  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Minimum Compassion for Wage SlavesPosted on May 1, 2007By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—The standoff between President Bush and the Democratic Congress over conditions attached to the Iraq war spending bill is holding the troops hostage. The nature of this hostage crisis differs depending on who describes it. The White House says the Democrats are keeping the troops captive to a culture of “defeatism” that endangers American military men and women in the field and imperils the outcome of the entire Iraq project. Democrats say Bush is the menace, shackling the troops to a failed policy that leaves them risking their lives to police a virulent civil war. That the troops are pawns is obvious. At least their cause is celebrated. The livelihoods, if not the lives, of less visible political hostages depend on a quick resolution of the Iraq impasse. The nation’s 5.6 million minimum-wage workers, and an estimated 7.4 million other low-wage workers who earn just above the current $5.15 federal minimum, and would benefit from a long-overdue hike in the base wage to $7.25. Yet the unpalatable hitching of the minimum-wage hike to the controversial Iraq war funding measure is surpassed only by the outrageousness of the alternative—failure to pass a wage increase at all. The public at large likely doesn’t realize the wage measure languishes. It was a top Democratic promise in the 2006 congressional campaigns. The House passed it just after Democrats took control of the chamber in January; the Senate followed in February. After weeks of negotiations over business tax cuts that Senate Republicans had insisted upon as a condition of any minimum-wage hike, both houses agreed to $4.8 billion in tax breaks—then attached the whole package to the must-pass war funding bill. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., long a champion of raising the minimum wage, says about 10 percent of military spouses earn the minimum or an hourly wage just above it. About 50,000 military families would benefit from raising the wage, which last was increased in 1997, according to Kennedy. The $5.15 hourly rate, adjusted for inflation, now buys about what it did in 1955. “Our troops are overseas putting their lives on the line for their country, and we should provide fair opportunities for their spouses who are working hard here at home,” Kennedy said after the Senate passed the Iraq war spending bill. That the wage hike needs to ride such a politically burdened vehicle to passage is a telling symbol of how little the Senate has changed since control of the chamber shifted to Democrats. For years, Democrats in both houses sought a minimum-wage hike on its own; majority Republicans for years blocked consideration of it. Last year, House Democrats managed to attach the wage hike to an appropriations bill, but Republican leaders refused to take up the measure. In the Senate, a more cynical maneuver to hitch the pay raise for the nation’s poorest workers to a cut in the estate tax for its richest heirs also failed. Even with a new Congress, lawmakers still needed a maneuver to outwit Senate Republicans, whose determination to stand between low-wage workers and a few more pennies could result in a filibuster. So Kennedy attached the wage hike to the Iraq bill. “When you look around the country, the dynamics of this should be much different,” says Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research organization that backs the wage hike. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia already have increased their minimum wages beyond the federal floor. Fifteen of those states are represented by at least one Republican senator. “It’s no skin off the teeth of the businesses in their states now,” says Eisenbrey. Nonetheless, only a small handful of Republicans could be counted upon to vote to break a filibuster, with the rest unwilling to buck their leaders. Perhaps, as many congressional leaders now hope, the Iraq standoff will end quickly and an agreed-upon war spending measure, with the minimum-wage hike included, will be sent to the president for his signature by the time Congress recesses for Memorial Day. Pessimists see the impasse lasting until July. Workers—most of them women—whose pay keeps them in poverty already have waited too long for a raise. Their paychecks should not depend on the politics of a terrible war. At some point, even the Senate may have to acknowledge this. Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at symbol)washpost.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
|
|
Bush the Infallible
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By GW=MCHammered, May 2, 2007 at 9:44 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Home, car, gasoline and higher education prices grew over 6% annually since the mid-seventies suggesting that the federal minimum wage, just to keep up with rising prices, should have grown from $2 per hour then to well over $14 per hour in ‘07.
Ironically, this is about equal to the pay raise Congress gave themselves over just the past decade and not much less than the average factory wage today. Real minimum wage growth has been just 3 percent annually since the mid-seventies meaning today, all things being equal, the equivalent price of:
gasoline should be around $1.25, not $3 per gallon,
a shiny foreign sports car should sticker for about $12,000, not $30,000,
a Pacific NW home should close around $85,000, not over $200,000,
even the 1977 first class postage stamp should cost about 33-cents, not 42.
Imagine graduating high school today and facing this under-paid over-priced reality. Is it really any wonder drop-out rates now run between 30% and 50%?
It seems capitalists (those with money) want the working class (now without money) to borrow and pay interest to them for lifetime-long home, car and credit card loans then give up their paid-for entitlements too. That is not capitalism; it’s capitalizing.
Kleptocracy is not Democracy.
Report thisBy guntotin ganglion, May 1, 2007 at 10:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I wonder what the minimum wage would be if Congresspeople and Senator’s salaries were limited to it? I suppose you could make it $2.13, since they are “tipped” employees. Just have to figure some way to limit their tips...that’s a lot harder to do with 30,000 plus lobbyists handing out “tips” to every legislator with a hand out.
