McConnell, Bunning Join 26 Other Senators In Vote To Eliminate Federal Minimum Wage, Where Are Local Stories?

Late on Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) offered an amendment to eliminate a federal role in setting the minimum wage, instead leaving it up to the states (in Kansas, the minimum wage is $2.65 and TN, LA, AL, MS and SC have no state minimum wage).

Fortunately, the measure failed by a 28-69 vote but among those 28 votes (all Republicans) were Senator Mitch McConnell (R) and Senator Jim Bunning (R).

First, I failed to find any mention of this outlandish effort in any Kentucky newspapers.

Secondly, let's hope disingenuous blow-hards like Senate President David Williams (R) and his little pack of wingnuts end their talking point that the minimum wage is a federal issue given this shameless effort.

This scary effort should add additional pressure to our Kentucky Democratic legislative leaders to hammer through legislation to raise the minimum wage here in Kentucky, regardless of whether or not they're running for a higher office this year...

(Hat tip: Bob Geiger)

Comments

[BluegrassRiver]

Looks like another example of just how much pro-conservative media bias there is in this state. Particularly with the local TV stations.

[Rich Miles]

Elaborating on the same topic, Ted Kennedy, senator from MA and all-around rightie boogeyman, asked a pertinent question (also reported by the estimable Mr. Geiger):

Kennedy to Republicans: What is it about working men and women that you find so offensive?

If nothing else gets done in the entire 110th Congress, both houses, perhaps finally, once and for all, the American people will see the true intent of the Republican Party: to own everything, and leave the rest of us as beggars at the gates.

Another small point: in almost the same sentence in which Bush whined about "bipartisanship" in the SOTU, he referred once again to the "Democrat Party".

It doesn't matter whether the insult had the intended effect of denigrating and annoying the opposition - what matters is that the insult was offered, while trying to appear conciliatory. These moves on the minimum wage have the same value: be bipartisan, do it our way.

Are you paying attention, Red America? It's your wages they're playing with, and your children who are doing most of the fighting and dying in Bush's War.

I'll be back later to elaborate. No time now.

[Rich Miles]

BTW, the three senators who didn't vote: Tim Johnson of SD for obvious reasons, Inouye of Hawaii who's been ill lately too, and Stevens of Alaska, who probably forgot they were having the vote.

[KyRealityCheck]

OK, let's see if we can have a legitimate discussion about an issue here without degenerating into name-calling and hyperbole:

I am a small business owner. Let's say that congress passes legislation raising the minimum wage to $8 hour. I already pay that to the folks that I hire in to perform the more menial, non-skilled tasks. In order to find decent, hard working folks who would actually show up on time and sober, that's what I needed to do. It has worked for us. Now, if I have to increase my payroll cost, who is going to bear that burden? Should I, the business owner take that hit? My margins are not large and my family enjoys a comfortable middle class life style. (Four children in public schools, wife who is a stay at home mom, we live in a modest home, etc.) Obviously I can't take the hit, so I have to raise the cost to my customers to make up the difference. So, who pays the price for this when all businesses have to do what I'll have to do? We all suffer.

Now, turning to the fundamental question of whether someone "deserves" to make a certain amount of money per hour, and to Senator Kennedy's query, it is not quite so simple as some would have it be. Does Senator Kennedy employ anyone? I don't think that he does. I don't believe that Senator Kennedy has EVER employed anyone, outside of possibly some domestic help to clean the house, etc. He is talking about spending all of our money to help out the working poor. I don't have anything against the working man and woman. I need them to make my business work. However, some jobs just don't merit larger pay than minimum wage current levels. Shouldn't every person be paid what they deserve for the job that they perform? Further, if the minimum wage increased say, 20%, the real effect of that would be that I would have to reduce my payroll by 20% as I really cannot raise my prices and still compete in the marketplace. That means that I would have to fire 1 out of every 5 minimum wage employees. Is that good for the working man or woman that I have to send home?

I await the discussion with great anticipation. For now, I have to get back to work!

[kentondem1]

KyReality:

You can find the "other side of the coin", at thinkprogress.org, Conservative Senators Attempt To Abolish Federal Minimum Wage And Pass Tax Breaks For Businesses.

