Sunday School 2/28/21

Seven senators made classroom visits today; with the House passing the stimulus package, and Dem plans to use reconciliation to get the minimum wage through the Senate being shot down, attention will turn to them, so that's where I'm focusing, too. 

Here are highlights of a few of them, starting with Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), who spoke with George on This Week. Hirono was first.

• She's supportive of anything that will work to get the minimum wage increased, noting that it's mostly essential workers who are earning the $7.25 hourly wage, which she called "poverty level."
• The appropriate response to sexual harassment allegations against my Sonofa Gov is to listen to the people who come forward, "and then to do the appropriate investigation and corroboration of the allegations." The NY AG "would be the independent entity to conduct such an investigation."
• The Biden administration is showing leadership on anti-Asian hate crimes, having issued an executive memorandum requiring the new AG "to work with state and county officials and community groups to prevent and prosecute these kind of hate crimes."

Next? Sen. Portman, who voted to pass the Trump tax cuts and repeal Obamacare via reconciliation, but says trying to do COVID relief that way "would poison the well of bipartisanship." 

• He thinks what Biden should do is "...to start off with more bipartisan measures, so that we don’t poison the well, so that we can continue to work together. And in this case, it would be very easy to get Republican support for a COVID relief package."
• He poo-pooed the idea that Republican voters are in favor of the bill -"if, you know, checks are coming out to people's homes, that's going to be popular, but that doesn't mean that this is the right bill." He gave a list of things in the bill he says are not related to COVID.
• Working together "is not difficult. We can work together on this one and then continue to work together on infrastructure and retirement security and supply chain issues with China and so on. So my hope is that they'll change their mind before this over." 
• He doesn't think Biden has gone far enough on Saudi sanctions vis a vis MBS and Jamal Khashoggi, "although you have to give him credit" for increasing sanctions and travel bans on the people directly responsible for murdering Khashoggi - but he thinks there needs to be something directly targeting MBS. 
• He says former president Trump is "very popular" with the Rs, but policies are more popular - in fact, "there are a number of things we can talk about from a policy perspective that I think will help to move the party forward. And that's where we ought to focus."

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) was in the Meet the Press classroom; here are highlights.

• Brown's statement about not waiting for Rs to grow spines but having the Dems show Americans they don't have to "settle for a government that's set up to fail" was not defiant, but prescriptive. 
• He always wants to be bipartisan - he's a Dem in conservative Ohio, after all - and says the COVID bill is a bipartisan plan, will broad support, and "Just because Senate Republicans don't support it doesn't make it partisan." 
• He says " -- it's become a Trump party. It's not a party of reason. It's a party that has turned its back." He referenced Sen. Mitch McConnell doing nothing about COVID relief for months, the Rs failing to raise the minimum wage, and more. 
• He says they'll find a way to solve the problem somehow, noting "The corporate elite, the far-right elite in Washington have blocked it year after year after year after year, and we're going to make it happen."'
• We're not done yet on Saudi Arabia, he says, saying "We need to hold any foreign authoritarian, like the royal family, some of the members of the royal family, we need hold them accountable."

Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Chris Coons (D-DE) talked with Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union. Here are excerpts, with Cassidy up first. 

• He said the Rs "have got to win in two years, we have got to win in four years. If we do that, we will do that by speaking to those issues that are important to the American people." That's more than "putting one person on a pedestal and making that one person our focal point."
• He also said that "CPAC is not the entirety of the Republican Party... we lost the House of Representatives, the Senate and the presidency. No president -- that has not happened in a single four years under a president since Herbert Hoover. "In order to win, they have to listen to all voters, not just the Trump fans. "That is a reality that we have to confront."
• He doesn't think Trump will be the nominee in 2024, and whether or not Trump is fit (Cassidy didn't answer), he said, "The point is, I don't think he is going to be our nominee..."
• He has "no clue" how the COVID bill will come out of the Senate, and that the Rs haven't been involved. He "started laughing" listening to press secretary Jen Psaki saying the Rs have been listened to, saying "that is such a joke."
• Bipartisanship isn't dead, though; he's working with Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) on a privacy issue, and, "Republicans remain willing and are working on issues that require bipartisan cooperation. We have done five on a COVID relief package in the past. It could have happened here. They made a conscious decision not to include us."

And, here're excerpts from the interview with Sen. Coons, a close friend of President Biden.

