I can’t. Does that answer your question? It was a pretty stupid question to begin with, now wasn’t it?
40 – “We must redistribute the wealth!” [Karl Marx and Hillary Clinton]
Commentby REP Pat Kennedy [D-Bitchslap the Black Security Guard At LAX]— 7/12/06@ 9:12 pm
Ooh, first good idea you’ve had! Now you’re talkin’.
Hey ArtFart at 54: I’d vote for you!
And RPKKK – what’s wrong with raising wages and then taxing them? Or is that a little too complicated for you to understand?
55. I’ve been trying to get at least one liberal to answer the simple question- if a minimum wage of seven or eight bucks per hour is a good thing why is setting the minimum wage at a living wage of twenty bucks per hour not a good thing? Why do liberals set their sights so low? The obvious answer is that even liberals recognize that going up to a $20 minimum wage could only result in severe unemployment and/or severe inflation, which demonstrates the point that wages in the private sector are a function of supply and demand.
The reason the present minumum wage doesn’t cause serious unemployment or inflation currently is because it’s fairly close to the market price for unskilled labor anyway, but the same economic principle applies; whether it’s $8 or $20 any increase will cause some degree of unemployment and/or inflation. The minimum wage is, is short, just a ruse to deceive potential Dem voters; it simply can’t result in an overall increase in the standard of living. Depending upon the level it’s set, it either has no significant impact, or a negative impact, upon the general standard of living.
We have a higher minimum wage in Washington. Do you see a problem?
I would like to vote to lower Reichert pay to $5:15 an hour and he would still be an over payed blow hard
63 Even at that, I’m not sure the good people of the 8th District would be getting their money’s worth.
High tax collections produce nearly $85 million state windfall
…
Ay chance of lowering other taxes in WA?
Whoops!
That should read “Any chance…”
51,
No, I read the SCOTUS decision, Hamdan v Rumsfeld. You should too. It’s the law. Not the radical imaginings of your brethern in the Justice Department.
52, 53.
You really are sputtering, which is it? Hijacked thread or justify backing a Supreme Court ruling?
I’ve no problem with either. Sheriff Davy posing as a moderate is foolishness from the beginning, because he rubber stamps Bush administration policies, which are anti-American and extra legal.
SCOTUS decisions are the law of the land.
Any questions?
Michigan boasts the highest percentage of out-of-state moves in the nation, according to data collected this year by the largest mover in the state, United Van Lines. **SNIP** The top three states where United moved people from Michigan this year: Florida, Texas and Arizona.
I don’t blame them for voting with their feet. Cities like Detroit, Flint, Pontiac and Saginaw are nothing but boarded up ‘Rat fiefdoms of liberal socialist successes. Places where your lives aren’t worth a plug nickel or worth living in since they taxed and unionized the car industry into past history.
MWS Sucks,
You’re boring us again with your unthinking wingnut spew. ZZZZZzzzzZZZZZzzzz.
Apparently the Supremes don’t agree with you or your heroes at Powerline or LGF.
By the way, Hamdan’s argument concerns Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention on trying detainees.
69.
This has been the case in Michigan for, at least, thirty years. When I rented a U-Haul there in 1975, I had to pay a premium and wait to get a truck for a one-way rental.
There is an excellent documentary that explains the causes for Michigan’s demise, you may have heard of it “Roger and Me aka A Humorous Look at How General Motors Destroyed Flint, Michigan”, and, to a lesser degree, “Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint”.
The tale of the American Automobile industry and its stiff-necked insistance on their “formula” for selling cars has many chapters, but a far more important one than the workers and their unions is its inability to satisfy the demands of the marketplace.
If cheap labor could have solved that problem, General Motors cars made in Mexico should have made GM a winner. They didn’t.
# 69: People are indeed moving out of Michigan, because the U.S. automobile industry is losing jobs because can’t seem to make cars of the same quality as those in Japan.
Of course, you will blame the Unions and Democrats for this. I will blame the corporate executives who’s short-sightedness and poor management for the next quarter’s profits left them flat-footed (again) when the Japanese put hybrid vehicles on the market. The same way they lost a good part of their market share in the 1970’s, when Ford II refused to transition to smaller cars because “small cars equal small profits”.