Your same arguments have been raised in the past...each time a new wage bill has come up. Every time the wage was increased, the sky is falling negative arguments were shown to be just "arguments", because the dire predictions of doom never occurred.

If you cannot afford to pay your employees a living wage, perhaps you should not be in business. Or you could move to Kansas where the state minimum wage is $2.35 per hour.

[kentondem1]

I lied, the minimum wage in Kansas is $2.65 per hour.

[Noah]

Let the market pay what a person is worth to society. If companies can't find qualified or quality workers, at a set rate, they'll raise the wages. If there is an over-abundance of workers qualified to do a job, the wage will get lowered, and some of those workers will change jobs in order to make more (and hence be more profitable to society). The argument that minimum wage should be this or that because that's what it takes to support a family is ridiculous. First, no one I know who supports a family on the minimum wage. Second, even if you did raise it to $10 /hr, that would not transform poor families into the comfortable middle-class. Third, if you did find someone like that, would you rather they keep working at the wage agreed to by them and their employer, or would you prefer they are fired because the employer can't keep as many people around now that the wages are artificially higher? Don't you think that people ought to be able to decide for themselves what their wages should be? And if they're not getting paid that, then they can quit and find another job. If they can't find another job, there are many avenues by which they can increase their worth to society through education and training, and therefore increase their wages.

[Noah]

kentondem, Has raising the minimum wage eliminated poverty among the working classes? No. Then why do it to begin with? It just drives up prices for everyone, so the net result is at least the same...Everything costs more and the poor still can't afford things that the rich can afford. And if our companies can't compete in the global marketplace because of artifially high wages, then the companies will go shut down, and everyone will be poorer. The better solution would be to encourage more companies to set up shop by eliminating the minimum wage, changing Kentucky to an open shop state, lowering the taxes on businesses, easing those environmental regulations which are pointless, providing necessary infrastructure, and reforming higher education to provide qualified workers. Then you have more companies competing for the same pool of workers, and the wages for the working class and everyone else will be actually raised, not artificially like Scorsone proposes.

[kentondem1]

Just because a myth is repeated over and over again, does not make it true.

Noah, it is time to get a new argument.

[Steve Bittenbender (freelancehack@gmail.com)]

Has the minimum wage eliminated poverty? No, it hasn't. Right now, the living wage for a family of four in Louisville is roughly $11.50/hour. That's not for a comfortable living, that's just for basic shelter and necessities.

Companies that fail to pay a living wage force governments -- and taxpayers -- to provide services such as childcare and food assistance.

As someone who has worked for a chamber of commerce and been a spokesman for the business community, I understand that businesses are in business to make money. And many small business owners are blue collar and middle class people working for a living as well. I think it's appropriate to give some tax concessions to small businesses that would see their payrolls dramatically increased as a result. A significant minimum wage hike should help workers, not punish small businesses.

[kentondem1]

Steve, you might of had a point if it were not for the tax cuts that have been lavished on business and wealthy individuals in the last ten years.

If a business can't pay a fair wage to employees maybe it's time to close up.

I have a great idea for a new automoble, if I can just find auto workers for $2.65 an hour.

[veritas]

Let's assume the government forces wages up so high some firms must "close up." Employees who may not be worth a wage based on government idealism instead of the market are now without jobs. Higher minimum wage= higher unemployment rates. It appears Bunning and McConnell have taken a basic Economics class, which should be required for any public official.

[JeffCoEsq]

Funny, but I don't remember any stories of economic ruin among the 30 states that have raised their minumum wage higher than the federal standard. Maybe the economic apocalypse that the business community continues to panic about will just hit Kentucky and leave the other states alone?

Thanks for the Friday morning laugh.

[kentondem1]

Myths die a slow death. But they manage to come back every time the business community needs an argument.

[Steve Magruder (I, not D or R)]

I agree that businesses who cannot afford to pay people fairly shouldn't be in business. Businesses should be in business not merely to make a profit or a living for their proprietor, but also to make positive contributions to the community around them. Why have companies who seek to ruin their employees when we can have other more thoughtful employers who can somehow run a successful business *and* pay their people adequately? Our government should and must ensure that our nation's businesses are the cream of the crop, not gutter dwellers, and the federal minimum wage helps out with that.