• He hasn't seen the details of Sen. Ron Wyden's Plan B proposal to tax companies that don't pay $15/hour. More importantly, "And if I'm someone who is always willing to negotiate with Republicans, I'm willing to negotiate with Democrats as well." Everyone - Ds and Rs alike - agree the minimum wage is too low, they just need to find a way to agree on a number and a path. 
• As do most Dems, he pointed to polling overwhelming support (76% of all Americans, and 60% of Republicans), so they should listen to the voters. And he's glad to hear Cassidy is still willing to work across the aisle, noting they've done that together in the past.
• He also said ..."Biden and the Democrats in Congress gave several weeks for there to be a serious negotiation that came close to the scope and range of this challenge. The proposals that came forward weren't anything like" what we're up against. "And so, frankly, we're moving ahead with a bill that probably will get no Republican votes in the Senate, but will have broad Republican support in the country."
• He said the Dems shouldn't "throw up the white flag and say, well, there's no way that we can work with Republicans, when this is literally the first major piece of legislation to come through. We will have other chances to pass bold legislation in this Congress, in this year, but we have to give bipartisanship a chance."

Dr. Anthony Fauci made four classroom appearances today (This Week, MTP, FTN and CNN SOTU), so I'm going to leave you on your own for those interviews.

See you around campus. Follow the COVID guidance, please, or I'll have to excuse you from class and assign additional homework. 

In Case You Missed It (v75)

Miss anything last week? Don't worry - I've got you covered. 

Sunday School brought us interviews with the slimy Rep. Steve Scalise, with too-progressive-for-me Rep. Pramila Jayapal, and with Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers; she spoke with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. Weingarten was talking about getting schools reopened, something her union is being blamed for slowing down, or blocking. She disagreed with that portrayal.

She said 85% of her membership "have said that they would be comfortable being in school," with the right protocols in place. It's happening in different places around the country, and

... I think the issue is, if the NFL could figure out how to do this, in terms of testing and the protocols, if schools are that important, let's do it. And my members want it, they just want to be safe.

She's got a point, you know. Other people who had a point? The Texans who were making classroom rounds. They were the focus of our Sunday School Extra Credit. Houston's Mayor Sylvester Turner, Rep. Michael McCaul, and Fort Worth's Mayor Betsy Price all talked about the failures that happened when the power grid went down and the pipes burst, and how Texas failed to learn a lesson from a decade ago, when winterization was recommended, and ignored. Here's a snippet from the conversation with Price.

I admit I was surprised to learn from Brennan that "the majority of the ERCOT board, the energy grid operator, the people on the board don't even live in the state of Texas." She wondered if they were "in touch at all" with what's happening. Price said she was surprised to learn that, too.

I certainly hope they're in touch, but it doesn't appear that way. And I think that's what surprised more people than anything is that they are not Texans who have not been living here. Most people didn't realize that, including myself. I didn't realize that. And, of course, now you've had the perfect storm, a state-wide storm that's tested our system. And we just have to -- we went through this ten years ago.

And speaking of being out of touch, my Wondering on Wednesday topics included on Biden Cabinet confirmation hearings, mean tweets, and hypocrisy - you know, Republicans. I also noted that Louis (kill)DeJoy, the Postmaster General, was more than slightly full of himself when he testified about the mess he's made at the USPS, and his plans to fix it. He

...  told Congress yesterday they'll have to get used to him because he's going to be sticking around. He offered support for a plan to eliminate the need to pre-fund future health insurance costs, so that's progress. But he also suggested improving service by slowing down delivery of first-class mail, and said something about having the USPS stop using planes to move mail around the country. I wonder if he doing a CBA on a revived Pony Express? That would surely accomplish both of his goals.

At the same time, his longevity is potentially threatened by the pesky Biden administration's efforts to fill seats on the governing board. And they are not all white men, darn those inclusive Dems. I wonder if any of them have sent any mean tweets in the past? Hope not. 

Notably, I delivered the WoW post on Thursday, a tip of the hat to (kill)DeJoy, who's been doing the same thing with the mail since he was put in charge.  

I provided some info from a couple of recent public opinion surveys in the first of two posts on Friday. The Poll Watch entry focused on the growing sentiment, especially among the Rs, that their party ain't worth much and doesn't give much of a hoot about them, and maybe it's time to try something different. Here are a couple of highlights from the two polls; the first comes from a Gallup poll.

