Unfortunately, on the national level, there is not a "single subject rule" in the Federal Constitution, meaning that politicians can stuff many different subjects into a single bill. At the state level, many states do have a single subject rule in their state constitutions, so state legislators can only have bills address a single subject or the bill is deemed unconstitutional and therefore, unenforceable. For this reason, I think that the minimum wage crisis would be best addressed on the state level. Politicans couldn't engage in "log rolling" and it would address each state's needs better (some states need larger min. wage increases than others).
2006-07-30 15:48:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by Princess 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's the nature of politics in a democracy. Without this kind of logrolling, very little would get done.
If the Republicans are against a minimum wage increase, it only makes sense that they will ask for something in return for its passage. Are they just supposed to be polite and let the other side have what they want?
You seem to be upset by the deal, but I have a hard time seeing why. The estate tax is of little importance, amounting to only some 2 or 3% of Federal revenue. It's very little to ask for something as major as a minimum wage increase.
2006-07-30 16:10:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by timm1776 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lancelot is right on the money.
There are serious issues with a rise in the minimum wage. It prices people out of the labor market and companies higher less and less labor as a result of the increase. In fact, most of the companies that are relying on minimum wage payments are "mom and pop businesses" - small, typically family owned companies which don't have millions in capital to begin with. The minimum wage severely hurts them. Thus, conservatives would like small business tax breaks in order to help pay for the increase in the minimum wage.
Secondly, this bill is political suicide for anyone who votes against it. Why even bother, regardless of other provisions attached? It's not like there are earmarks for pork barrel spending in the bill; the other provisions are tax cuts! Tax cuts are ALWAYS a good thing. Remember: Governmental revenues do not increase because of tax increases, but because spending decreases. The additional provisions in this bill are important and benefits everyone, not "just the rich" like the Democrats are using in their talking points in opposition to the bill. It's sad to see Democrats opposing an increase in the minimum wage when tax cuts are attached, they are supposed to be compassionate. I guess "compassionate conservatism" lives.
2006-07-30 16:06:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by TakingStock 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well since it is suppose to be a question, you should not need for "any comments". All bills have stupid attachments - depending on who sponsored the other side adds the attachment bills.
This bill will only help the teenagers - few adults work for minimum wage. If employers have to pay part time teenagers more money, they will pay adults with families less. Who do you want to make the money? My state just passed a bill to increase our minimum wage & many raises for adults were canceled.
2006-07-30 15:53:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Wolfpacker 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
If the people in our government ever got their heads out of each other's butts and started doing what we paid them to do, they would pass a constitutional amendment which would require every bill to be about a single topic, and allow no riders. Then people would vote based upon the bill alone.
Lance - you obviously don't have aminimum wage job, trying to make enough to survive, or you wouldn't have that attitude. In the sevice economy we are approaching, after the good jobs get outsourced, only minimum wage jobs are left.
2006-07-30 15:48:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by ceprn 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have MAJOR issues with the rise of minimum wages.
1. Prices of EVERYTHING goes up to meet the new cost of labor.
2. Unless you are Union, your normal wages do not go up. My wages would be effectivly lowered because of the rise in minimum.
3. It does not help anyone at all get ahead in life. Minimum wage earners are generally starter jobs and not designed for family wage earners.
4. It ONLY helps the Union workers and politicians. It does not help the average workers at all!
2006-07-30 15:48:14
·
answer #6
·
answered by lancelot682005 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jane, you ignorant slut.
Back when the minimum wage was $3.35, you could go out to eat, get full, and only spend about $20 for a family of four. Today, with the minimum wage of $5.25,that same evening out costs closer to $30. With a minimum wage of $7.25, it will cost more than $40.
Raising the minimum wage results in inflation, which plays into the Democrats' hands. We currently have only a 3% inflation rate, which is pretty much average over the decades of its being measured. This low inflation rate is surprising considering the skyrocketing price of crude oil and other fuel costs over the last 2-3 years. The Democrats are in a desperate search for a avenue to use to retake control of the House and Senate, and since the ongoing war against terror hasn't been the pariah for the current administration that the Democrats had hoped, they are turning to their next-best alternative: raising the minimum wage.
Raising the minumum wage puts money in the Democratic Party's voter base: mothers, minorities, and young voters, all of which statistically tend to turn out in numbers at the polls come election time. So in effect, the Democrats will be buying their votes. The Republicans see through this ploy and, trying to minimize the damage to their own faithful voters, they are looking to cushion the blow of the extra expense of increased wages, payroll taxes, and unemployment taxes (I'll address this in a minute), the GOP leadership is looking to tack on tax cuts for their voter base.
How does raising the minimum wage increase payroll taxes and unemployment taxes? An employer pays a 7.65% surcharge to Social Security for the wages he pays his employees. Raising the minimum wage by $2 raises that employer's actual wage cost by $2.153. The employers who can least afford to raise their wages (the ones who can't afford to pay more than minimum to start with) are forced to shell out another $2.15 an hour for the help they couldn't afford in the first place. This added expense will cause some employers to go broke, locking their doors and laying off/firing their employees. Employers that are able to stay in business will look to keep their labor cost at the same percentage. If the amount of per/hour wages paid out goes up due to the rise in minimum wage, then the number of hours worked by the employees will go down, in order to keep that labor cost ratio constant. So, fulltime employees will become part-timers, part-timers will see their hours cut more, and the bottom of the food chain will find themselves at the unemployment line.
When these laid off/fired employees start collecting unemployment, their former employers will see their unemployment taxes increase, since this tax is based on the number of claims against each employer in the last year. In the 80s when the minimum wage went up, temporary labor agencies sprang up to offer cheap labor to employers who were reluctant to hire more workers only to lay them off again. Now temp agencies are more prevalent than ever, with some being used exclusively instead of hiring new employees. What will the result of another minimum wage hike be to the already weakened plight of the American worker? The unions will offer to step in and represent the American workers, organizing them into more collective bargaining units. Unions historically ally themselves with the Democratic Party, which is more than happy to accept their political "donations" (read as "graft"), thereby strengthening its power in government.
Is it any wonder that the Republican Party is looking to make raising the minimum wage just as costly for the Democrats as it will be for the Republicans?
2006-07-30 17:13:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by jogimo2 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
As I answered to a similar question earlier:
It's very convenient for the retardlicans to do this. See, they get what they want both ways. they force the dems to vote to repeal the inheritance tax. OR if the don't vote for it, then the retardlicans can say "well we tried to raise minimum wage BUT the dem's just wouldn't vote for it.". They win no matter which way the vote goes.
2006-07-30 15:48:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by politicallypuzzeled 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
i might propose a temp employer. they gained't care while you're basically unfastened for the summer season because of the fact all the roles are non everlasting besides. this way you will get right into an excellent business enterprise and get place of work adventure. in spite of the shown fact that, once you placed it on your resume, you're able to desire to renowned which you certainly worked for the temp employer. yet once you get located at a celebrity business enterprise certainly point out the place you have been located on the resume. stable success!
2016-12-11 03:17:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Move to Canada, minimum wage in Ontario is $7.75 and it's going higher soon! I love this hippy country!
2006-07-30 15:47:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by reza h 2
·
0⤊
0⤋