Those who set the minimum wage, should make the minimum wage. For that matter, politicians shouldn’t make a salary at all, only per diem to cover expenses. It should be about public service, not self-service. Just a passing thought...as the rich become more so, and the poor are treated like dogs in this lovely Christian country of ours. Didn’t Jesus say something about caring for the poor? I must have misunderstood, he must have said screw the poor and grab everything for yourself, cause that’s what I see most political “christians” doing. God Bless America? Uhhh, ya.
Report thisBy Bob Zimmerman, May 1, 2007 at 6:15 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Republican’s are more interested in eliminating the capital gains tax which helps their rich friends, rather than improve the lives of those struggling to make ends meet. It is outrageous what is going on today with the Republican’s. We voters need to send an even stronger message in 2008, and elect an overwelming Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president.
Report thisBy Christine H, May 1, 2007 at 2:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I can think of one thing that’s at least as bad as the $5.15 minimum wage—and that’s the $2.13 minimum for tipped employees.
Report thisBy rabblerowzer, May 1, 2007 at 12:47 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Politics is about who gets rich and who gets robbed.
Republican politicians use ideology as a lofty red-herring to convince conservative voters of their good intentions, but their actual intention is to use political office to empower and enrich themselves. As the last six years have demonstrated, politics is the cunning device used to dictate who gets rich and who gets robbed. Bush is the dictator but he couldnt have stolen billions from American taxpayers without the criminal support of Republican congressman and political appointees.
Those at the top of the food chain have reaped untold billions in profits while those in the middle and bottom have watched their incomes shrink while the cost of living went vertical. And thanks to all the Republicans tax cuts benevolently bestowed on the rich, guess whos going to get stuck with the bill?
When will a majority of Americans realize that politics is first, last and always exclusively about money?
.
Report thisBy Ed, May 1, 2007 at 10:31 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The time is coming when workers will unite against the corrupt and failed republic that favors corporate greed over citizens’ needs. Better sooner than later.
Viva Castro y Chavez
Report thisBy QuyTran, May 1, 2007 at 10:22 am #
We have to save moneys for Iraq war chest and to increase salary for all Republican members of House and Senate.
Report thisBy nonsequitor, May 1, 2007 at 10:17 am #
WASHINGTON—The standoff between President Bush and the Democratic Congress over conditions attached to the Iraq War spending bill is holding the troops hostage.
you damned right they are being held hostage as is the rest of the American citizenry. Time to wake up!
Pelosi…
Just how cozy is Pelosi with AIPAC?
Now that Pelosi is slated to become Speaker of the House, let’s take a closer
look at just how much she supports the zionist cause and vice versa.
Political observers say it’s no surprise that the congresswoman from San
Francisco considers herself close to the Jews.
The daughter of Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., a former mayor of Baltimore, Pelosi grew
up in a Democratic family with Jewish neighbors and friends.
“She likes to say that, growing up in Baltimore, she went to a bar or bat
mitzvah every Saturday,” Amy Friedkin, a former president of AIPAC and a friend
of Pelosi’s for 25 years, wrote in an e-mail message to JTA.
Friedkin noted that there’s even a soccer field in the Haifa area of Israel
named after the lawmaker’s family.
Really??? Wow. Impressive.
How many Catholic Americans do you think have israeli land dedicated to their
families?
Well, now you know one.
While the Republicans had campaigned partly on the premise that support for
Israel among Democrats has waned, exit polls from Tuesday’s voting show that
Democrats won an overwhelming majority of the Jewish vote.
With Pelosi as speaker, Jewish activists and officials are confident that the
U.S. Congress will remain strongly pro-Israel.
“I’ve heard her say numerous times that the single greatest achievement of the
20th century” was the founding of the modern state of Israel, Friedkin wrote.
“She has been a great friend of the U.S.-Israel relationship during her entire
time in Congress and is deeply committed to strengthening that relationship.”
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/85
want to read more…
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10674
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10711
the fish stinks from the head down.
Report thisBy nonsequitor, May 1, 2007 at 9:23 am #
connect the dots to the 3 previous posts.
now why should the fat-flunkies in congress give a rat’s a*s about how you and your neighbor are surviving.
anybody out there have vested pension rights and health insurance after 5 years?
anybody out there getting 1000’s of $$ to help them stay in their job?
the fish stinks from the head down.
Report thisBy dale Headley, May 1, 2007 at 9:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Of course the Republicans oppose this bill. The destruction of the middle class has been the neocons’ core economic objective for the last seventy years, and a rise in the minimum wage won’t speed up the realization of that dream..
Report thisBy nonsequitor, May 1, 2007 at 9:17 am #
...and then there is the Drug lobby
June 1, 2003
Drug Companies Increase Spending to Lobby Congress and Governments
By ROBERT PEAR
ASHINGTON, May 31 - Lobbyists for the drug industry are stepping up spending to influence Congress, the states and even foreign governments as the debate intensifies over how to provide prescription drug benefits to the elderly, industry executives say.