• 62% say the major parties are doing such a poor job that a third party is needed; only 33% feel the parties do an adequate job. In 2003, when the question was first asked, 56% said the parties were doing an adequate job, with 40% saying a third party was needed. 

And, from a CBS News/YouGov poll?

• 73% of Republicans think it's important (46% saying it's very important) that their guys are loyal to Trump.
• Women (75% total, 49% very important), folks 65 and older (79% total, 59% very important) and those without college degrees (78% total, 52% very important) are the most focused on Trump loyalty.

Also on Friday, I tossed out a few candidates for the good week/bad week lists, but didn't pin a label on any of them, I left that up to you. That said, regular readers would have no trouble figuring out who I'd put where. Here's a snippet from the TGIF post, talking about options the Senate Dems have now that Senate Parliamentarian parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that the $15 minimum wage can't be done via the reconciliation process.

If they have any patience, the Dems can wait and see what happens to Plan B, a proposal from Finance Committee Chair Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). 

As chair of the Finance Committee, I’ve been working on a ‘plan B’ that would make big companies pay for mistreating their workers. My plan would impose a 5 percent penalty on a big corporations’ total payroll if any workers earn less than a certain amount. That penalty would increase over time. 

I don't know about you, but I'm not sure that's going to fly any higher than the original proposal. We'll have to wait and see. We'll also have to wait and see about this, too - but not for long. The former president is the headliner for today's CPAC closing day, and

...Trump is more likely than not to declare himself for the Republican nomination...during his CPAC speech... As of Friday morning, the odds were 4 to 5, suggesting a 55.6% implied probability that Trump declares during his speech.

And will he do that as a Republican, or as a Patriot Party member? Well, there's only a 4-to-1 chance that he'll do it as anything other than a died-in-the-wool RINO. 

There you go - last week, in review. See you later for Sunday School. 

TGIF 2/26/21

Ready to pick your good week/bad week winners? Here are a few stories that might help you decide.

The $15/hour minimum wage took a direct hit late yesterday, when the non-partisan Senate parliamentarian determined that the increase does not meet the requirements to be included in the Biden COVID stimulus package under the reconciliation rules. Those rules are being applied to the stimulus package to avoid the need to get 60 senators to approve the bill. 

There are options for the Dems, including dropping the wage increase from the package, redoing the bill, or even trying to override parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough's decision. 

If they have any patience, the Dems can wait and see what happens to Plan B, a proposal from Finance Committee Chair Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). 

As chair of the Finance Committee, I’ve been working on a ‘plan B’ that would make big companies pay for mistreating their workers. My plan would impose a 5 percent penalty on a big corporations’ total payroll if any workers earn less than a certain amount. That penalty would increase over time. 

The plan also would incentivize small businesses by giving tax credits to help offset the wage increase, and penalize companies that replace employees with contractors who are paid less. This, too, would be up to MacDonough to decide.

And, of course, because it's the Dems, there's another option, one suggested by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN).

Abolish the filibuster. Replace the parliamentarian. What’s a Democratic majority if we can’t pass our priority bills? This is unacceptable. 

And lest you think this is some cockamamie idea, don't - the Rs did it twenty years ago, in another 50-50 divided Senate. We'll see how the Dems handle it, but I'm sure if they try the same thing, the hypocrisy will be flowing deep, and wide.

Speaking of hypocrisy, we learned today that a few House Republicans have submitted requests designating others to vote for them today, saying they're not able to be present in person "due to the ongoing public health emergency." The group includes a number of the usual suspects: Reps. Matt Gaetz (FL), Paul Gosar (AZ), Jim Banks (IN), Madison Cawthorn and Ted Budd (both from NC). 

Sadly, the "ongoing public health emergency" they're referring to is the one happening in Orlando, which goes by the name CPAC 2021. Maybe it's not as catchy as COVID-19, but it's probably as dangerous, given the collective fealty to Donald Trump. And it's way up there on the hypocrisy scale, given that the Rs in the House sued to prevent proxy voting in the first place.

Sticking with CPAC, the former president will be speaking to his minions on Sunday. Given his post-presidency comments, there's some speculation that he'll be announcing his next insurrection run for the White House in 2024. According to the oddsmakers in Vegas,

...Trump is more likely than not to declare himself for the Republican nomination...during his CPAC speech... As of Friday morning, the odds were 4 to 5, suggesting a 55.6% implied probability that Trump declares during his speech.

