posted on February 2, 2007 06:20:40 AM new
Molly Ivins: The politics of greed
Tuesday, July 11, 2006; Posted: 12:03 p.m. EDT (16:03 GMT)
AUSTIN, Texas (CREATORS) -- I don\'t get it. What\'s the percentage in keeping the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour? After nine years? This is such an unnecessary and nasty Republican move. Congress has voted seven times to raise its own wages since last the minimum wage budged. Of course, Congress always raises its own salary in the dark of night, hoping no one will notice. But now it does the same with the minimum wage, quietly killing it.
Anyone who doesn\'t think this is a country where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer needs to check the numbers -- this is Bush country, where a rising tide lifts all yachts.
According to the current issue of Mother Jones:
One in four U.S. jobs pays less than a poverty-level income.
Since 2000, the number of Americans living below the poverty line at any one time has risen steadily. Now, 13 percent -- 37 million Americans -- are officially poor.
Bush\'s tax cuts (extended until 2010) save those earning between $20,000 and $30,000 an average of $10 a year, while those making $1 million are saved $42,700.
In 2002, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, compared those who point out such statistics as the one above to Adolph Hitler (surely he meant Stalin?).
Bush has diverted $750 million to \"healthy marriages\" by shifting funds from social services, mostly childcare.
Bush has proposed cutting housing programs for low-income people with disabilities by 50 percent.
A series of related stats -- starting with the news that two out of three new jobs are in the suburbs -- shows how the poor are further disadvantaged in the job hunt by lack of public or private transportation.
Meanwhile, for those who have been following the collapse of the pension system, please note a series in The Wall Street Journal by Ellen Schultz taking a hard look at executive pension obligations:
\"Benefits for executives now account for a significant share of pension obligations in the United States, an average of 8 percent (of large companies). Sometimes a company\'s obligation for a single executive\'s pension approaches $100 million.\"
\"These liabilities are largely hidden, because corporations don\'t distinguish them from overall pension obligations in their federal financial findings.\"
\"As a result, the savings that companies make by curtailing pensions of regular retirees -- which have totaled billions of dollars in recent years -- can mask a rising cost of benefits for executives.\"
\"Executive pensions, even when they won\'t be paid until years from now, drag down the earnings today. And they do so in a way that\'s disproportionate to their size, because they aren\'t funded with dedicated assets.\"
It seems to me that we\'ve seen enough evidence over the years that the capitalist system is not going to be destroyed by an outside challenger like communism -- it will be destroyed by its own internal greed. Greed is the greatest danger as we develop an increasingly winner-take-all system. And voices like The Wall Street Journal\'s editorial page encourage this mentality by insisting that any form of regulation is bad. But for whom?
It is so discouraging to watch this country become less and less fair -- \"justice for all\" seems like an embarrassingly archaic tag. Republicans have rigged the \"lottery of life\" in this country in ways we don\'t even know about yet. The new bankruptcy law is unfair, and the new college loan rules are worse. The system has been stacked so that large corporations have an inside track over small businesses in getting government contracts. We won\'t see the full consequences of this mean and careless legislation for years, but it starting to affect us already.
posted on February 2, 2007 06:59:53 AM new
Setting a minimum wage hurts the marginal workers,workers who are not as experienced,motivated and skillful - a few examples I can think of are the recent immigrants,the welfare mother,the handicapped or the high school/college drop out.
Also the retirees who need extra income.
Comments please!
posted on February 2, 2007 07:33:50 AM new
From the OP:
""The system has been stacked so that large corporations have an inside track over small businesses in getting government contracts. ""
Looks like our administration isn't as worried about small business as they seem to be when screaming about how giving people a living wage will hurt small business.
posted on February 2, 2007 07:44:12 AM new
Let's see. First we have an opinion article.....that gives no support to her claims.....
then we have those who refuse to admit that giving a min. wage increase does NOTHING to help the poor they try to convince us they're just sooooo worried about.
