Republicans Vote Down Minimum Wage Increase

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Hasn't been raised since 96'. Their plan also called for eliminating more OT benefits.....

--------------------------
Senate Defeats Minimum Wage Increase
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON - The Senate defeated dueling proposals Monday to raise the $5.15-an-hour minimum wage — one backed by organized labor, the other salted with pro-business provisions — in a day of skirmishing that reflected Republican gains in last fall's elections.

Both plans fell well short of the 60 votes needed to advance, and signaled that prospects for raising the federal wage floor, unchanged since 1996, are remote during the current two-year Congress.

"I believe that anyone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year should not live in poverty in the richest country in the world," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., arguing for the Democratic proposal to increase the minimum wage by $2.10 over the next 26 months.

Republicans countered with a smaller increase, $1.10 in two steps over 18 months, they said would help workers without hampering the creation of jobs needed to help those with low skills. "Wages do not cause sales. Sales are needed to provide wages. Wages do not cause revenue. Revenue drives wages," said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.

The Democratic amendment was defeated, with 46 votes for and 49 against. The GOP alternative fell by a wider margin, 38 for and 61 against.

While the outcome was never in doubt, Democrats said in advance they hoped to use the issue to increases chances for passage of state minimum wage initiatives in 2006, as well as to highlight differences with Republicans who will be on the ballot next year.

Kennedy accused Republicans of advancing a "deeper poverty agenda" for the poor by including several provisions to cut long-standing wage and overtime protections for millions of Americans. He took particular aim at Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., a conservative who is atop the Democratic target list for 2006 and the lead supporter of the GOP minimum wage alternative.

"The senator from Pennsylvania has a record of opposing increases in the minimum wage," Kennedy said. "He has voted against it at least 17 times in the last 10 years."

"I have not had any ideological problem with the minimum wage, " Santorum responded, adding he voted for the last increase to clear Congress, in 1996. He said the other elements of the GOP plan were designed to help small businesses and give workers more flexibility in their work schedule, and not, as Kennedy said, weaken their rights.

Democrats sought minimum wage increases in three steps of 70 cents each, to $7.25. Republicans countered with raises in two steps of 55 cents apiece, to $6.25, as well as several pro-business provisions.

These include an option for employees to work up to 80 hours over two weeks without qualifying for overtime pay; a provision restricting the ability of states to raise the minimum wage for restaurant employees; and waiving wage and overtime rules for workers in some small businesses now covered.

The clash unfolded as part of a debate over business-backed legislation to overhaul the nation's bankruptcy laws.

The overall measure enjoys bipartisan support, although no vote on passage will occur until the Senate settled the minimum wage dispute and resolved companion controversy over allowing protesters at abortion clinics and other sites to avoid paying court fines by entering bankruptcy.

Republican aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they had the votes to prevail on that showdown, as well, and send the measure to the House later in the week. "It's an uphill fight but it's not over," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., author of the proposal.

Democrats conceded in advance they were certain to lose the minimum wage vote, particularly given the Republicans' four-seat gain in last fall's elections.

At the same time, they said they hoped to raise the issue to increases chances for passage of state minimum wage initiatives in 2006, as well as to highlight differences with Republicans who will be on the ballot next year.

Santorum was chief among them, the third-ranking member of the GOP leadership and an outspoken conservative. Democrats and Republicans alike said his decision to be the public spokesman for the Republican alternative reflected the potential significance of the issue.

At the same time, the Republicans' decision to allow a vote reflected their confidence that they could prevail. The GOP majority maneuvered successfully in the past two years to block votes on the issue, when Democrats might have won.

"When you raise the minimum wage you are pricing some workers out of the market," said Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H. "It is an economic fact, and the proponents of raising the minimum wage like to dismiss this by saying we have a hard time measuring it and the economy is large."

Countered Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record), D-Iowa: "This is a values issue. This is at the heart of what kind of country we want."

While Democrats sought only an increase in the minimum wage with their proposal, Republicans expanded theirs to include business regulatory relief as well as tax breaks totaling $4.2 billion, most of it directed toward the restaurant industry.