And will he do that as a Republican, or as a Patriot Party member? Well, there's only a 4-to-1 chance that he'll do it as anything other than a died-in-the-wool RINO. 

Finally, there's Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi Crown Prince, Jared Kushner's WhatsApp BFF, commonly referred to as MBS. In a declassified report released today by Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence, everyone got to see with their own eyes what's been presumed since October 2018: that MBS approved the operation in which US-based Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered and dismembered.

So - who's on the good week list, and who's on the bad week list? 

TGIF, everyone!

Sunday School 2/21/21

Welcome to Sunday School, where getting kids back in school is just one of the topics we'll be covering.

First up? Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers; she spoke with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. Weingarten said it's a "myth" that her union doesn't want to be back in school. "Teachers know that in-person education is really important, "she said. The new CDC guidelines, and the money for schools in the Biden COVID package, provide the roadmap,

... the layered mitigation strategies; the testing, so that you can actually see asymptomatic spread; and vaccine prioritization -- not that every single teacher has to be vaccinated before you open any schools, but you should align the vaccine prioritization with the reopening of schools.

She said 85% of her membership "have said that they would be comfortable being in school," with the right protocols in place. It's happening in different places around the country, and

... I think the issue is, if the NFL could figure out how to do this, in terms of testing and the protocols, if schools are that important, let's do it. And my members want it, they just want to be safe.

Weingarten said that unions aren't monoliths, and the locals asking for more than the national is just "...that people are scared." She said they've learned that when teachers are in school with proper protocols in place, they've got greater trust. At the same time, 71% of AFT members are scared they'll bring COVID home to their families. The AFT's been hosting town halls and trying to build trust with their member.

Todd's final question was whether we'd have full reopening without full vaccination. Weingarten said the answer really is in how "full school opening" is defined. In the end, she said, 

What I think we need to do is we need to actually try to get as much in-person as possible right now. Have the mitigation strategies... have a real great summer semester to get kids' mojo back in a voluntary way, and then really be planning for next year.

I think the "really be planning for next year" needs to start now, doesn't it? 

Now, let's check in with the #2 GOP leader, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), who joined Jon Karl in the This Week classroom. Regarding kids in schools, Scalise said that President Biden can "give strong guidance and follow the science." Kids should be the priority, he said, but "that's not the case because right now you can see, as the unions have stepped up and said that they don't want in-classroom learning." 

Our kids can't wait. They need to be in the classroom today. The science says they can be in the classroom today. The question is, is the will there for some politicians in Washington who are bowing to the teachers' unions right now? 

Scalise's main issue is not requiring that schools taking money reopen. That, and there's "over a trillion dollars of money unspent" from previous bipartisan relief bills, Scalise added, and spending more money to "bail out failed states, to raise the minimum wage" doesn't have anything to do with COVID. Besides, it takes money away from our kids.

And his visit with Trump? Scalise said he was "in Florida doing some fund-raising throughout a number of parts of Florida, ended up at Mar-a-Lago, and the president reached out, and we visited." Which sounds like what GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy said about his visit with Trump last month...

Three times, Karl asked about Trump taking responsibility; Scalise never mentioned Trump, instead blaming the people who stormed the Capitol, Senators using 'fighting words,' and Dems who didn't denounce "during the summer, when they were burning down cities, shooting cops, beating people in the streets..." Who "they" are, he didn't say. In the end he landed nowhere near Trump.

... we -- you can rehash the election from 2020 all day long, but there are people concerned about what the next election is going to look like. Are we going to finally get back to the way the rule of law works? And I think that's the biggest frustration many people have, is those states that didn't follow the law, are they going to keep doing that in the future, or are we going to finally get back to what the Constitution calls out for electing our leaders?

I'd like to hear his definition of 'leaders' because if he and McCarthy meet the definition, whatever the processes are, they've failed.

Finally, we're in the State of the Union classroom with Dana Bash and Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who chairs the House progressive caucus. The first topic was the $15 minimum wage, and whether Biden was "fighting hard enough" to get it done as part of the COVID relief package.

Jayapal said Biden's been fairly consistent in supporting it, while acknowledging it might run into trouble in the Senate. But, she said, it

would mean 30 million Americans would get a raise. A million Americans would come out of poverty, and 30 percent of those minimum wage workers are black; 25 percent are Latinx. It is absolutely essential that we do it. And I believe the Senate will do it.

