Minimum Wage Prospects Dim, Despite Protests [Dems urge Obama to work without them, use EO]

Congressional Democrats are now facing the uncomfortable political reality — largely as a result of the budget agreements they have made over the past few years — that they will have to choose which benefits to the poor they prioritize. And that could leave them unable to pass the minimum wage increase Obama is now touting.

An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Nevada Democrat is interested in bringing a minimum wage bill to the floor. And an aide to Harkin, whose bill would raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, said the senator is working with Reid to schedule a vote “as soon as possible.”

Progressives are so skeptical that Congress will be able to act on the minimum wage that members of the House Progressive Caucus are urging Obama to work unilaterally without them.

In a letter to the president first reported by National Journal, Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota said they believe Obama can and should increase the minimum wage by executive order.

Outside Congress, Democrats and labor unions are fighting for an increase in the federal minimum wage. But inside the Dome, Democrats are strapped for political capital to pass legislation as they engage in a multifront battle against Republicans to extend jobless benefits and protect social programs cut by the sequester.

Even approving unemployment benefits before the end of 2013 is shaping up to be a tough haul for Democrats, who so far have failed to negotiate an extension as part of year-end budget talks. And though senators such as Tom Harkin of Iowa have proposed minimum wage legislation, it’s unclear whether there’s any room to attach such a proposal to pending must-pass bills such as the defense authorization. And there certainly is not a strong desire from the GOP-controlled House to pass a stand-alone bill.

But as Republicans try to avoid discussing the issue of pay minimums, Democrats are increasingly turning to it, boosted by a shift in the White House’s economic talking points and current labor unrest nationwide. On Wednesday, President Barack Obama made boosting minimum pay for American workers one of the cornerstones of a major economic address on income inequality. On Thursday, fast-food workers in 100 cities engaged in a strike over wages, including federal contract workers just a stone’s throw from the Capitol at a McDonald’s in the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum.

“A broad majority of Americans agree we should raise the minimum wage. That’s why, last month, voters in New Jersey decided to become the 20th state to raise theirs even higher,” Obama said in his speech in Washington. “I agree with those voters, and I’m going to keep pushing until we get a higher minimum wage for hard-working Americans across the entire country. It will be good for our economy. It will be good for our families.”

Though Obama highlighted what he believes to be the moral urgency of increasing minimum wage, the overwhelming focus on the Hill has been on how to extend unemployment insurance.

House Democrats held a steering committee hearing Thursday on the economic impacts of canceling federal jobless benefits. The administration has estimated that 1.3 million Americans would be immediately affected by a lapse in benefits if Congress fails to act by the Dec. 28 deadline, with an additional 3.6 million people potentially affected by the end of 2014.

The problem is that there are very few must-pass vehicles remaining this year to carry any provision, let alone social welfare programs that Republicans largely oppose.

Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., and House Budget Chairman Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., are not planning to include an extension of jobless benefits as part of their larger budget conference framework. Democrats potentially will need another way, whether by bundling with expiring tax extenders or doctors payments, to approve those benefits.

“This is on top of the resistance to raising the minimum wage, for cutting $40 billion out of food stamps,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at the hearing on unemployment insurance benefits Thursday. “I mean, how unconscionable can that be? Pell Grants, now wanting to cut Pell Grants, which are providing education for low-income families. … The list goes on and on of the compounding of all of these things that are not really a budget that is a statement of our values.”

Progressives are so skeptical that Congress will be able to act on the minimum wage that members of the House Progressive Caucus are urging Obama to work unilaterally without them.

Republicans have said they believe that a federal increase in the minimum wage is unnecessary because certain states have their own laws mandating higher pay and that such a move would unduly burden employers with higher overhead costs.

Republicans tout campaign to blunt Obama's executive powers By Ben Goad and Julian Hattem, The Hill - Dec. 8, 2013 - "House Republicans say they’re proud of their 2013 campaign to stymie President Obama’s regulatory agenda, even as Congress comes under fire for one of its least productive years.

The bitterly divided Congress will pass fewer laws in 2013 than any year in modern history. As a result of the gridlock, President Obama has turned to his administration’s regulatory authority in pursuit of key policy goals, including efforts to tackle gun violence and climate change.

While House Republicans have pinned the blame for Congress’ anemic legislative output on Senate Democrats, they make no bones about their efforts to blunt Obama’s rulemaking power.

“We’re left with no choice,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). “The president can’t just go it alone, that’s not who we are as a country.”

In interviews with The Hill, several House Republicans claimed momentum in the messaging battle over federal regulations, which they’ve portrayed as too overbearing and expensive under the Obama administration.

The conference has sought to put the president’s rulemaking agenda on trial in dozens of hearings convened in 2013 by Republican committee and subcommittee leaders.

Lawmakers have taken aim at everything from new limits on the hours that truck drivers can spend behind the wheel to draft standards for the amount of pollution that can spew from power plants. They've also sought to highlight the cumulative effects of regulations on the private sector.

“I think it’s been made more visible,” Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) said. “And I do think we will continue to push because I think it’s vital to our small businesses and our industry in this country that we are successful.”

House Democrats counter that the campaign is just part of the same obstructionist agenda that led to this fall’s 16-day shutdown and debt ceiling fiasco.

“I don’t think they can brag about having any accomplishments,” Rep Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said. “And they certainly not only don’t have accomplishments; they’ve done a lot of harm.”

Defenders of stronger regulation say that key protections have been blocked or delayed under fierce pressure from industry groups and their allies in Congress, and scoff at the notion that agency rulemaking has accelerated under Obama.

