Senate Defeats Minimum Wage Increase

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=5&u=/ap/20050308/ap_on_go_co/minimum_wage

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

apparently republicans in the senate feel that $5.15 an hour is quite a fair wage

for those non-americans who dont know. $5.15 is almost enough to get you a value meal at mcdonalds. somehow this is believed to be a livable wage.

Your sig is making me hungry.

Speaking of McDonald's, for $4.28 (with 7% sales tax) you can get 1 McChicken, 1 Double Cheeseburger, and 2 Medium Fries.

Because of idiots, they have taken away the Super-Sized portion of french fries, so now I have to get 2 mediums. Still, it's the best deal around.

I did research on minimum wage for something for my economics class last year, and working a fulltime job at minimum wage puts you below the poverty level in the US.

Luckily America is the land of opportunity and you can get three jobs to try to house and feed your family.

oh who can forget that!!!

allow me to quote:

DUBYA: Mary is with us. Mary Mornin. How are you, Mary?
MS. MORNIN: I'm fine.
DUBYA: Good. Okay, Mary, tell us about yourself.
MS. MORNIN: Okay, I'm a divorced, single mother with three grown, adult children. I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters.
. . .
DUBYA: There's a certain comfort to know that the promises made will be kept by the government.
MS. MORNIN: Yes.
DUBYA: And so thank you for asking that. You don't have to worry.
MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.
DUBYA: You work three jobs?
MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.
DUBYA: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. Get any sleep?

-- Dubya takes pride in the fact that in America, this woman has to work three jobs to stay afloat, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005 www.dubyaspeak.com

What a complete fidiot. I can't believe that the press didn't roast him over that one.

Although it has nothing to do with the subject I had to post another great Bush quote:

"We want democracy in Lebanon to succeed. And we know it cannot succeed so long as she is occupied by a foreign power"

Does anyone see the irony of him saying that?

yeah, ehh dubya what about Iraq then?????????????

anyone with an i.q. in the double digits could see that...

...so naturally many here wont see it

Oh, the irony...

This new bill really didn't have much of a chance with the Republican majority within the Senate, and has seen limitations ever since the last increase in 1997. And it was noted that it was basically within party lines that this bill was downvoted, by a mere three votes; and as with Senator Byrd's new outcry, maybe the minority here have a reason why they are voting for such a bill, and such a huge minority that is, you simply cannot dismiss that they make a great case on why minimum wage needs to increase. It is also quite alarming that now the divide is increasing, the middle class is now missing, as they are now included with the poor.

President Bush certainly wants to be known for a crusade, but sadly 90 percent of Americans will know that that crusade was against them, the poor. With Chapter 7 also under the gun, it is now the middle class who is very much in red alert. Clearly the only compassion President Bush has is for his own kin, namely, the five percent who earns what he earns.

I am on the side of increasing Minimum wage.

But I think it is only fair to put the Republican position in perspective, especially when people are throwing out insults about IQs. People should analyse and understand first.

First of all, Mimimum Wage isn;t meant to be about minimum living standard. If people are doing 40hours/week 52weeks/year work on Minimum Wage, that is a seperate scandal in of itself. The solution to that is NOT to raise the minimum wage, it is to make sure more opportunities exist to work at something ABOVE the minimum level.

Minimum wage is there to stop abusive payment to people doing relatively minor jobs for extra money, not to bring a country out of poverty, because it doesn't work like that.

Secondly, the Republicans are not saying that the current wage is good. Look at what they sayd. First of all, they are happy with an increase- they are just not in agreement about the size. Then furthermore, their position is not that the wage should stay low, their positon is that wages should be increased by application of market forces, rather than enforcing a high minium rate which will lead to a lack of competitivity and, therefore, job losses.

Fact is, it is easy to demonsise evil Republicans for opposing Minimum Wage because they want peoplke to reamin poor- but it is not so. As far as they are concerned, THEIR way is the way that will give people more and better paid jobs. They think high Minimum Wage will hamper that.

The same objection was raised to the creation of a (relatively high) minimum wage in the UK, that it would simply lead to less jobs. It must be said, that since its introduction, it has do e well, has not impaired the economy, and former Toery opposition to the scheme has been quietly shelved. it has done well and the fears proved to be groundless.