Jayapal said  that if "Republicans could give a $2 trillion tax break to the wealthiest people and stop Arctic drilling, then -- or continue drilling in the Arctic, then I think that Democrats can make sure that 30 million Americans get a raise."

Even in the face of two Senate Dems, Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AC) opposed to it, Jayapal pointed to what happened in her own state, in Seattle.

It is good for communities. It's good for businesses. I know because we were the first major city in Seattle to raise the minimum wage to $15 over a period of years. And, in 2018 and 2019, "Forbes" ranked us the best place in the country for businesses and for careers. We had one of the lowest unemployment numbers in the country.

She thinks the increase will be in the relief package. On direct stimulus payments, she said it "doesn't make any political sense to her" for Biden to give them to fewer people than Trump did, so there's no reason to change who gets them.

On student loan forgiveness, while Biden says it should only be $10K, she said progressives say it should be at least $50K.

...if you cancel that debt, you give a lifeline to millions of people across this country. So, let's work on it together. Obviously, if Congress could do it, that's great. But we believe that the president has the authority to do it. And we have been in conversation with the White House about it...

And, whether Biden is "living up to his promise to be the most progressive president," Jayapal said he came out of the gates strong, and

I think what we need to do is finish strong all the promises that have been made during the campaign to deliver relief to people, to make sure people understand what happens when Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House, is, we deliver relief. 

As I said the other day, it's going to take a lot of fortitude on Biden's part to not be dragged away from what he believes in, and what lots of us who voted for him believe in, too.

See you around campus. You better be wearing a mask.

TGIF 2/2/18

Hey everyone -- desperately seeking advice today, while celebrating that it's Friday.

Like many folks who got paid today, I got my Republican tax cut 'raise' and boy, I'm struggling trying to figure out what I'm supposed to do with it.

Seriously!

Am I supposed to be a 'good' American and immediately spend it? If I'm supposed to spend it, what are the rules for that?

Can I spend it online, or do I have to spend in a bricks-and-mortar establishment? And, would it be OK to spend it in a store that the president doesn't like?  Can I actually spend it at Macy's, or Nordstrom?

Do have I to spend it on something actually made in America, or is it good enough to buy from an American company, even if the product is made someplace else?

If I decide to purchase something that is made in America, do I have to get something that was made by an American company, or is it OK to purchase something from a foreign company as long as they employ American workers?  You know, like solar panels for the roof or something.

Does it have to be made by a union member? By someone earning at least $15 an hour? How am I supposed to know if either of those are true?

And what if I wanted to get a car? Some of those are made with parts from other countries, but they're assembled here in America - would that count as a Made in America purchase?

Can I purchase fruit or veggies for the Super Bowl party?

I'd be OK with that, as long as I can tell whether my purchase was picked by an American, or by a legal immigrant, because I certainly don't want to get anything that was handled by an illegal one that's stealing a job from an American.

I'd want to get something from a small family farm, if I could, not a factory farm. But then, sometimes the small family farms are in co-ops and so their stuff may look like it came from a factory farm. How am I supposed to tell?

Is the Wegmans Organic Farm a family farm? And if I start buying only organics, isn't that going to put Americans who make pesticides out of work, and drive down our economy?

Gosh, it all seems so very confusing trying to spend the money the right way -- maybe I should save the money for a rainy day, or for my retirement?

I can put it in the bank, I guess - but can I use the ATM, or do I have to actually deal with a teller? I wouldn't want to put a person out of work, but the ATM is so easy. Does anyone know if any of those are made in the USA? Programmed in the US, at least?

I could use the money to make an extra payment on my credit card, I guess. But then that won't stimulate the economy at all -- it'll actually take money out of the economy twice: first when I don't spend the money directly, and second when the credit card company doesn't get any interest. I wouldn't want that.

Maybe I'll pay for a subscription to the Washington Post, or the NY Times. Oh, crap -- that's Bezos and fake news and more fake news.  I better not do that.

Damn. I really am struggling with this. Hopefully I'll get it all figured out before I have to go back to work on Monday.

TGIF.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v7)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times

I shared excerpts from a letter written by Assembly member Rodneyse Bichotte to the  Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation in v6 of this series.

Bichotte noted, among other things, that there's a pretty significant difference in how much it costs to live in New York City than it does in other areas of the state.

That difference was recognized in the decision of the Legislature earlier this year when they crafted the law on the minimum wage, which I explained a few months back. In a nutshell, the new minimum wage in New York State will not be the same for all minimum wage workers, will rise faster in areas where the cost of living is highest, and may never reach the full amount the legislature established this year.

