On Governor Pawlenty's Minimum Wage Veto

Yesterday, Governor Pawlenty vetoed an increase in the minimum wage.

His rationale for this veto leaves me perplexed.

In his veto message, Pawlenty said the minimum wage approved by the Legislature would give Minnesota the seventh-highest in the country, hurting efforts to maintain jobs during the economic slowdown and ultimately raising consumer costs.

Pawlenty had no problem raising tuition on college students making minimum wages on our campuses. In fact, tuition increases under Pawlenty are amongst the highest in the nation. In his first term, which saw tuition rise nearly 70% for our State Universities and even more for the State Colleges, which put Minnesota in the Top 15 for tuition nationwide.

My question for Governor Pawlenty is this. Which minimum wage jobs are going to leave Minnesota because we boosted them from $6.15 to $6.75 in July and $7.75 a year later?

Will a Wal-Mart close? A McDonalds?

Pawlenty's veto hurts the state's lowest paid workers. Minnesota’s current minimum wage gives workers a salary of less than $13,000 a year. In two years, when the Legislature’s proposal would be fully phased in, it would offer workers an annual wage of about $16,000. The 2008 Federal Poverty Guidelines for a family of four is $22,200.

Pawlenty also objected to the lack of a tip credit in the bill.

Pawlenty said he had made it clear he would support a reasonable increase in the minimum wage provided the bill included a tip credit, which allows employers to pay a lower wage to workers who get gratuities for their services, such as waiters.

A tip credit does not properly reflect the amount of non-tipped labor that servers perform in a bar or restaurant. Servers are often required to set-up, clean, restock, and break down their sections of the establishment. In some circumstances, this can account for a large portion of the employee’s shift. It is unfair to force workers to perform this non-tipped labor at a reduced minimum wage, especially when a non-serving co-worker may be earning more to perform the same duty.

Pawlenty continues to put his own aspirations above those of working class Minnesotans.

Bachmann LTE in the SC Times

The SC Times has a LTE calling out the Congresswoman for a vote against a bill that would support small businesses impacted by the minimum wage increase.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann during her campaign stated that if elected,
she would strive to cut taxes for small businesses, middle-class taxpayers, and
do what she could to help our veterans.

When presented with HR 976, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Ways and
Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-New York, and ranking member Jim
McCrery, R-Louisiana, she voted against it. This bill gives tax relief for small
businesses in an offset to the minimum-wage increase and expands the Work
Opportunity Tax Credit to disabled veterans.

HR 976 is a win-win for veterans and small businesses as it not only
expands the credit to disabled veterans but increases the available credit for
wages paid to disabled veterans. Why did Bachmann vote against this bill? This was a bipartisan bill that John Kline and Jim Ramstad voted in favor of and the Chamber of Commerce supported.

Her constituents deserve to know why she is not supporting tax cuts for
small businesses and helping our veterans find employment.

By the way, this bill passed 360-45.

By Cathy Harrison, Circle Pines

Wow, Kline supported it? Wow.

We know by now that Congresswoman Bachmann does not support the interests of CD 6. I would like the Congresswoman to tell us who she supports though. Unfortunately, I would expect her explanation to be even more distorted than her Iran quote press release.

More SC Times criticism of Bachmann

I know, some of you astute and loyal readers note that this may be headed towards being Dump Bachmann-lite, but the Congresswoman's follies need recognition across SD 18 and CD 6.

The SC Times had another LTE expressing disappointment in the Congresswoman's work in DC thus far.

Rep. Michele Bachmann has already voted against the proposed increase in the minimum wage and against allowing the government to negotiate with the drug
companies for lower prices.

She had two opportunities but failed to show support of her middle-class and low-income constituents.

The LTE writer hails from Buffalo! Perhaps the Congresswoman will remind Mark Kennedy to take down his sign at his former Congressional office at the corner of HWY 55 and HWY 25 in Buffalo, because it's still up. Photo to be posted later.

As per usual, Story Chat is abuzz with Bachmann defenders today.

count from countyline
Where were you people in October? Shouldn't you have been pointing out where Bachmann was wrong in her views? What? you did point that out over and over and over---day after day after day after day?

And still Patty Wetterling only got 42%? (too bad there wasn't a scandal right before the election" What? there was? (and it was pointed out day after day after day after day after day)

Find a candidate who can capitalize on the opponents picking the weakest candidate, Bush's low approval record, a scandal right before the election.
Patty Wetterling ,by getting only 42% with every situation in her favor,PROVED she is not the one.
Did anybody consider that maybe the voters who voted for Michelle Bachmann -----did read your posts day after day after day--------but voted for Bachmann because they did not like the alternative====Patty Wetterling.

