Posted on 07/28/2006 9:31:35 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Bowing to moderates and seeking to defuse a campaign issue before leaving for vacation, House GOP leaders Friday planned a vote on a bill to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour within three years.
The vote comes after almost 50 rank-and-file Republican lawmakers pressed House leaders — who strongly oppose the wage hike and have thus far prevented a vote — to schedule the measure for debate. Democrats have been hammering away on the wage hike issue and have public opinion behind them
"We weren't going to be denied," said Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, a leader in the effort. "How can you defend $5.15 an hour in today's economy?"
It was a decade ago, during the hotly contested campaign year of 1996, that Congress voted to increase the minimum wage. A person working 40 hours per week at minimum wage makes $10,700, which is below the poverty line for workers with families.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said GOP leaders had yet to determine the specifics of the bill, especially what to add to it to ease the sting on small businesses and other constituencies, such as the restaurant lobby. Lawmakers were hoping to bring it up for a vote by late Friday night, but Hastert said he was not completely certain the vote would occur.
Rep. Howard McKeon (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said Thursday that GOP leaders may attach a proposal passed last year that would make it easier for small businesses and the self-employed to band together and buy health insurance plans for employees at a lower cost.
That idea was blasted as a "poison pill" by Democrats and labor unions. The small business health insurance bill exempts new "association health plans" from state regulations requiring insurers to cover treatments such as mental health and maternity care. And opponents fear they would offer inferior prescription drug benefits.
Opponents of the idea also worry that the new health plans would skim healthier workers from traditional plans, thereby increasing the costs and pressures on those plans.
"It's outrageous the Republican Congress can't simply help poor people without doing something for their wealthy contributors," said Rep. Tim Ryan (news, bio, voting record), D-Ohio.
And Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called it a "political stunt" for GOP leaders to attach the minimum wage increase to legislation that's sure to bog down in the Senate. Democrats filibustered the health plans bill in May.
"It's a political stunt to put (the minimum wage increase) on a bill they know is doomed," Pelosi said.
Democrats have made increasing the wage a pillar of their campaign platform and are pushing to raise the wage to $7.25 per hour over two years. In June, the Republican-controlled Senate refused to raise the minimum wage, rejecting a proposal from Democrats.
It's long been clear that there is wide support for the wage increase in the House, but Republican leaders have a general policy of bringing legislation to the floor only if it has support from a majority of Republicans. Perhaps one-fourth of House Republicans support the wage increase.
Inflation has eroded the minimum wage's buying power to the lowest level in about 50 years. Yet lawmakers have won cost-of-living wage increases totaling about $35,000 for themselves over that time.
Lawmakers fear being pounded with 30-second campaign ads over the August recess that would tie Congress' upcoming $3,300 pay increase with Republicans' refusal to raise the minimum wage.
the horrors that were visited on the working class are unknown to us today, all the while the "captains of industry" were amassing fortunes that staggers the imaginations and plagues us still in the form of liberal trust/endowments.
We're better off than we were in the 1890's not because of government regulation, but because of greatly increased wealth. If all labor regulations were abolished today, somebody trying to open a sweatshop with child labor in the US would have few takers, because we have so many better opportunities.
That's good to know, but not what I was getting at. You asked what determined the value, and I said the market does. A doctor is "worth" more than a toaster maker.
yes I would.
With this statement, you have in effect determined that you do not wish to enter into an employment contract with a particular individual because he/she brings little or no economic value into your business.
But by doing so, you have effective violated the Golden Rule by denying him the potential for earning a living. You have put your needs above the needs of a potential worker.
My point is, all men are NOT created equal and neither are all jobs. You would not even consider running a business where you hired every individual who walked in at the same pay rate. Forcing you to pay an arbitrary wage is no more sensible than forcing you to hire every applicant because "all workers are entitled to make a living."
Well, at least you're honest. Now how are you going to make him hire employees in the first place (or not fire them), if their productivity is less than your "living wage"?
The inflation rate where I live has gone up 25% in the last 5 years. And if you believe government reports on inflation, I have a bridge to sell you.
I think you made a wrong turn on your way to DU.
The vast majority of jobs pay more than the minimum wage. Why do you think this is?
With this statement, you have in effect determined that you do not wish to enter into an employment contract with a particular individual because he/she brings little or no economic value into your business.
Again I am not advocating communism - everyone must be hired for an equal wage.
But by doing so, you have effective violated the Golden Rule by denying him the potential for earning a living. You have put your needs above the needs of a potential worker.
My response to the man who is of no use to my company is not to hire him but I might have a charitable obligation towards him, if he is in need. When I speak of an employee I speak of one who's labor is essitential to the profit production of the business. The person you speak of is something else all together.
My point is, all men are NOT created equal Right, but they are of equal value
and neither are all jobs. Agreed, see above.
Forcing you to pay an arbitrary wage is no more sensible than forcing you to hire every applicant because "all workers are entitled to make a living." Forcing me to pay a living wage to all employees is what sepates us from slave holding states.
And might I add, if I and people like me belong at DU, then there will not be a single republican in office in six years.
I just hate when people tell me I need to read so and so, but with a grimace I suggest you look at what labor conditions were like less than 100 years ago right here.....that is not cynicism that is cold hard history... because wealthy people could they did...and then went and taught Sunday School.,p. On what will you base that men won't when we have the very clear record that they have...
The person of which I speak is the person who would be out looking for a minimum wage job. You don't want him for your business. Who does? He's going to find employement at the bottom of the barrel.
You call him, "something else all together", I call him a free man with all the opportunities afforded to any of us who live in this great country. No one should should ever be satisfied with being the lowest common denominator, but it doesn't change the fact that someone will be. No one "owes" them a living.
too bad it's the democrats' agenda.
Non sequitor. The question is why almost all jobs pay more than the legally required minimum.
and unions
Most employees aren't in a union.
and some competition for some labor
Ah, third time's the charm.
true they are not but it was the work of unions that set for all of us a standard and expectations...if not for them you would still be doing the books in the very cold, with a stub of a candle, with only Christmas day off, and little Tim would not be cover by any insurance plan
competion - glad to get one right.
Now your turn...Why do the Nike workers in china only get $.13 per day....?
but also the men I speak of will barely have bread because of the others greed
It sounds as if you feel that only the greedy and the cut-throat are capable of being an employer. Every scenario you have presented supposes that the man offering employement is bad, and the man seeking a job is good.
The presence of good men in the business world produces its own type of market force. Your wage offer will put you in competition with other businesses who seek high quality workers.
You stated that you would pay a living wage. Great. I hope you would be able to find employees worth your cost and I hope your conscience doesn't haunt you for turning men away from your high paying job offers.
Mandatory Cost of living increase over last years .11/day?
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.