The US is not the same as the UK, but I see no reason for the situation to be different there.

Therefore, I believe the Republican position to be incorrect and not borne out by available facts, hence the Democrat plan is the better one.

But I don't think they are wrong out of malice and greed. I think they just have the wrong idea about how to do it, is all.

I am on the side of increasing Minimum wage.

But I think it is only fair to put the Republican position in perspective, especially when people are throwing out insults about IQs. People should analyse and understand first.

First of all, Mimimum Wage isn't meant to be about minimum living standard. If people are doing 40hours/week 52weeks/year work on Minimum Wage, that is a seperate scandal in of itself. The solution to that is NOT to raise the minimum wage, it is to make sure more opportunities exist to work at something ABOVE the minimum level.

Minimum wage is there to stop abusive payment to people doing relatively minor jobs for extra money, not to bring a country out of poverty, because it doesn't work like that. To put it simply, whatever the Minimum Wage level is, the primary earner in a household should be considerably above it.

Secondly, the Republicans are not saying that the current wage is good. Look at what they sayd. First of all, they are happy with an increase- they are just not in agreement about the size. Then furthermore, their position is not that the wage should stay low, their positon is that wages should be increased by application of market forces, rather than enforcing a high minium rate which will lead to a lack of competitivity and, therefore, job losses.

Fact is, it is easy to demonsise evil Republicans for opposing Minimum Wage because they want peoplke to reamin poor- but it is not so. As far as they are concerned, THEIR way is the way that will give people more and better paid jobs. They think high Minimum Wage will hamper that.

The same objection was raised to the creation of a (relatively high) minimum wage in the UK, that it would simply lead to less jobs. It must be said, that since its introduction, it has do e well, has not impaired the economy, and former Toery opposition to the scheme has been quietly shelved. it has done well and the fears proved to be groundless.

The US is not the same as the UK, but I see no reason for the situation to be different there.

Therefore, I believe the Republican position to be incorrect and not borne out by available facts, hence the Democrat plan is the better one.

But I don't think they are wrong out of malice and greed. I think they just have the wrong idea about how to do it, is all.

hit the wrong button did ya?
its the one on the left that says 'edit' 😛

and my i.q. comment was in reference to those who might not see the irony in this statement from dubya:
"We want democracy in Lebanon to succeed. And we know it cannot succeed so long as she is occupied by a foreign power"
however its totally off topic so i can understand the mix up

I disagree. Although the Republican Party did put another option on the table, they have significantly been the single blockage to another increase to the minimum wage, as the last increase has been almost a decade ago. Let us remember, even with such fears that of job loss and less competition for better paying jobs, that on the last increase in '97, such examples did not even occur, and only in actually it put more pressure on the jobs that paid $1 more, which is the great benefit of the increase. Job loss has only seen an increase when this Administration has been voted in back in 2000, and has seen the biggest net of job loss in decades.

So while they put in the rhetoric, the results prove otherwise. If they truly supported the notion that this wage is quite preposterous, then there is absolutely no explanation to the constant blocks with every proposal put down infront of them, even with the success of the '97 increase.

But their blocks are for the reason I put above. There isn't any nefarious reason behind it, simply a difference in opinion over how to best benefit the economy.

so would the solution be to create a seperate minimun wage for FULL time workers? seems like a simple and effective solution. 40 or more hours a week and you are entitled to a higher wage right?

well, im just gonna go ahead and prove myelf wrong, as this would just make companies take advantage by hiring only part time workers, even going so far as hiring for 35 hours a week or so, just enough to ride you, yet just below the payout level.

the thing is, the solid fact in america is, minimum wage is not some rarely met salary. companies here are greedy and will always pay out as little as possible for as long as possible (indefinately). i just think its crime.

but i dont just blame the republicans, i blame the whole lot those pricks.
it takes them about 1 hour a year to come to a vote to raise their own wages...NO PROBLEM THERE...but when it comes to 'the people' they allow themselves to be hung up on technicality after technicality, debating economics while families remain in poverty. btw, the minimum wage has been the same for about 15 years. FIFTEEN YEARS

All I can say is that those who vote against raising of the minimum wage should be ashamed. Shame Senate, shame.

well, as they say--

the opposite of pro is con

so the opposite of progress is ___________.