That all said, I concur that small business should be cushioned against wage hikes. But even if they're not so much, talk of economic ruin comes from fantasy, since all businesses would have to raise wages, and therefore price points amongst similar businesses could also rise similarly, therefore, not unfairly affecting any business in specific.

The bottom line is that companies who want to run roughshod over their own people *should* fail. And businesses who are run by people who are too stupid to revise their price points in response to increased payroll costs *should* fail.

I for one don't mind the minor temporary inflationary effect that would come from more decent wages for working people. It's worth the cost!

[robespierre]

Time Magazine's 5 Worst Senators (April 2006)

Daniel Akaka (D)
* Wayne Allard (R)
* Jim Bunning (R)
Conrad Burns (R)
Mark Dayton (D)

Among the Best: Ted Kennedy (D)

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[KyRealityCheck]

So, to recap the response to my post from the left wing among us, I should not be in business if I cannot afford to pay someone $11.50 an hour to sweep the floors in my shop? Is that really what you guys think?

Steve wrote that "Businesses should be in business not merely to make a profit or a living for their proprietor, but also to make positive contributions to the community around them."

I have to ask if you own a business yourself? Steve what do you do for a living? Just curious.

Is not providing jobs for the local community a "positive contribution to the community around" my business?

Frankly, I have not met a person who has a successful business that got into that business to "make a positive contribution to the community," rather, they got into business to feed their own family. The positive contribution to the community comes from being in business and naturally flows when you create jobs for people who need them.

Steve also wrote "The bottom line is that companies who want to run roughshod over their own people *should* fail. And businesses who are run by people who are too stupid to revise their price points in response to increased payroll costs *should* fail."

In response all I can say is "Who is John Galt?"

If you don't understand the reference, you shouldn't be in this conversation!

[Rich Miles]

The anti's on this thread are all pretty much crying "market forces", and haven't we seen how well that's worked out: American companies moving overseas to increase their profits. Unions driven out because they're not "free market" movers. American workers having to compete with those in other countries for wage parity. Corporate leaders making it clear in thought word and deed that the bottom line matters more than any and all of their employees. And the Republican-led government not only allowing this but encouraging it.

And somehow, the myth that min-wage increases will kill the American economy still maintains currency. It never has yet, and it won't this time.

KRC, you're a small biz owner, and your margins are small, and you don't want to raise your workers' wages because you can't be competitive in your market segment if you do raise wages and then have to raise your prices to get your margins back up to where you want them?

Let me clue you in - that's the essence of the free market. If you can't make it, you're out. That includes you. And me, and anyone else who competes for market share. Why should you get breaks that others don't? You either espouse free trade or you don't - you can't espouse it for everyone else, but not for you.

And let me give you another clue: if you are able to support a family of six, including a stay-at-home wife, with your business income, then you're doing a lot better than most people I know. I would venture, without doing an actual count, that more than 80% of the non-retired families I have any association with as friends etc. have TWO wage-earners, regardless of how desirable a stay-at-home parent may be.

So I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for your plight - even as you describe it, you're doing a lot better than most, and I'm not even talking about those in genuine poverty. I'm referring only to those in the lower-to-upper middle class.

Noah, your suggestions in your 10:07 post look really good on paper (or screen): if you can't make a decent wage with current skills, go to school and get better skills, then you can make more money.

But this idea doesn't take into account the realities of poverty - in fact, it's a little on the heartless side.

If one is making $5.15 an hour, and has to work two jobs just to make the rent and groceries and kids' expenses, where is the time, not to mention the money, to go to school?

If one manages to get by with only ONE min-wage job, how much is likely to be left over for books and tuition? And who will pay the rent and grocery bill while they're going to school?

And then, if by some unlikely sequence of events one IS able to get additional education and training, and step up with new skills, it is a virtual certainty that they will start at entry-level in the new profession, whatever it may be.