Had to post that one.

It also provoked some good discussion on the minimum wage debate.

Benway from Sauk Rapids
Anyone who cannot afford to pay their employees the
new minimum wage in this year 2007 probably doesn't deserve to be in business in
the first place. The current wage is nothing less than exploitation of
low-skilled workers; another fatwa-crazy scheme against the lower class hatched
by capitalists in order to serve only THEIR OWN interests at the expense of the
employee and society as a whole. Much the same arguement can be made of those
who employ only illegal immigrant labor to do their bidding.
Those who
scream and moan about the increase in the minimum wage should try and exist on
the current minimum wage for 3 months---and see how they like it. Work a full
day, mate, and after taxes walk away with 35 bucks. Good luck with that.

Cloudresident4life from St. Cloud State Campus

The wage floor needed the increase. The simplistic supply and demand models of humans labor being used as a comodity does not take into account turnovers costs,
unemployment insurance, etc.

Many people and their families will see feel the increased wage of the low income as it is obviously not just people making the minimum wage that will see this increase. Everyone from the 5.15 - 7.25 an hour range will receive the benefits from the increased wage.
From: The Economic Policy Institute
If the minimum wage were increased nationally to $7.25:

• 14.9 million workers would receive a raise,o 80% of those affected are adults age 20 or over, and 7.3 million children would see their parents income rise.
  
• Families with affected workers rely on those workers for over half of their earnings.
  
• 46% of all families with affected workers rely solely on the earnings from those
  workers.
  
• Some minimum wage workers remain in low-wage jobs for substantial
  periods.
  
• The best recent research on the economic impact of the minimum wage
  shows positive effects without job loss.
  
• Even the research that suggests a negative labor market effect shows only a minimal impact that is more than offset by the higher wage levels.
  
• The states that have adopted higher-than-federal minimum wages have seen low-wage workers’ incomes rise with no negative side-effects.
  
• Over 650 economists, including five Nobel Prize winners and six past presidents of the American Economics Association, recently signed a statement stating that federal and state minimum wage increases “can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed” (EPI 2006).

Clearly Congresswoman Bachmann is out of touch with your average CD 6 voter and has drifted to the extremes, post election.

President supports minimum wage increase

Ah, the compassionate conservatives must be in a tizzy. True conservatives thought they had leaders in Tim Pawlenty and George Bush, conservatives that would continue with their right wing, extremist agenda.

In Minnesota, we know the Governor has become very moderate...

Eschewing GOP staples such as screwing kids and the poor our of access to health care, putting it to college students with enormous tuition increases, and comparing cancer causing sticks of tobacco to cheeseburgers, T-Paw has been "out front" on higher education, health care and renewable energy...and will most likely support a smoking ban.

Now, President Bush, the staunch compassionate conservative he is, states he will support a minimum wage increase!

I can hear the grumbling across the conservative blogosphere...

More on minimum wage

Yesterday, I began a discussion on the impact of the minimum wage and commended Congressman Walz on his support for an increase. Reading the conservative blogs, we find that the opposition to an increase is strong, to say the least.

I question the right's stance on this issue. Conservatives lack consistency. For instance, we know that the number one reason for abortion in society today is economic. When we see the tough economic times that families struggle with today, increasing the minimum wage seems like it would have a significant positive impact on these families.

David Card and Alan Kreuger have a book that has been out for almost a decade now, titled Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage. Perhaps that will be a post X-mas read!

The book, somewhat controversial, studies the impact of wage increases in multiple states in the 1990's. It is not an anecdotal analysis, but a rather stark look at the real impact of these increases and dispels many myths behind wage increases.

Compassionate conservativism...a lack of a consistent moral ethic.

I support an increase in the minimum wage and applaud the courage of Congressman Walz to not only get to work in DC, but hold true to his campaign ideals as well!

Minimum wage discussion

It's been widely reported that the first bill Congressman Walz will co-sponsor is a bill to increase the minimum wage.

Conservatives and scrooge like business leaders complain that increased wages force businesses to cut jobs and in general are bad for business.

In light of recent studies that show an apartment dweller in Central MN would have to make more than $11 per hour to pay for their home. Thus, families are forced into situations where individuals have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet.

Ah, I love how the party of "family values" does not want to see families actually together!

I read numerous conservative blogs that have ripped Walz for this stance, saying he simply abides by his big-labor friends.

They share stories of teens being laid off and how liberals in a restaraunt complained about increased prices on pie.

Give us a name. Tell us where, what town, what place had to lay off workers because of increased wages?

Conservatives love to cite anecdotal information, stories with no fact.

BS...more to follow on this later in the day.

"We all do better when we all do better." Paul Wellstone