House slates vote on raising minimum wage (bowing to moderates, seeking to defuse campaign issue)

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.

I'll admit to not being a history expert, but my assumption would be that 100 years ago, what was taking place was an improvement over 100 earlier? Hmmm...150 years ago men owed other men for their profit (no face to face negotiations then) 100 years ago the industrial revolution, some would argue the conditions of workers were much worse than that of the slaves, save the freedom to walk away and starve with your family.

Our society is steadily increasing in education, (some would doubt this ;))productivity, and the ability to move from one class to the next. The idea that removing a wage law would suddenly reduce all but the upper echelon the chattel seems simplistic and shows little respect for the adaptability of educated people in large numbers.

Here you are liberal and I the conservative. The nature of man is what it is, education will not make men good nor will it inspire them to do good to others. We are what we are either in century or any other. Think of the well educated Germans daily watching Jews being worked to death down the block.

It sounds as if you feel that only the greedy and the cutthroat are capable of being an employer. Every scenario you have presented supposes that the man offering employment is bad, and the man seeking a job is good

Well then I have done a poor job of explaining myself, they are the same in my view, good and evil mixed.

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.

I know good men and women in business, who do indeed take seriously their responsibility to others. But it is law/government we need to insure all will do what is morally right. Many business men reward themselves well for their hard work and risk taking, but they also see that their employees have a living wage. There were many men who would not own slaves, the great John Adams comes first to mind, but it took, well you know all that it took, to keep all men from owning slaves.

Let this be the end of it as we have been round the ship in full.

Nobody had to work. Or more exactly, nobody was required to take a job with any company.

But if there were a lot more workers available than jobs, and those workers were willing to work for slave wages, then of course we want government to protect them from their own stupidity, right? "No, you can't possibly really WANT to work for $5.15 an hour, even if you are happily doing so now, so we'll make sure you get more money than you are worth."

wage laws - because that is where the floor is set and thus jobs worth more than the floor pay more than the floor..

Are you seriously claiming that if the minimum wage were abolished, jobs currently paying $30,000 a year would pay less?

Now your turn...Why do the Nike workers in china only get $.13 per day....?

Because they have low productivity, and they prefer .13 a day to subsistence farming or living on the streets.

they get $.13 because that is what their over lords negotiated for them....the workers have no say in the matter...slave labor...no rights ... used by people with no conscience

And yes if suddenly there were no wage/labor laws it would not be long before you and I were making much much less....the men who pay the Chinese $.13 would just as easily pay you the same...or do you think they are just some sort of racist....who only pay slave wages to yellow people ...

That was 100 years ago. This is now. There are perfectly good laws now in existence, and rigidly enforced, which prohibit employers from exposing workers to unreasonably dangerous conditions, forcing them to work unreasonable hours, threatening or intimidating workers and engaging in numerous other unethical or exploitative business practices.

My experience in the workforce has been that most employers treat their employees with respect and fairness. I've also worked for a few ogres whom I've left in the lurch as soon as I'd realised how obnoxious they were. Companies are only as good as the people who run them and I see most people as good and decent, with a few jerks ruining the reputation of the others.

In rereading this entire thread, one thing stands out to me. There seems to be the expectation by many, that simply because there exist people who currently work hard every week just to live paycheck to paycheck, and who must live frugally, then it MUST be the responsibility of the government to pass some kind of law to remedy the situation. It doesn't matter what the law is, it doesn't matter if the law hurts ten times as many people as it helps, it doesn't even matter if the law is nonsensical on the face of it. The only thing that matters is that the government passes SOME kind of law.

The federally mandated, arbitrary minimum wage is the best example I can think of of this kind of nonsense law. All it does is artificially increase the supply of money in the economy without increasing the value of goods and services contained therein. It's the same thing as the government printing more money and handing it out to people on street corners, and the inevitable result is the price of goods and services quickly rises to overtake all of this new "wealth". Ultimately nobody benefits, but there are plenty of losers such as retirees, or those nearing retirement, who can only watch as their savings get decimated by excessive inflation, caused by "compassionate" people who just wanted the government to DO SOMETHING!

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.