So how long should one have to wait for a decent-paying job? Your post sounds like it was written by someone who's never personally had to face any of those issues, and who thinks these improvements in one's life are just automatic, and immediately available to all who want them.

An increase in the min-wage has never yet caused the harm to the business community that was direly threatened in advance of it. And hey, let's face it: sometimes the few have to sacrifice something for the good of the many.

That may include both of you, Noah and KCR.

[KyRealityCheck]

Responding to Kentondem1, who wrote:

"If you cannot afford to pay your employees a living wage, perhaps you should not be in business. Or you could move to Kansas where the state minimum wage is $2.35 per hour."

Again, I ask what do you do for a living? Who provides for your family?

And, once again, "Who is John Galt?"

[Rich Miles]

KRC, your reference to John Galt is disingenuous in the extreme: if you picture yourself as somehow on a par with the rational individualists, then I have to say, you shouldn't have ANY employees at all - you should be able to do it all on your own, right?

"By each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I'd give that one a bit more thought before I tied myself to it as you seem to have done. To me, it doesn't support your argument - it in fact refutes it.

Ayn Rand's overarching philosophy in "Atlas Shrugged" has also been described as "creative selfishness" - though no one I've ever read has been able to adequately describe what's creative about it. And I'll also remind you that, in 2003 or so, when asked to name some of his favorite books, our little governor named "Atlas Shrugged" and the Holy Bible.

That one statement might explain the schizophrenia in his administration - it's hard to picture how one can hold those two philosophical works in the same brain, but somehow, Lil Ernie seems to have tried.

[Steve Magruder (I, not D or R)]

KyRealityCheck supports gutter dweller businesses. Nothing could be more clear.

Providing jobs that pay shit is bad for communities, not good. Clear as a bell.

[KyRealityCheck]

Rich,

Thank you for your thoughts.

I'll try and respond thoughfully and respectfully.

First, I work 80-90 hours a week to run my business. If I have a good year this year, I'll clear around 65-75K, after paying for health insurance, etc.

Second, I worked my @ss off to get where I am. I worked my way through college (no family help whatsoever - first in my family tree to graduate college). I worked 40+ hours a week while attending college full-time, averaging 18 credit hours per semester, plus summer term. I then worked my way through graduate school the same way. I paid my dues, and continue to pay them.

This is AMERICA BABY!! ANYONE can get to college. There are programs designed to help anyone who wants to succeed make it! I know because I am living proof of it. I was a poor kid from a broken home in Portland (Lousiville). If I can do it, anyone can. All it takes is the desire to succeed, and a refusal to fail. Put those two things together and you won't need to ask someone else to provide for your family. You'll be able to do it yourself!

I personally lived on the street at age 16. I personally worked many, many miinimum wage jobs (and was thankful for them) while I pulled myself up with God's help. Don't pontificate and preach to me about whether or not it can be done. I've been there, done that, got the tee shirt.

No one HAS to live in poverty. Poverty is a state of mind (the invalid, aged, etc. is a different discussion).

I give away more than 10% of my gross income annually to charity. What do you do? I employ a dozen people now, what do you do? Don't pontificate about things that you don't know.

Again, "Who is John Galt?"

[Rich Miles]

Sorry, KRC - you really just don't get it. I suspect a compassion deficit.

What you say is true for you, and probably for a large majority of Americans. It is NOT true for all (and one may not exclude only the invalid and aged), and for you to fail to recognize that smacks of "I got mine, so to hell with everyone else." I know you didn't say that precisely, but it's a not unreasonable interpretation of your words.

There are lots of people who "worked hard, got no help, did it all on their own", and are still on the bottom of the ladder of society. Those are the ones who need our help and our compassion.

I deduce from clues in your text that your 10% giving is probably a tithe to your church. If so, I'm sure you recognize that a significant portion of that tithe goes to the upkeep of the church itself - not a bad thing, just not quite what I like to see my giving doing. And offering your generosity as a challenge to others - "What do you do?" - just kinda reinforces my point. Are you a Pharisee? Do you do good works so others will see them, or for their own sake?

It's rhetorical, please don't waste your time answering.