Forty-one Democrats, four Republicans and one independent voted for the Democratic proposal. All the votes in opposition were cast by Republicans.

All 38 votes in favor of the GOP proposal were cast by Republicans. Opposed were 43 Democrats, one independent and 17 Republicans.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...o/minimum_wage

[MLB]

That should make Wal-Mart rejoice.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Republicans Vote Down Minimum Wage Increase

Now that's a shocker!

Who woulda thunk?

[MLB]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Now that's a shocker!

Who woulda thunk?

The same people who think labor unions have outlived their usefulness.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by MLB

The same people who think labor unions have outlived their usefulness.

Yep - that would include just about every repub I've ever heard.

[enjolras]

I beleive labor unions have outlived their usefullness..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by MLB

That should make Wal-Mart rejoice.

As soon as they're finished rejoicing over the sweetheart deal they just got as "punishment" for violating child labor laws, that is.

[Spider]

Unions are good , but like anything else they can get to big ,and corrupt .......
What this country needs is more unions

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by enjolras

I beleive labor unions have outlived their usefullness..

I still find my union very usefull.

[Spider]

I had a long post potsed about what Teamsters have Done , But dont want ot type it all out again , but Next time you are in the Big road ( interstate ) and you see a large Car ( Fast moving 18 wheeler ) Just be thankfull for teamsters , cause you have no Idea how close to death you could be .. if it wernt for what Teamsters have done ......

[Spider]

Part that is so funny about this is , I have yet to see one Politian to turn down a raise for themselfs ....... I wish they put it to a Public vote for their Pay hikes ....... Payback is a Biatch .......

[alkemical]

You know what, the voting them selves a pay raise is cause for a revolt in it's own right.

I asked for a raise the other day, and they said since i didn't like my hours (i work a sort of swing shift) i don't need a raise.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Anti-worker initiatives just keep on coming

http://www.suntimes.com/output/orour...t-rour131.html

Foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but it certainly is a hallmark of the Bush administration. Conveniently, the White House's Social Security push acts as a smokescreen behind which smaller anti-worker legislative initiatives go through unimpeded. The latest example is the minimum-wage bill defeat, side by side with the retooled punitive bankruptcy bill that appears destined to pass.

The domestic price of a Bush second term was always going to be high, and many who will pay the price of Bush's continued concern for the well-off, and his disdain for those who can't quite make it, voted against their own self-interest -- in the name of supporting our military in Iraq.

One amendment that went down for defeat in the bankruptcy bill was exemptions favoring veterans or active-duty soldiers. The entire bill was crafted on behalf of the predatory credit card industry, which brought usury back into favor. But that isn't out of the ordinary in the Bush administration, where every department and agency is staffed by former employees of the industries they are meant to oversee and police.

Bush cheats those he owes

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o...05/031305.html

President Bush didn't campaign on a promise to make it harder for average Americans to regain their financial footing after filing for bankruptcy. Even if he had, he probably would have been re-elected anyway.

Most Americans haven't noticed the president's relentless assault on programs and policies that protect the middle-class against the caprice of the marketplace. If average Americans are living with a higher degree of financial anxiety, they blame outsourcing or high taxes or illegal Mexican immigrants. They haven't recognized that the Republicans have middle America in their cross hairs and that Bush has given the order to fire.

The war on working- and middle-class America continued apace last week when a piece of legislation favored by bankers and credit card companies — and pushed by the president — passed in the U.S. Senate. The new bankruptcy bill would make it harder for middle-income individuals to file under Chapter 7, which usually allows some debt-forgiveness. Under the new law, individuals (with some exceptions) have to keep working to pay off their debts, even if it takes several years.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

"I believe that anyone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year should not live in poverty in the richest country in the world," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.,

So give some of your millions to these hardworking folks, Ted - cut back on your spending on booze, for a start.

I don't recall Kennedy ever working 40 X 52 in his entire life. He's been a political parasite since day one.

[orangenblue2]

Originally Posted by W*GS

So give some of your millions to these hardworking folks, Ted - cut back on your spending on booze, for a start.

I don't recall Kennedy ever working 40 X 52 in his entire life. He's been a political parasite since day one.