IF the U.S. would ever get a handled on our illegal problem....then employers would be FORCED to pay the going 'labor' rates - not the cheap wages these illegals are willing to work for.
Until that happens, ALL WAGES are decreased because the 'market' is paying what they HAVE to pay to get the job done. NO more than that.
Get rid of the illegals and you'll see our 'poor' teenagers WILL have better incomes. It's how the market in a capitalistic economy works. Supply and demand.
posted on February 2, 2007 08:24:16 AM new
I wonder if old molly EVER wrote about the 'politics of THEFT' - the liberals taking from those who have made something of themselves and giving to those less motivated.
It's called 'income REDISTRIBUTION' and it's the democratic way. STEAL from those who have and give to those who 'want more' from them. tsk tsk tsk
=======================
Both desquirrel and I have already presented over and over how raising the min. wage HURTS our economy, our job market, etc.
When you have 1000 unskilled laborers applying for 10 jobs....of course the market is not willing to pay more.
When you have 10 CEOs who make MILLIONS/BILLIONS of dollars for their companies/stockholders/etc....BECAUSE of their expertise....which FEW have.....then they can command a much higher salary. Again...it's all supply and demand.
Don't think one who flips burgers at BK could run a multi-million/billion dollar corporation. And IF you do....then you're just nuts.
posted on February 2, 2007 08:33:50 AM new
""If the economy is booming as the neocons claim,
then why should this very slight raise in the minimum wage hurt anybody ???? """
Just because you and DUHsquirrel say something doesn't make it true
And then :"""When you have 10 CEOs who make MILLIONS/BILLIONS of dollars for their companies/stockholders/etc....BECAUSE of their expertise....which FEW have""" (well you're right there...FEW have THAT kind of expertise!)
""".....then they can command a much higher salary. Again...it's all supply and demand."""
No, it's has nothing to do with supply and demand except that CEO's can demand ridiculous wages and get them to the detriment of everyone "under" them. This has NOT helped American businesses in MANY instances.
The Republican way:
STEAL from those who have little and give to those who have the most.
posted on February 2, 2007 08:58:26 AM new
LOL.....YOUR problem is desquirrel and I are using FACTS....from a posted source. Your OPINIONS have NO support in fact.
========
Then I said: """"IF the U.S. would ever get a handled on our illegal problem""
and your IRNORANT reply was:
"Well talk to your CIC, your leader, your "decider".
LOLOLOLOLOL[i]!!!! [i]HE fell down on the job....along with everything else !
Which is another TWIST of the FACTS.
It has been the DEMOCRATS who have FOUGHT doing ANYTHING to stop the illegal problem in the job market. They OBSTRUCT each and every attempt this administration makes to actually DO something that would drastically HELP the current situation.
But NO....the liberals/dems fight it tooth and nail....and then IDIOTS like you claim they're doing nothing. PAY ATTENTION to who's doing what...you might learn something for a change.
But then again....probably not. Because even WHEN you are presented with the FACTS...you don't 'believe' them. That's YOUR closed mind.
=======
I posted a similar article when the DEMS voted DOWN penalizing employers who hired illegals. They don't want to do that.
Maybe YOU, mingo, can tell us WHY that would be...when you CLAIM, FALSELY, that it's this administrations fault when it's the DEMOCRATS that won't even allow these measures to go up for a vote.
Looks to me like they WERE FOR IT....before they were AGAINST it.
===========
Senate Democrats quashed a proposal yesterday that would have dramatically increased civil fines on employers who hire illegal aliens.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, offered the amendment to the bill now being debated that would increase the federal minimum wage.
Ridding the economy of illegal aliens, he argued, would do far more to help low-income wage earners than simply raising the minimum wage. Not only do aliens displace U.S. citizens in the work force, he said, they also artificially suppress wages.
"Our whole purpose of the minimum-wage act is to increase the wages of working Americans, particularly low-skilled workers," Mr. Sessions said. "That's a noble goal."