And the remark, "No one HAS to live in poverty" is just so unfeeling that I have to wonder: who, other than your own family and fellow believers, DO you care about?

And please, leave off with the John Galt thing - apparently, no one cares except you and me, and I don't care very much. And besides, I don't think you even read my comment on the question.

[robespierre]

You might wanna try a different method of persuasion other than referring to the failed philosophical tenets of Ayn Rand. If you wish to be on the fringe with her ilk, be my guest. Just don't expect anyone lacking an overwhelming sense of greed and loathe for the little guy to join you. Give up the fantasy; this is not the fucking 1920's.

"I pulled myself up with God's help."

I wonder what God thinks of your very Darwinian approach to society. Isn't "survival of the fittest" very unholy? I predict a "Joel Osteen says God wants you to be rich" response.

[kentondem1]

The more they espouse their economic theories, the uglier they get.

[Steve Bittenbender (freelancehack@gmail.com)]

Steve M., I usually see eye-to-eye with you, but I can't agree with your viewpoint about how businesses' primary objectives should not be to make a profit. That's not how our economy works.

It appears there are two vastly different factions on this thread: those who see businesses as the primary funders for government and those who see businesses as economic generators. Though I consider myself a social moderate/liberal, I tend to be more fiscally conservative. Businesses need to stimulate the economy, not the government.

And states think that way as well. Why do you think states offer tax incentives to attract new businesses and help expand existing ones? It's not because governments rely on the tax dollars the businesses generate, rather it's the revenue from what the businesses create that fuels governments. Governments rely on payroll taxes, sales taxes and other taxes -- not those levied directly on businesses.

Obviously, larger companies can afford to pay their employees a living wage (although that wage differs from county to county, state to state), but to ask a small business, with much smaller margins, to accept a mandatory 100 percent increase in salaries is too much. Small businesses will need some assistance to handle an increase that big.

(Now, keep in mind, I'm talking about bringing salaries up to the living wage level -- not just the $7/hour proposal currently under discussion).

[kentondem1]

When businesses where given their tax breaks and incentives during the last six years, where was the attempt to "balance" things out for the workers who's wages were stagnant.

Why does a raise in the minimum wage for workers, who have not had a raise in pay since 1994, have to be balanced by more giveaways to business? Is there no end to their greed?

[Steve Bittenbender (freelancehack@gmail.com)]

Kenton,

I'm not pushing for all businesses to get breaks. Big businesses get enough incentives already (and most except retailers probably pay their employees higher than living wages to begin with). Small businesses, however, should get some consideration.

[kentondem1]

OK, Mr. Bittenbender, every business that is making the same earnings they did in 1994, will be given a tax break equal to the amount of additional wages paid because of the increase in minimum wage requirements. If my proposal would cost $10 billion to enact, what do you want to bet the the tax break given to bossiness will wind up costing the government $30 or $40 billion. It is called corporate welfare.

[kentondem1]

Spelling error noted, you can still read it.

[Steve Magruder (I, not D or R)]

Steve B., let me clarify my position. I do believe and have always believed that the primary rationale for running a business is to make a profit. I am just saying there is an unwritten secondary duty for every business -- to be good community players, just as we expect every individual citizen to perform their proper duties.

I also see businesses as economic generators and not funders for government. Absolutely. We should do more to support small business in this country, as it is the engine of our economy.

But she should make sure no businesses are allowed to shit on working people.

I do think it would be too much of an economic shock to raise the minimum to a "living wage" overnight, but certainly the House Democratic proposal should be seen as reasonable and moderate.

Like you, I support assistance for small business to be able to cope with wage increases. I think that many progressives don't quite grasp that even many small business owners haven't benefited from the Bush-era tax cuts, and many are very small enterprises scraping to get by.

I very much support a balance here. Help working people while sustaining small businesses in this country. There's no reason we cannot do both.

[Steve Bittenbender (freelancehack@gmail.com)]

bossiness, kentomdem? Was that a Freudian slip?

[Rich Miles]

Steve B., my thoughts exactly.