Besides, Detroit became the home of car manufacturers early in the 20th century becuase of the ease of of coal and steel transportation to Detroit along the Great Lakes, and availability of railroad transportation of finished products to the customers. Those factors are not as important now, making it easier to locate an auto manufacturing facility anywhere in the country.
By the way, Japanese workers don’t have to worry about their employer’s medical insurance program, or lack thereof. Why? Because they have a national health-care system. If I get sick in Japan, I don’t have to pay a dime. And Japanese citizens are among the longest-living in the world.
AmericaFirst: I will tell you why we shouldn’t raise the minimum wage to $20.00 per hour, as soon as you explain to me why American’s wouldn’t benefit if we lowered it to our cheapest labor competitors, which I believe is currently about thirty cents and hour.
Continuing on the subject of the U.S. Auto industry:
This year Toyota is expected to be the largest seller, and the largest manufacturer, of automobiles IN AMERICA.
In 1998 Chrysler merged with Damlier-Benz, in a marriage whereby Chrysler ended up the junior partner, being effectively swallowed up by the German car-maker.
Now GM is proposing a merger with Nissan and Renault. Remember that Renault is currently 15% owned by the French government. In Japan Nissan is known as the low-cost, low-quality auto maker, and it has a distant third place among Japanese auto makers in the U.S. (behind Toyota and Honda). We all know that Renault is not exactly the industry leader in Europe. So either this merger is a desperate gamble (is GM really in that bad a position?) or is it just CEO’s playing around with their corporate assets again, just to keep from getting bored?
It seems that’s what CEOs of American companies do these days: rather than making a profit actually PRODUCING anything, they change business names, buy other businesses, sell, or merge, making personal fortunes from huge bonuses and stock options they negotiate for themselves along the way.
While we are talking about CEO’s, let’s take a look at the figures in a recent Newsweek article:
“Consider a Business Roundtable study, using data that Mercer Human Resource Consulting collected on 350 major companies. The idea was to examine median CEOs—those in the middle—as typical. Here’s what the study found:
From 1995 to 2005 median CEO compensation at these companies rose 151 percent, from $2.7 million to $6.8 million (the figure included base salary, bonuses, stock options and other “incentives”—but not pensions).
In the same period, the median sales of these companies increased 51 percent, to $7.6 billion, and the median profits 126 percent, to $591 million.
By contrast, the median pay increase for full-time, year-round workers ages 25 to 64 in these years was only 32 percent, to $38,223 (that’s all workers, not just those at the study’s firms).
Remember, these are run-of-the-mill CEOs, not the superstars or the supergreedy. Even they seem to regard being a multimillionaire as an entitlement befitting their position. From 1995 to 2005 their pay rose five times faster than the typical worker’s. In 1995, median CEO pay was 94 times median worker pay; by 2005 it was 179 times as much.
Source: Newseek, by Robert J. Samuelson, July 13, 2006, found online at Delinquency of the CEOs”
Remember, these are the same people who are usually Republican, and usually spend a lot of time complaining among themselves at their country club about who worker’s don’t earn their pay, and how the minimum wage is already too high.
MTR 33
And if you pay workers more they will be able to afford to buy more goods and services, thus energizing the economy. It’s not a two-body problem, so to speak.
Right now we own an imported car and a domestic car. The import is a Mercury Grand Marquis whose door-post nameplate proudly proclaims it “Product of Canada”. It was built in Winsor, Ontario just like all big Fords for the last 20 years or so.
Our other car is a Subaru, which has a label saying it was assembled in Indiana. We used to have a Toyota that was indeed built in California.
Seems now that General Motors has destroyed Detroit (and a few other cities to boot) now it’s intent on destroying itself. Meanwhile the execs sit back in their Adirondack chairs on Horseshit Island (Macinac Island, so named because there AREN’T ANY CARS) and congratulate themselves on what a wonderful job they’ve done.
In 1978 I bought a Pontiac piece of crap, a 1978 Pontiac Grand Prix. Due to the high oil prices for the time, and the lack of any reasonable small car alternatives made by American manufacturers, they tried to increase the milage by replacing the V-8 with a V-6. So the car was chronically under-powered, causing engine problems from the start. After a couple of years virtually everything on the car needed repair or replacement. I finally replaced the engine, then the transmission, and got rid of it after driving it for ten years – about 9 and 1/2 years longer than I should have kept it.