One of the reasons "that those salaries have lagged behind is because of a large influx of illegal immigrant labor," he said. "That is indisputable, and it's not been discussed much here. People apparently don't want to talk about it, but we're going to talk about it."
But Democratic leaders refused to let Mr. Sessions' alien amendment reach the Senate floor yesterday, and they accused him and other Republicans of offering amendments unrelated to the minimum-wage increase in order to stall passage of the bill.
Some 60 amendments have been offered, and today marks the fifth day of debate on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour from $5.15 per hour over two years.
"Amendment here. Amendment there," thundered Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
"Amendment on Social Security. Amendment on immigration. And all the chortling and laughing as they go on about their business," he boomed.
Republicans are "not for those millions of Americans who are heading home tonight, who've worked long and hard, facing their children hoping that at last ... the United States isn't going to fail us," he said. "What do we tell them after five days?"
After accusing Republicans of stalling, Mr. Kennedy then proceeded to read aloud for five minutes a story in the New York Times about soldiers fighting in Iraq.
[linda's note - That good ol' liberal DOUBLE STANDARD once again]
Mr. Sessions said his amendment is not a delaying tactic and isn't unrelated to the overall minimum-wage bill. His provision, he said, gets at the very reason a minimum-wage increase is needed in the first place. He calls his amendment "comprehensive wage reform," a sly reference to the "comprehensive" approach to immigration reform that Democrats and President Bush are demanding, but most Republicans deride as amnesty.
page two =
Mr. Sessions' proposal came directly out of the employer-sanctions section of the immigration-reform bill approved with overwhelming Democratic support last year.
It would raise the minimum fine on employers from $250 per hired alien to $5,000 per alien.
And it would raise the maximum fine from $10,000 per alien to $40,000 per alien.
Though Democrats turned back Mr. Sessions' employer-sanctions amendment, they allowed through a second Sessions amendment aimed at federal government contractors who are caught hiring illegal aliens.
He ticked off a half-dozen recent examples of federal contractors using illegal aliens, even in the most sensitive of positions.
"It's astounding how widespread this problem is," Mr. Sessions said. "In one alarming incident, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was caught allowing illegal aliens who obtained documentation by using fake Social Security numbers to work as contract painters at nuclear facilities."
Under the amendment that Democrats allowed last night, any government contractor caught using illegal labor would be prohibited from future government contracts for ten years. It was approved on a 94-0 vote.
posted on February 2, 2007 09:24:12 AM new
HahahaHeeHee!
"" Linda_K
posted on February 2, 2007 08:58:26 AM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL.....YOUR problem is desquirrel and I are using FACTS....from a posted source. Your OPINIONS have NO support in fact.
========
Then I said: """"IF the U.S. would ever get a handled on our illegal problem""
and your
IRNORANT (IRNORANT ? WHO'S IRNORANT ?)
reply was:
"Well talk to your CIC, your leader, your "decider".
LOLOLOLOLOL[i]!!!! [i]HE fell down on the job....along with everything else !
Which is another TWIST of the FACTS.
It has been the DEMOCRATS who have FOUGHT doing ANYTHING to stop the illegal problem in the job market. They OBSTRUCT each and every attempt this administration makes to actually DO something that would drastically HELP the current situation.
But NO....the liberals/dems fight it tooth and nail....and then IDIOTS like you claim they're doing nothing. PAY ATTENTION to who's doing what...you might learn something for a change. """
Oh, but linduh, isn't your bushgod the "decider", the CIC, the one in power ????? If he wants something doesn't he just demand it???
HE, according to YOU, has all the power !
HE cut funding for border patrol .....
""""But Democratic leaders refused to let Mr. Sessions' alien amendment reach the Senate floor yesterday, and they accused him and other Republicans of offering amendments unrelated to the minimum-wage increase in order to stall passage of the bill. """
Obstructionist Repugs!
