2006 state ballot initiatives: Raise the minimum wage
The Federal minimum wage is currently $5.15. It has not changed for nine straight years (which coincides with the Republican takeover of Congress). Nine years is the second-longest period of no-growth in the minimum wage since it was established in 1938.
Today, conventional wisdom (i.e., the right-wing noise machine) says that a lower minimum wage is a good thing. A higher minimum wage cost jobs and hurt working class people. A higher minimum wage will cause employers to hesitate hiring a (legal) new employee if they have to pay "too much." And so forth.
Honestly, there hasn't been much of a pushback against those arguments. Until, perhaps, now:
Democrats are preparing ballot initiatives in states across the country to boost turnout of Democratic-leaning voters in 2006. Labor, religious, and community groups have launched efforts to place minimum-wage initiatives on ballots in Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas, and Montana next fall.Pro: Rewards upwardly mobile working people trying to live by the rules.Democrats say the minimum wage could be for them what the gay-marriage referendums were in key states for Republicans last year -- an easily understood issue that galvanizes their supporters to show up on Election Day.
Con: Riles up red-state, red-meat capitalists (could be considered a pro).
Pro: May bring out new voters.
Con: May bring more opposing voters.
Pro: Highlights issues of justice, fairness.
Con: Says "socialistic" all over it in big block letters.
Pro: Democratic coat-tails
Con: Says who?
Who loves it: John Edwards.
Who hates it: Pointy-headed, right-wing, think-tank wonks. And Rush & Hannity.
I'm curious...what do you think of this idea?
- Is it the right thing to do, economically? If so, would it be a net benefit?
- Is it the right thing to do, strategically and tactically? If so, would it be a net benefit?
If you have a blog, link back to this post, or better yet post your own piece and tell me what the comments are like.
Posted by Ara | Link
| Comments
(3)
| digg this
| del.icio.us 
Categories: Democrats
, Economics
, Jobs
, Politics
Comments
Cool, but not enough. This is the moment to re-educate people about good government and the people who believe in it: Democrats. It is time to re-explain government’s role as a check against the excesses of wealthy elites and the industries they control. It is time to compare and contrast the social rewards of good public policy (e.g., the Clinton era) and bad public policy (e.g., well, duh).
The guarantee of a living wage for working people should be one of a number of commitments from the party of good governance:
2. Affordable, accessible quality healthcare for every citizen.
3. Full government transparency, including full disclosure of the sources and recipients of all lobbying money, campaign contributions and media financing and a 4-year ban on lobbying by any departing government employee.
4. Absolute, unequivocal commitment to the Bill of Rights and the liberty and privacy rights (from industry as well as government) of American citizens.
5. A high-quality, federally-standardized education (with mandatory equal-funding requirements) for every child in America .
6. No American troops in conflict on foreign soil unless specifically authorized by the people’s representatives in Congress.
7. A markedly simplified (for at least the bottom three-fifths of tax payers) income tax that emphasizes taxes on wealth, not work.
8. A balanced budget and honest government accounting (e.g., not masking the costs of entitlements and wars).
That should be the bare minimum of the Democrat version of the “Contract with America” which should be agreed to and recited daily by every Democrat candidate from now until 2008.
Posted by: shep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 27, 2005 01:43 PM
I like your suggestions. Of course, I have my own tweaks:
"A markedly simplified income tax (for at least the bottom three-fifths of tax payers)..."
Remember -- 75% of taxpayers don't even itemize. For them, the system is plenty simple. Maybe not fair, but simple enough that I'd focus more on fairness than simplicity.
The people crying for simplicity are the ones who (I suspect) feel that they are spending too much on CPA's etc.
The rest (about emphasizing taxes on wealth not work) is fine.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 27, 2005 03:48 PM
"The people crying for simplicity are the ones who (I suspect) feel that they are spending too much on CPA's etc."
Tweak taken, Ara.
Of course those people cry when they're forced to buy a smaller island for their fifth home.
Posted by: shep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 27, 2005 04:14 PM