There are numbers to support both arguments.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service issued a report earlier this year showing that the number of final rules promulgated by the Obama administration through last year was fewer than those issued during President George W. Bush’s first term.

The same report concluded, however, that more “major rules,” those with an annual economic impact exceeding $100 million, were enacted in 2010 than in any year dating back to at least 1997.

Leading the GOP charge against Obama’s regulatory policies is Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who has taken much of the criticism for the dysfunction in Congress.

A U.S. News and World Report analysis noted in recent days that the "do-nothing" Congress in 1947 and 1948 passed 900 bills, while the current Congress has only approved 52.

As the House’s top Republican, Boehner has been accused of bringing to the floor a litany of bills that have no chance of passing the Democrat-controlled Senate. This week, Boehner said the lack of productivity is the upper chamber’s fault, arguing that the Senate has refused to act on more than 150 House-passed bills, including several that would tamp down on executive branch rulemaking powers.

“I would argue that the president's policies are getting in the way of our economy growing,” he told reporters. “It's why the House has passed all of these bills this year focused on getting the economy moving again.”

The stalled legislation includes measures that would give Congress more power to block the most costly rules and require agencies to conduct more analysis about the costs of regulations before enacting them.

Democrats frequently note that many of the regulations assailed by Republicans are expressly required by statute. Agencies, they argue, cannot simply ignore their obligation to implement, for instance, hundreds of rules required by the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law.

Still, Republicans say their efforts can help shape public opinions and, ultimately, the contours of the laws.

Over the last two months, House committees held a dozen hearings probing various aspects of the healthcare law, with the scrutiny ranging from rules about the controversial employer mandate to the troubled ObamaCare website.

Merely highlighting problems with the law has been a focus for Republicans, the lawmakers said.

“We have finally broken through to the American people that the Affordable Care Act is not going to live up to all the promises,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said.

“Just providing transparency and facts for the American people so they can make up their own minds,” he added. “That’s not as fun as passing positive legislation, but in a democracy, that can be an important function.”

Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) said that that effort is starting to convince Democrats about flaws in the law.

“Now I think you’re finally hearing that in regards to the healthcare law and in regard to so much of the other regulatory environment,” he said. “At some point I think the left, whether they want or not, is having to admit reality.”

Democrats denied that the campaign is having any substantive effect on key Obama administration regulatory undertakings.

Lawmakers have not been able to significantly blunt workplace safety, environmental or healthcare regulations, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said.

“Those regulations are still in the books,” he said.

“What it’s really been is it’s been an effort to undo that failed. Everything is still in.”

In the face of overwhelming evidence that setting a “minimum wage” higher than the economic conditions dictate, results only in INCREASED unemployment rates, the “egalitarians” still persist. The TRUE “minimum wage” should be $0.00 per hour, an internship in preparation for real work experience. Of course, there should be SOME incentive to show up each day, which is why starting wages are comparatively low as compared to a person with some experience and working knowledge of the job being offered. If the worker does well, the wages go up. Simple as that.

Now, as to the effect of setting a minimum wage that is higher than the economic benefit that the worker is supposed to provide to the owner or management of any enterprise. The position is abolished, as it is not economically beneficial to the employer. Thus, a job slot disappears. An experienced worker is offered overtime at time-and-a-half or double-time, as the productivity, even at the higher hourly wage for excess hours, is greater than that produced by the excessive minimum wage paid to the less experienced new hire.

Productivity is what FUNDS any wage base the employer provides to employees. Low productivity means low wages, the part of the equation that cannot seem to penetrate the consciousness of those who demand a “living” wage for what is menial work.

Automation in the work place is much enhanced by the introduction of technology, which multiplies the productivity of the individual worker, thus justifying the higher wage, but to try to revert to using two or a multitude of employees to do the same job without the technology, is to vastly reduce the productivity of each employee. That is why backhoes and bulldozers have pretty largely displaced whole armies of ditch-diggers on construction jobs, and assembly robots have displaced single-task employees on assembly lines. It would be impossible today to produce an automobile with the techniques used in 1955 - the very basis of the engineering has evolved far beyond that level.

Jobs become obsolete. The job one was hired for only three years ago has mutated and transformed as the work experience undergone on the personal basis has provided both greater expertise, and improving technology has multiplied and expanded the original parameters of the employment slot. Would anyone, for example, work with a computer with a DOS 3.1 operating system, without a graphic interface, if Windows 8 is available? The government might, but that is only because they wanted to be “cheap”, while the lost productivity in no way makes up for the money saved by the lesser purchase of the technology in the first place.

And for a “minimum wage” set higher than the market value of that employment slot, what does this say to the worker who is already working at that wage level, if the what he thought was a premium wage now becomes the “minimum”? This kind of thing can lead to erectile dysfunction, as the formerly well-paid and exalted worker, who had been applauded with cash, is now reduced to drone status.

Low morale among the work force leads to overall lowered productivity, and in the end is self-defeating. An enterprise is either earning its keep, or it ceases operation. In a sane world, that is.

Now, by artificially skewing the market, with a subsidized demand, or by offering product at less than cost of production, an enterprise may APPEAR profitable, but sooner or later, real economics is going to catch up with the fraudulent manipulation. What we are seeing today is an almost perfect storm of declining production and disappointed expectations, with a willful ignorance of the real means of righting the situation. The “gatekeepers” of the status quo shall almost certainly be under ever greater pressure and eventually shall be overwhelmed, at whatever cost it may require, to restore the free flow of exchanges for goods and services through known and trusted means.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.