AND: The Democrat are cleaning up the sloppy rep housekeeping and outright corruption of the bush administration...thank you for including that in your post :
"""Though Democrats turned back Mr. Sessions' employer-sanctions amendment, they allowed through a second Sessions amendment aimed at federal government contractors who are caught hiring illegal aliens.
He ticked off a half-dozen recent examples of federal contractors using illegal aliens, even in the most sensitive of positions.
"It's astounding how widespread this problem is," Mr. Sessions said. "In one alarming incident, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was caught allowing illegal aliens who obtained documentation by using fake Social Security numbers to work as contract painters at nuclear facilities."
Under the amendment that Democrats allowed last night, any government contractor caught using illegal labor would be prohibited from future government contracts for ten years. It was approved on a 94-0 vote. """"
posted on February 2, 2007 09:42:09 AM new
See....you're doing it again.
You prove to all who read your posts that you're either a raging lunatic or you are just SO ignorant it's unbelievable. Either way...you don't have a clue as to what's happening in the REAL world. Any statement you post you believe has happened.
Well....we could follow you around all day 24/7 and disprove most all of what you say....and you STILL wouldn't admit anything is different than YOU choose to see it in your 'fantasy' world.
And the way you embelish what others have said....again, only proves your lack of honesty.
NO ONE here has said it's a 'booming economy'....but you lie and say they have.
NO ONE here has said the CIC can act as the dictators YOU liberals [collectively] support against your own Country.
But you continue to post things others have never said...I believe as a way to DIVERT attention from your own personal LACK of knowledge about most political issues.
posted on February 2, 2007 09:44:41 AM new
Maybe YOU, mingo, can tell us WHY that would be...when you CLAIM, FALSELY, that it's this administrations fault when it's the DEMOCRATS that won't even allow these measures to go up for a vote.
Looks to me like they WERE FOR IT....before they were AGAINST it.
AND while you at it...maybe you can actually SUPPORT this most recent statement of yours.
posted on February 2, 2007 10:08:13 AM new
rant and rave and lie away linDUH!
It doesn't change a thing !!Including FACTS.
As to opinions....YES. Americans haven't had THAT freedom taken away YET!
AND Molly Ivans, even dead, has more knowledge, especially about government and politics, in one cuticle than YOU have in your entire body!
You honestly think that that lousy, scrawny minimum wage "raise" will destroy small business???? Then you're stupid and so are small business owners if they let living wages for Americans stop their business.
And YES, neocons in here have had posts bragging about the great economy...are you saying now that the economy ISN'T good? Flip flopping??
So I'll change my question for your side-stepping tiny brain....
"""If the economy is booming as the neocons claim,
then why should this very slight raise in the minimum wage hurt anybody ???? """
posted on February 2, 2007 10:16:52 AM new
AGAIN....
Maybe YOU, mingo, can tell us WHY that would be...when you CLAIM, FALSELY, that it's this administrations fault when it's the DEMOCRATS that won't even allow these measures to go up for a vote.
Looks to me like they WERE FOR IT....before they were AGAINST it.
AND you CLAIM HE cut funding for border patrol.
Let's see you show us he did....and that THIS isn't just more BS from your twisted mind[/b]
posted on February 2, 2007 10:22:22 AM new
Bush Budget Scraps 9,790 Border Patrol Agents
By Michael Hedges
The Houston Chronicle
Wednesday 09 February 2005
President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force.
Washington -- The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.
Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.
But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.
The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said.
Retired Adm. James Loy, acting head of the Department of Homeland Security until nominee Michael Chertoff takes over, said funding only 210 new agents was a "recognition that we need to balance those things as we go on down the road with other priorities."
The White House referred questions about the border agents to the Homeland Security Department.
The law signed by Bush had a caveat that went virtually unreported at the time. A summary, published by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, required the government to increase the number of border patrol agents by at least 2,000 per year, "subject to available appropriations."