Confidential budget documents from the leading pharmaceutical trade group show that it will spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress and state legislatures, fighting price controls around the world, subsidizing “like-minded organizations” and paying economists to produce op-ed articles and monographs in response to critics.
The industry is worried that price controls and other regulations will tie the drug makers’ hands as state, federal and foreign governments try to expand access to affordable drugs.
The documents show that the trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, will spend at least $150 million in the coming year.
That represents an increase of 23 percent over this year’s budget of $121.7 million.
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/06/03/drug_c ompanies_spend_millions_lobbying.htm
Report thisBy nonsequitor, May 1, 2007 at 9:10 am #
...but that’s not all.
one of the most powerful lobbies in the u.s. is AIPAC. here is how they spend the donations they get.
are they getting their money’s worth? you bet!
here is a very short list of how your congress gets paid.
TOTAL for 1999-2000 Election Cycle $2,044,606
TOTAL 1978-2000 Funds to Congressional Candidates $34,607,182
TOTAL No. of Recipient Candidates, 1978-2000 1,732
Key: The “Career Total” column represents the total amount of Pro-Israel PAC money received from January 1, 1978 through December 31, 2001.
Selected recipients:
career total
Alabama H Callahan, Sonny R $ 38,500
Alaska S Murkowski, Frank 63,000
California Feinstein, Dianne* 112,842
Connecticut Dodd, Christopher 182,928
Lieberman, Joseph* 226,508
Gejdenson, Sam D 335,601
Illinois Durbin, Richard D 245,671
Iowa Harkin, Thomas D 423,895
http://www.wrmea.com/html/aipac.htm
Report thisBy Tom Doff, May 1, 2007 at 8:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thanks, Basho, for the pay scale info.
For once, it looks as though this government is doing something right, even if it was unintended.
Wolfowitz’ Hooker/(Beard?) was getting paid more than any member of Congress, excepting Pelosi.
That seems fair, would you take that dirty job for less?
Shahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.............
Report thisBy nonsequitor, May 1, 2007 at 8:15 am #
Are you getting your money’s worth?
Congress: Rank-and-File Members’ Salary
The current salary (2006) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $165,200 per year.
Congress: Leadership Members’ Salary (110th Congress)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file
members.
Senate Leadership
Majority Leader - $183,500
Minority Leader - $183,500
House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $212,100
Majority Leader - $183,500
Minority Leader - $183,500
A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it.
Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.
Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.
As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants’ contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and
pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.
Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they’ve completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Member’s of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.
Report thisBy Leefeller, May 1, 2007 at 8:12 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hey! Try farming, As a small farmer, I make about $3.00 bucks an hour, but I love my work and no commute. For extra money, sometimes I stand on the side of the road, holding a sign that says “Will Farm For Food”.
Report thisBy Tom Doff, May 1, 2007 at 8:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
It’s the Senate Republicans’ own fault they have to face this dilemma of resisting a minimum wage hike.
Had they just eliminated the minimum wage when they were in power, as their leaders desired, they’d have been able to pay for another .0000013 percent tax reduction for themselves and the other top 1% of US ‘income-earners’. (Make that ‘money-grabbers’).
Now they’re gonna catch hell from both sides, their super-rich buddies for not taking advantage of their opportunity for another tax break, and the po’ folks who would be reduced to starving in the streets of ‘freedom-loving, democratic ‘America’’, if they could have their way.
Oh well, ‘Stupids are as Stupids do’.
Report thisBy Outraged, May 1, 2007 at 7:25 am #
Expose the companies and businesses who “pay” workers these despicable amounts. I consider wages this low volunteer work and apparently so does the government. If you VOLUNTEER for Americorp you will receive a stipend of about $6.25 an hour and health insurance.
After breaking the unions and ripping up the safety net (welfare reform) businesses were free to “capitalize” on workers in general. This in turn lowered wages across the board, with the exception of course of the CEOs who made extrordinary amounts in the form of bonuses, which were tied to the increased profits made off the backs of working America. Welfare reform hasn’t lowered the cost of social programs, in fact they’ve risen. It did however, make it harder for those who need it to qualify. So, WHO HAS THE “EXTRA” MONEY?!!! It certainly isn’t the needy.
END PRIVITAZATION, UNIONIZE AND REINSTITUTE THE SAFETY NETS…
** WAGES WILL RISE ACROSS THE BOARD! **
Report thisBy Pete, May 1, 2007 at 6:57 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Other republican dislikes; universal health care, subsidized education from elementary to university level(isn’t it funny how plutocrats that scream socialism or communism at the very thought of this idea are also behind the push to import educated workers as indentured servants from countries where education is subsidized.Talk about having your cake and eating it too.)Affordable prescriptions(Thank you Elmer Gantry Tauzin),severe regulation of predatory lenders, including banks and credit card companies.An oil policy whose pricing doesn’t depend on Wall St.speculation & manipulation.(Oh oh, is Hugo Chavez about to join the axis of evil and have his country invaded by Blackwater.) Just a few things that the plutopublicans don’t like.I’m sure there are plenty others.
Report this