In 1985 we bought an Ohio-manufactured Honda Accord. Best small car we ever had. We drove it for years, finally giving it to my son to drive. We finally got rid of it last year – the transmission was on its last legs, and the engine was starting to go, too. We got almost twenty years out of that car, and it was certainly the best-made car we ever had.
I’m currently driving an older Ford Explorer, which has worked out well, with only some problems with the cooling system (not entirely unexpected after a few years). I don’t know where it was made.
rhp6033,
You just can’t kill those Japanese cars and trucks! I’m driving an ’85 Toyoya pickup, and I’m the original owner. It’s getting ready to “click-over” 200,000 miles.
I’m planning on keeping it and fixing it up with a cherry paint job and an new engine once it doesn’t have to be smogged anymore.
More on CEO Pay:
There is no ideal way to set CEO pay. Any system can have bad, unintended consequences. That’s why the current CEO pay explosion is primarily a moral failure. Would Exxon’s Raymond have worked just as effectively for $100 million instead of $400 million? How about $25 million? If so, he was overpaid. By that standard, so are many CEOs.
But they have contrived a moral code that exempts them from self-control—a moral code that justifies grabbing as much as they can. They unduly enrich themselves at shareholders’ expense and set a bad leadership example. Because almost everyone else sees their code as self-serving and selfish, CEOs have undermined their moral standing and their ability to be taken seriously on other issues. They are slowly becoming a threat to the very system they claim to represent.
Samuelson, located online at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13.....ek/page/2/
I don’t have a problem with paying CEO’s for exceptional performance. But I haven’t seen much lately, certainly not enough to justify the current pay rates for executives.
And why is it that executives need to be given stock options in order to “motivate” them to look out after their shareholder’s interest? Isn’t that their fiduciary duty? Isn’t that why they receive a salary, plus “bonuses”? If the executives are so convinced that they will do a good job for the company, why arent’ they using their own money to buy the company stock, instead of diluting the shareholder’s value?
The answer is obvious. To the CEOs, the shareholders are smucks, just like the employees. They are a source of money only, and are not worthy of consideration otherwise. If they do well while the executive does well, then it’s okay, but the most important thing, in the executive’s mind, is that they make out like a bandit personally. The CEO’s have to keep the mutual fund managers happy, but beyond that the individual shareholders have no power.
Stock options Just out of curiosity – what if the SEC limited executive stock options, so that they could only be excercised after ten years, and the “strike price” was set at the beginning of their employment term, PLUS an inflation adjustment (perhaps industry-based?). That way they executive has to be more interested in the long-term success of the company, and he gets rewarded for making his company more successful in the marketplace compared with his cometitors, rather than simply profiting from an inflationary “rising tide”.
RPKKK at 69: They manufacture more cars in Canada than in Mexico, don’t they? OH! I get it! It’s because labor is so much CHEAPER up there . . . yeah!
79 Libertarian & RHP: Until last year, I drove a 85 Toyota pick up – I was the second owner and got it in 90. Loved that car! It was at 190,000 miles. I let it go and now regret it. But, do drive a great 2004 Subi that I like a lot.
RHP @ 80: Also, I heard a report on the radio correlating those big parachutes that CEO’s get with employee pension funds in many cases. CEOs do not pay into pension funds but somehow those funds fuel the executive pensions . . . thereby rendering the funds insolvent. I know IBM had a proposal on the table to stop including pension fund income when determining executive pay recently. Don’t know if it passed.
You might know more about this. . . it was pretty damning when I heard it.
Skagit at 83: That’s news to me. I didn’t think CEO’s were drawing pensions much – it’s small potatoes compared to the rest of their compensation. I thought they were making a killing off the increased value of their stock options by killing off the pensions anyway. If they are drawing pensions from funds shared with other employees, but not making appropriate contributions to the fund, that would be pretty obnoxious to me also.
But when we talk about pensions, we need to keep in mind that there are lots of different kinds of pensions. For most union workers, the pensions are managed by their unions. This has caused some problems in the past (organized crime tried to get their hands in the pension funds, especially the Teamsters fund). But on the plus side, it means that at least the plan administrators are usually interested in preserving the plan for the beneficiaries, they are inclined to zealously enforce the company contributions to the plan, and they don’t have an inherent benefit in trying to kill the plan.