Democrats were unhappy that the proposed budget used the escape clause so soon after the president approved the huge boost in border agents.
"We know we must do more to shore up security along our borders," said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, top Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. "The president's budget does not even attempt to meet this challenge."
Some Republicans also were displeased.
"This is an area of homeland security that needs to be ramped up in order to increase surveillance and patrols of our nation's vast and often remote borders," said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
A Jan. 24 letter signed by leading Republican lawmakers implored the president to fully fund the new law "in order to secure our borders against infiltration by terrorists."
posted on February 2, 2007 10:28:23 AM new
I know you have difficulty comprehending what you read.....and difficulty grasping just WHO funds what....LOL...
But re-read THIS paragraph again and again UNTIL you get it.
"The law signed by Bush had a caveat that went virtually unreported at the time. A summary, published by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, required the government to increase the number of border patrol agents by at least 2,000 per year, "subject to available appropriations."
Was there a bill in congress TO appropriate those additional funds????
posted on February 2, 2007 10:29:47 AM new
Oh...here again, linDUIH says she answered questions(and maybe in her tiny blurred mind , she did) but CLAIMING to have answered questions doesn't PROVE a thing
I just wish ONCE she'd support her claims with actual facts...hasn't happened yet....
But she is in such a tiny minority (bushgodites) I guess it just doesn't matter what she claims or what she can actually back up.
posted on February 2, 2007 10:43:26 AM new
Maybe mingo would like to PROVE any of these measure HAVEN'T been taken to secure our borders under this administration.
Then again....she CAN'T.
=============
President George W. Bush speaks with members of the National Guard on duty along the U.S.-Mexico border during his visit Thursday, Aug. 3, 2006, in the Rio Grande Valley border patrol sector in Mission, Texas.
White House photo by Eric Draper" /undefined/anull
President George W. Bush speaks with members of the National Guard on duty along the U.S.-Mexico border during his visit Thursday, Aug. 3, 2006, in the Rio Grande Valley border patrol sector in Mission, Texas.
White House photo by Eric Draper
President Bush's Plan For Comprehensive Immigration Reform
During his State of the Union Address, President Bush Called On Congress To Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The President believes that America can simultaneously be a lawful, economically dynamic, and welcoming society. We must address the problem of illegal immigration and deliver a system that is secure, productive, orderly, and fair. The President calls on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform that will secure our borders, enhance interior and worksite enforcement, create a temporary worker program, resolve – without animosity and without amnesty – the status of illegal immigrants already here, and promote assimilation into our society. All elements of this problem must be addressed together – or none of them will be solved.
1. The United States Must Secure Its Borders
Border Security Is The Basic Responsibility Of A Sovereign Nation And An Urgent Requirement Of Our National Security. We have more than doubled border security funding from $4.6 billion in FY 2001 to $10.4 billion in FY 2007. We will have also increased the number of Border Patrol agents by 63 percent – from just over 9,000 agents at the beginning of this Administration to nearly 15,000 at the end of 2007.
We are also on track to increase this number to approximately 18,000 by the end of 2008, doubling the size of the Border Patrol during the President's time in office.
To Supplement The Border Patrol As Its Numbers Increase, Approximately 6,000 National Guard Members Have Been Sent To Our Southern Border In Coordination With Governors. National Guard units are assisting the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems, analyzing intelligence, installing fences and vehicle barriers, and building patrol roads. The National Guard is increasing the operational capacity of the Border Patrol to gain control of our Southern border.
The President's Secure Border Initiative (SBI) Is The Most Technologically Advanced Border Enforcement Initiative In American History. Last year, we initiated a multi-year plan to secure our borders and reduce illegal immigration through comprehensive upgrading of technology used in controlling the border, including improved communications assets, expanded use of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles, and state-of-the-art detection technology.
The Administration Is Increasing Infrastructure Investment At The Border.