Good attempt at a slam. I'm not sure what Ted's boozing has to do with this thread.
You miss the whole point. Ted is a millionaire many times over. So what? The difference with Ted is that in spite of his $$$, he still tries to help the everyday, average working people. Geez, he's a real ass isn't he?

[REB]

Whatever these politicians set the min. wage at is what they should make. You'd see it raised quite nicely then. Of course that'll never happen. They like to wait till about midnight when not many people are up watching c-span and then vote themselves pay raises. Convenient isn't it?

REB

1-2-3-BRONCOS!!!!!!!

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by orangenblue2

Good attempt at a slam. I'm not sure what Ted's boozing has to do with this thread.

The money he's spent over the years on his alcoholism would do wonders if he had given it to poor people instead.

Originally Posted by orangenblue2

You miss the whole point. Ted is a millionaire many times over. So what? The difference with Ted is that in spite of his $$$, he still tries to help the everyday, average working people. Geez, he's a real ass isn't he?

A politician's "help" is about the last thing "average working people" need.

In all those years, how many times has he supported raising the taxes we pay? How many times has he supported regulations that make the things we buy and the services we use more expensive? How many times has he supported rules that make employers less likely to hire people?

The best thing a politician can do to help us is get the hell out of the way.

[alkemical]

We talk about a min. wage -

what about a maximum wage?

[enjolras]

what about a maximum wage?

Who the hell does that help?

[bronco_diesel]

Originally Posted by enjolras

Who the hell does that help?

everyone.

if we raise min wage, what really is the gain? companies will pass the additional cost burden onto the consumer. benefits will be cut and products will increase in cost to absorb the new cost- it's a continual circle.

as a result, over the years, the US is losing out to work overseas - our workers have become too expensive to employ to keep competative in the world market.

raising income levels in a market that we are losing jobs because of cost to employ, doesn't make a lot of sense.

min wage may need to go up, but everyon else should go down. we are becoming too expensive for our own good.

[alkemical]

Say for instance, a CEO can ONLY make a ceiling of $5mil a year. Instead of $14mil a year....

the costs should be passed on through the company.

[shakenbake]

I actully think they need to rasie the min wage. My reasoning is a little differnt though. there are people who actully make more money on welfare than they would be working full-time at min wage. It would give these people a little more incentive to work. I think 2.10 is a little much 1 dollar sounds about right. You have to remember Walmart wouldn't be the ones taking a big hit if the min wage was raised I think thier national average for starting salary is around $6.25 its small buisness owners who have to compete with the walmarts of the world that it would really hurt.

[Spider]

Here is the problem , Fuel Prices are sky high , so therefore the trucking companies raise their Rates to cover the cost , and in turn the stores raise their prices to cover their cost , and we the consumer are stuck with the bill , so not only are we paying at the Pumps , we will be paying more at the cash register , meanwhile Minium wage is staying right where it is ...... somthing has to give .......

[shakenbake]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Here is the problem , Fuel Prices are sky high , so therefore the trucking companies raise their Rates to cover the cost , and in turn the stores raise their prices to cover their cost , and we the consumer are stuck with the bill , so not only are we paying at the Pumps , we will be paying more at the cash register , meanwhile Minium wage is staying right where it is ...... somthing has to give .......

Why so the producers can just pass that extra 2.10 an hour down to the consumers ? you aready pointed out they simply pass on higher cost to consumers so why wouldn't they just pass on the additonal cost of a min wage increase on to the consumers ?

[bronco_diesel]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Here is the problem , Fuel Prices are sky high , so therefore the trucking companies raise their Rates to cover the cost , and in turn the stores raise their prices to cover their cost , and we the consumer are stuck with the bill , so not only are we paying at the Pumps , we will be paying more at the cash register , meanwhile Minium wage is staying right where it is ...... somthing has to give .......

i agree that something has to give...but raising min wage will only increase to this circle - it will go back to the consumer thus when it comes full circle again, the issue is not fixed. min wagers will still struggle to buy their gas and food etc.

what needs to happen is gov't need to stop raping people with many obsurd taxes.