Why? Well, if I remember correctly, the Republican-controlled NY State Senate acted responsibly and realized that things are not exactly the same across New York, and that it doesn't necessarily make sense to pay everyone exactly the same. The cost of living here in Syracuse or in Binghamton, Geneva, Tonawanda or Malone simply is not the same as it is in NYC or in the nearby commuter counties, and people who live and work there should earn more money for the same work as folks up here. As Bichotte pointed out, state employees are reimbursed similarly.

I believe that's an appropriate way to address the pay raise for the Legislature. In fact, I think it's the perfect way to address the pay raise issue, regardless of what percentage of increase is ultimately considered reasonable by the esteemed committee.

Here's how it would work:

• State Senators representing districts in New York City would see their salaries go up incrementally starting in January 2017 and reaching the full raise approved by the Commission beginning in January of 2019. 
• New York City Assembly members would see a slightly smaller initial increase in January of 2017, and they would reach the full raise beginning in January 2020, a year after their Senate counterparts. This mirrors the large business/small business distinction for New York City employers included in the minimum wage law.
• Senators and Assembly members who represent Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties would see their salaries rise beginning in January 2017, but not reach the full amount until January 2022. 
• For those representing Senate and Assembly districts in the rest of the state, things will be very different. The first incremental increase will still occur in January of 2017, but it will be a much smaller increment. By January of 2021, these legislators would be increased to 83.3% of the amount paid to their NYC counterparts, as is the case with the minimum wage ($12.50 upstate compared to $15 downstate).
• The rate for the upstate members would continue to increase on a schedule set by the Director of the Division of Budget, provided that an analysis by the Department of Labor determines that the economy can support the increases and has not been ruined by the incremental increases already experienced. 

As I said, this salary structure would work regardless of what percentage the Commission eventually decides is appropriate. 

We know that, at least in recent years, the number of legislature members who have outside income has dwindled. Common Cause reported that some 60% of those elected before the 2014 elections had no outside income, and only about 17% reported outside income between $50K and $515K (a range that truly defies description), so there's likely more justification for a significant bump that there was when we had a higher percentage of folks in that high outside income bucket. 

In exchange for the big bump in salary, which will bring with it the formal designation of 'full time' legislators, let's also ask that monthly time sheets be filed by all of the legislators. 

Not down to the nitty gritty - these folks are adults, after all - but let's see them at least track all of the town hall meeting they hold, all of the community events and meetings they attend, and things like that. I'm thinking it would be pretty easy to verify that they did this stuff, because most of the time there's media coverage, and there's always an 'official' photo for the campaign brochure or for a quick note to a constituent. 

Yeah, even a cynic like me can see the need for a raise, give how long it's been since the salary was increased. However, I do not support making up for all that lost time in one swell foop, as my Dad would say.  And since the Legislature and our Sonofa Gov have established the clear precedent that it's OK  - and even, dare I say, logical  - to make geographical delineations and different incremental changes in the minimum wage, we should apply the same logic to how we pay the people who made that decision.  

I know the folks that represent me are doing the same work as the people who represent folks in NYC and the surrounding area - no disputing that. But there's also no disputing the fact that it's more expensive to live downstate than it is upstate, and if an across-the-board increase was wrong for the minimum wage, it's wrong for the legislature.

So let's celebrate the minimum wage increase logic, and put that economically thoughtful thinking into practice for any raise given to our elected representatives. 

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v1)

Nathaniel Brooks/New York Times 

It's been awhile since I've looked at Albany in the pages of veritable pastiche.

I tried to get excited about the legislative session that ended back back in mid-June, I really did. As is usually the case, the end of session is a jam-packed, fun-filled time. In the first twelve days of June alone, there were nearly 700 bills introduced or amended, some more than once, according to this article. And of course, the end-of-session is where the rubber meets the road. As the article notes:

This is crunch time, when the power reputations of lobbyists and special interest groups are put to the test, and when rank-and-file lawmakers face a traffic jam to get their pet bills onto the floor, where legislation is rarely defeated. 

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?

Some things did get accomplished this session. There were some changes made to breast cancer screening practices, including more user-friendly hours, time off from work, and some insurance changes. There was increased focus on the opioid epidemic, and some opportunity for stripping ethically challenged legislators of their pensions, assuming the legislature approves it again in the 2017 session, and then New Yorkers will have the chance to vote on it -- in 2018.