We are expanding detention capacity and developing rapidly deployable fencing technology that will be rolled out this year. In addition, the President is committed to building hundreds of miles of integrated, tactical infrastructure along the Southern border, which includes vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting to help detect, deter, and prevent people from entering our country illegally.
The Administration Has Effectively Ended "Catch And Release" For Illegal Aliens Apprehended At The Borders. In FY06 and FY07 the Administration funded 6,700 new detention beds, for a total of 27,500 detention beds this fiscal year.
The Administration Expanded The Use Of "Expedited Removal," Which Allows Us To Send Illegal Immigrants Home More Quickly. The President is also working with Congress to mitigate court-imposed requirements that the Federal government release dangerous criminal aliens if their home countries do not take them back within a certain period of time.
The Administration Is Working Closely With State And Local Law Enforcement To Stop Illegal Immigration.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has the resources to train 1,500 State and local law enforcement officers under the 287(g) program in 2006 and 2007. DHS will work with its State and local partners to expand these programs, and received $50 million in 2006 supplemental funding for this effort.
In addition, DHS is expanding to State and local law enforcement agencies the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) previously in place with the Federal Bureau of Prisons to identify illegal aliens who are incarcerated in Federal, State, and local jails.
2. We Must Hold Employers Accountable For The Workers They Hire
In A Sharp Break From The Past, The Administration Is Addressing The Illegal Employment Of Undocumented Workers With A Tough Combination Of Criminal Prosecution And Forfeitures. Previously, worksite enforcement relied on a combination of administrative hearings and fines. The fines were so modest that some employers treated them as merely a cost of doing business, and employment of undocumented workers continued unabated.
The Number Of Arrests In Worksite Enforcement Cases Has Increased Dramatically During The President's Time In Office. There were more than 4,300 arrests in worksite enforcement cases for 2006, more than seven times the arrests in 2002.
In addition, the two largest worksite enforcement actions in U.S. history were conducted last year by ICE.
In Fall 2005, The President Signed A Bill Doubling Federal Resources For Worksite Enforcement. In addition,the Administration has launched law enforcement task forces in 11 major cities to dismantle criminal rings that produce fake documents.
DHS Has Issued A Proposed "No-Match" Regulation To Assist Employers In Ensuring A Legal Workplace And To Help The Government Identify And Crack Down On Employers Who Knowingly Hire Illegal Workers.
In cases in which an employer has ten or more employees with inaccurate information, the Social Security Administration (SSA) sends the employer a "No-Match" letter. DHS's proposed "No-Match" regulation clarifies that employers may be held civilly and criminally liable when a letter is sent and employers ignore the discrepancies between SSA databases and the information provided about their employees.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Must Include The Creation Of A New, Tamper-Proof Identification Card For Every Legal Foreign Worker So Businesses Can Verify The Legal Status Of Their Employees. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. We will also work with Congress to expand "Basic Pilot" – an electronic employment eligibility verification system – and mandate that all employers use this system.
=======================
So...in summation....they DEMOCRATS have fought AGAINST allowing a bill to raise the FINES to employers who hire illegals.
The DEMOCRATS are constantly fighting these 'work place' ICE operations....saying they're 'racially profilling' them.
The DEMOCRATS are the ones who support GIVING BENEFITS to illegals....including drivers licenses....etc etc etc.
And they expect the average American to believe they TRULY want to GET RID of the illegals. HOW funny.
posted on February 2, 2007 11:25:51 AM new
"""Setting a minimum wage hurts the marginal workers""
So you believe these people should work for nothing????
Sorry, but slavery has been outlawed.
/////////////////////////////////
MIngotree,
It is not that they should work for nothing,I am saying it would be harder for them to find work.
It is covered in Economics 102.
Lets say you are used to paying 7.95 for a hamburger dinner with fries and drink.
Well,one day the price is raised to 10.95,you notice! and you ask 'what am I getting for 10.95 which I was not getting at 7.95?'
[ edited by hwahwa on Feb 2, 2007 11:27 AM ]