I see KRC has ceased to try to contribute to this conversation since just before 2:00pm. I'm somewhat sorry about that. I think I know where he was trying to go with his argument. But at the risk of spouting platitudes, I'll say something that hasn't been said at least on this thread: NO ONE ever makes it entirely on his own, and NO ONE should ever expect to make it entirely through the efforts and resources of others.

There. Nuff said.

And as Steve M. said (lots o' Steves around today), businesses are part of the social fabric in which all our lives are woven, and have more responsibility that MERELY profit.

And to go totally off-topic, Molly Ivins is very ill and hospitalized in her ongoing battle with breast cancer. Another sad day for American freedom. Hope she pulls through, but this is pretty serious.

Ivins hospitalized in her cancer fight

[KyRealityCheck]

Sorry all for my delay in responding and continuing this discussion. I had an incredibly busy day at the office and just now got the chance to sit back down and read the posts and respond.

Where to begin??

First, some of you seem offended that I asked what you do for a living. The reason I ask is that I am genuinely curious as to who among us owns and operates their own business, providing jobs and a livelihood for others. To me, it would be interesting to see how many of you out there who are proponents of raising the minimum wage and who have been castigating me for my viewpoint are dependent on someone else for their livelihood. My experience has been that those who work for others tend more to a viewpoint that would be opposite of mine. Most of the business owners that I know would be supportive of my viewpoint. Why is that? It could be that we are all greedy SOBs who love to stick it to the little man whenever we can. It could also be that we all have a different perspective that the rest of you don't, and that perhaps more of you should attempt to find before you pass judgement.

Second, despite my plea that we rise above name calling and hyperbole, some of you simply are ill equiped for a rational debate on the issues, and that is too bad. To the rest of you, this has been an interesting and informative excercise, and I appreciate your thoughts, especially those opposed to my viewpoint that have been well thought out and candid.

Third, responding to some of the personal jabs, I find it ludicrous that any of you would attack my compassion without knowing anything about me. You have no idea how many people I have employed who had nothing who I brought in and took care of. How many families I personally support and care for. You have no idea how many second, third and fourth chances I give to recovering drug addicts who desparately need a job to get back on their feet, in spite of the money it costs me to do so.

With respect to Rich's comments about my church, we have no paid clergy in our church. We care for the poor and needy not only among our own membership, but ship hundreds of tons of commodities around the globe to care for and comfort the afflicted. I sleep well at night, knowing that I do my part for the greater good.

[KyRealityCheck]

I wanted to revisit the Atlas Shrugged reference as well.

Rich, are you an academic? Your response strikes me as someone who is very well read, but perhaps not as experienced in the "real world". Please don't take offense, just asking so that I understand your frame of reference in our conversation.

From your comments about Atlas Shrugged, it would appear that you have missed the concept completely, or that you simply refuse to acknowledge the fundamental concept that "creative selfishness" is what truly does drive the engine of the world. Think about it. Can you name one thing that has been inveneted that was created for any reason other than for the gratification of the inventor? Why does an artist paint, or sculpt? Who is the composer creating music for? Who does the singer sing for?

Eventually, (and yes, I recognize the extreme end of the spectrum that Atlas Shrugs represents) if you continue to take from the producers, they will cease production. Then where will the rest of society be? That is the crux of the "failed philosophy" that is embodied in Atlas Shrugged and it is a valid question to me.

Anyway, it is apparent that only a couple of us on this site are well read enough to continue this so I'll let it go.

Just understand that I am a producer, not a taker, and proud of it.

[kentondem1]

KRC, sure am glad to know that you do not depend on anyone for your livelihood. Tell your customers where to go.

What ever you do, never ever thank any of your teachers in public schools. It is a sign of weakness.

[kentondem1]

The more they say, the uglier they become.

[KyRealityCheck]

Yes, KentonDem, you do.

[Steve Magruder (I, not D or R)]

Rich, re: Molly, if we lose this great gal, let's heed her final words: No on Hillary.

[robespierre]

Amen to that, Steve.

[Rich Miles]

And perhaps we'll remember also Molly's advice about her adopted home state: "The next time I tell you NOT to elect a Texas politician to the presidency, LISTEN to me, OK?"