We can serve alcohol earlier on Sundays, helpful to restaurants that are in the brunch business and for sports bars that carry European events which sometimes are shown live here at 8AM. And daily sports betting has been determined to be a game of skill instead of a fool's errand, so we're going to be back in business there, barring a successful legal challenge.

And, we got a very complicated process for increasing the minimum wage, over a period of years, to something that more closely resembles the 'living wage' we've heard so much about during the presidential campaign.

So, why does this all leave me and so many other New Yorkers less than thrilled with our state legislature?

The NY Legislative calendar (matching versions are published by the Senate and Assembly) reflects that, from the early January through the end of May, there are 48 session days and 8 days of 'legislative activity/budget hearings.'  Add in the nine days scheduled for June, and you've got a total of 65 days during which our part-time representatives, who are all paid at least $79K annually (plus a per diem for each day they travel) are officially at work in Albany doing the people's business. Or waiting to do the people's business, as the case may be. And fundraising.

According to the NY Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) in a June 3rd press release, there were at least 167 'out of district' fundraisers by State Senators, State Assembly members, and by their respective committees. About a third of them were held at the Fort Orange Club, which must be a pretty special place to get all of that business.

I don't know if anyone keeps track of the other fundraisers that are held within the districts to help raise the necessary cash to run for re-election; these at least would seem on the surface to be OK, since the legislators would be asking for support directly from the people they represent.

They do more than fundraising and attend a few sessions from January to June. There's 'constituent service' that keeps these folks and their staff busy at least some of the time when they're not on the clock in Albany. There are ribbon to cut and signs to unveil, and those ever-present banners to unfurl - you know, the ones thanking them for "bringing home our tax dollars" in support of events and festivals for us, and stuff like that.

I get that the job doesn't have regular hours. My mother was a member of her local town board for one term, and I know she took some calls 'off-hours' but it was hardly a 24/7 job, and I don't think being a state legislator is one, either. But with no required accounting of the work these folks do, it's hard to get a sense of how much time they actually put in as legislators.

So now, hearing that our part-timer lawmakers might be in for a big fat pay raise, and a possibly a designation as full-time legislators, I have to scratch my head. I just have to scratch my head.

I'll try and take an objective look at the pay raise issue in my next post. No promises, but I'll do my best. 

Addressing Income Inequality (v1): Living Wages

Let's admit into evidence that there is an income inequality problem in America.  The really rich are getting really richer, and the minimum wage is not a living wage.

And let us accept those facts as just that - facts. Meaning, let's not argue whether the minimum wage should be a living wage, for example -- let's just pretend we're adults, not Republicans, is what I'm getting at. You know what I'm talking about.

So - we have income inequality RIGHT NOW, today, the worst it's been since maybe even going as far back as when man and dinosaur strolled across Texas together and what do we do about it?

Example #1. 

We run for President and promise to raise the federal minimum wage to an arbitrary $15 per hour ($31,200 annually) - by 2020.  Or, promise to raise the minimum wage to $12 and have the states and localities do more.

These are proposals from Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, respectively. These are the Democrats, who see the issue as a huge deal in the campaign, as opposed to Donald Trump  who might believe we shouldn't have a minimum wage at all, I'm not sure - and I don't think he is either. But these are the Democrats, who might take almost their full first term to address wages for the lowest paid people, who are suffering the most right now. 

Example #2. 

In New York, again Dems taking the lead, we implement different minimum wages - one for fast food workers, one for tipped workers in the hospitality industry, a different one for other tipped workers, and now, new with this year's budget, two for down-staters, and a different one for the rest of the state, regardless of their line of work.

Seriously -- it takes an economics major to figure out how we get there and when.  Take a look:

The timing and scope of the minimum wage increase varies depending on which county in New York State an employee works, and the size of the business. For instance, for employees in New York City who are employed by a company that has 11 or more employees, the minimum wage will increase to $11 per hour at the end of 2016, $13 at the end of 2017, and $15 at the end of 2018. However, for employees in NYC who are employed at a company with 10 or fewer employee, the minimum wages are smaller and implemented over a longer time period with the minimum wage rising to $10.50 at the end of 2016, $12 at the end of 2017, $13.50 at the end of 2018, and $15 at the end of 2019.

Sounds easy enough, right?