Other plans may be provided and managed by the company itself. If it is a “defined benefit” plan, the company is inclined to raid the excess plan funds when the stock market is doing well, and to try to kill off or reduce the plan benefits if the company isn’t doing so well.
But whether it is administered by the company or by a union, the recent examples of airlines voiding their pension obligations in Chapt. 11 bankrutpcy is a rather chilling scenario. In those cases, there was a conflict between federal Bankruptcy law (which allows Chapter 11 debtors to void future obligations as “executory contracts”, turning them instead into unsecured breach of contract claims); and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which sought to protect employee pensions. The courts ruled that the bankruptcy laws were paramount. The United Airlines pension plan was then dumped into the lap of the taxpayer (since the federal government is the ultimate insurer of those plans via the Pension Guaranty Fund, I think it is called). But their isn’t near enough money available in the governmetn fund to pay off even the United claims, much less those of every other company which will file Ch. 11 in the future and which will seek to void the union obligations in the process.
So the airline pilots, mechanics, flight attendandts, and baggage handlers now see the value of their pensions reduced to pennies on the dollar; the taxpayer will pick up a significant share of the pension obligations, and the CEO will get a big bonus for successfully pulling it off.
rhp6033,
The day of the defined benenfit plan is over. The future is gonna be defined contribtuion plans, so we may as well get used to it, and young folks need to plan for it.
I’d like to see more liberal laws for the defined contribution plans, like earlier vesting and easier portability. Young folks need to have the opportunity to start immediately in a defined contribution plan, too. As it is now, employers can exclude you from the plan while you’re under age 21 and/or haven’t been with the company for a year. Those restirctions need to be eased. Heck, I worked for one company that allowed me into the 401K on Day One of my tenure there. Companies that do that, however, are not the norm.
Yep, the defined benefit plans, particularly those “run by” company management had horrible abuses. CEOs were liquidating and seizing pension funds when the actuaries said the pesnions were “slightly over-funded” so the CEOs could boost earnings, thus improving stock prices and the value of their personal “performance” options. With defined contributions, at least, the employee is the 100% owner of the funds he/or she has witheld from his or her paycheck. No damn CEO can grab ’em when the market is doing well in order to benefit him/herself. The trick for success, however, is for participants to realize they’re gonna be responsible for their retirements, so they need to educate themselves.
The ownership comes with responsibilities. That’s the downside to defined contribtuion plans. But they’re here to stay.
Which is the problem. I agree with most everything you say. But, the same end could have been accomplished with some common sense laws that would have kept employee pensions separate and apart from any other asset of the company. I do remember that Federal law required that employee pensions be covered and they were. It was a good plan except for a loophole that was abused by executives.
Asking each person to do it for him/herself will result in profits for some and losses for others. That is not the answer unless you really don’t care about the social needs of elderly people.
73. AmericaFirst: I will tell you why we shouldn’t raise the minimum wage to $20.00 per hour, as soon as you explain to me why American’s wouldn’t benefit if we lowered it to our cheapest labor competitors, which I believe is currently about thirty cents and hour.
Commentby rhp6033— 7/13/06@ 10:38 am
You have a deal,rhp, I’ll explain again. The minimum wage is a scam designed to deceive people into voting for liberals. America would benefit by eliminating the minimum wage completely for reasons I already explained. As I explained at 61,the minimum wage either has no significant impact on the general standard of living, if the MW is kept fairly near the market rate for unskilled labor, or it reduces the general standard of living through unemployment and/or inflation if it is set higher.
Even libs like Kennedy and Feingold aren’t stupid enough to think that the minimum wage actually raises real wages, which is why they don’t propose raising it to a living wage of $20, or even $15 for that matter. Liberals would do well to stay out of economic policy until they master basic concepts such as supply and demand. 12 has a good point,if you really want to help the poor direct transfer payments are a much better method than the MW scam.
I agree with David Wright, above. If your objective is to help the working poor, an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit would be a much more effective and equitable way of doing so than raising the minimum wage.
Minimum wage is a phoney device that gets in the way between employers and employees. Libs know it causes job loss, but do it anyway.
ohGde3zjdTOUb YPOU81LKG2S GXcO3onwZlr
Voted against min wage increase? Good.
7BZeSmlcbY5 sLBfujDWg05 PPVH0nV61INdr