For employees who work in the NYC commuter counties of Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester, the minimum wage will increase to $10 at the end of 2016, then will increase in $1 increments at the end of each year until the minimum wage reaches $15 at the end of 2021.

Take a breath, there's more:

For workers in the rest of New York State, the minimum wage will increase to $9.70 at the end of 2016, and then increase in $0.70 increments at the end of each year, until the minimum wage reaches $12.50 at the end of 2020.  After 2020, the minimum wage will increase to $15 in increments determined by the state Director of the Division of Budget in consultation with the state Department of Labor.

Except for:

the law also contains a "safety valve" provision which provides that, beginning in 2019, the state Director of the Division of Budget will conduct an annual analysis of the economy in each region in the state, and the effect of the minimum wage increases, to determine whether a temporary suspension of the scheduled increases is necessary.

Got that?  One state, trying to raise the minimum wage that is currently not a living wage, and taking some three, four, five years (or maybe never) to get it done.

Example #3.
People are working longer hours than ever before and still not making ends meet. So we'll address that too. Except that will happen right now, or at least by the end of this year, the end of Obama's presidency.  In case you missed it, there's a new rule on overtime.

Under a new rule announced by the White House Tuesday, anybody making a salary of less than $47,476 ($913 a week) (which is $22.825 per hour) will automatically qualify for overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours a week. That's roughly double the $23,660 ($455 per week) (which is $11.375 per hour).

Why are we doing this, you ask?

Because there are folks who have some management responsibilities who have been exempt from OT, until this change.  I was not aware, but since 1975, according to the article, the percentage of salaried workers who are eligible for overtime has fallen from 62% to 7%.. That will increase to 35% when the new rule goes into effect.

Bet you're wondering how that threshold was determined, aren't you?  Well, we're told,

The new threshold will be updated every three years to make sure it stays at the 40th percentile of full-time salaries in the lowest income region of the country. Based on wage growth projections, that means it could rise to $51,000 by 2020.

So, here we have three examples of helping solve the wage problem, three different solutions:

• a one-size fits all (Sanders)
• a one size fits some, if they're not full-figured (Clinton)
• a many sizes might fit most eventually, unless the sizes stop being made (Cuomo), or
• a size from some unknown part of the country that fits everyone (Obama)

Do any of the solutions solve the problem? There's certainly no guarantee.  

Fast food companies, for example, are increasing their self-serve kiosks, in part because we all so hate standing in line to be served by a human (anyone remember bank tellers?) and certainly in part because employers will automate to avoid having to pay arbitrary wages. (Ironically, some of the people making the automated kiosks will likely be earning less than the people in the fast food restaurants the kiosks are designed to replace.)

Some employers will find a way to get rid of one person, I'm sure, to qualify for the lower minimum wage afforded to smaller businesses here in New York.  And, of course, the new overtime rule will likely see some salaried people become hourly people, reducing their flexibility and perhaps their other 'managerial' benefits; others will simply not be offered the extra hours, so they won't benefit from the change at all. In fact, they may lose money, given that straight time for hours over 40 is better than nothing. 

Throw in other regulations that determine benefit levels, or define 'small business' in a totally different way, making it even more costly for small businesses to navigate our state and federal regulatory landscape, and throw in the countless legal experts who will find the loopholes in these regulations (as there always are, and as they always do) to satisfy shareholders and pension funds and 401k funds, and to keep the costs of their products down, and what will the real outcome be?

Finally, what do any of these minimum wage solutions in particular do for the vast majority of workers who are struggling on their current, non-living wage of $15 an hour today, and will likely not receive a 50%, 60%, or 70% increase by the end of 2020?  Their struggle will continue, right, even though their minimum wage-earning teenagers will be thriving?

I know people say we have to start somewhere, but do we know where that 'somewhere' really is?

Throwback Thursday (v2)

Friends and family have been having a thoughtful if occasionally biting discussion on Facebook about New York's move to a $15 hourly wage for fast food workers ($15FF) by 2018 for New York City and by 2021 for folks here in "Upstate" NY.

Among the reasons (we've expressed several reasons, truth be told) some of us are opposed to this specific plan, which impacts only one industry and comes about solely because of manipulation by our Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo, is that it strips the incentive to work harder, or to produce a higher quality product, because the increase makes it almost impossible for someone to be rewarded with a higher wage.

The whole incentive thing - rewarding people who perform well -- has been something I've striven for throughout my career, dating back to my very first 'real job', which I started 37 years ago this month (maybe even this week), in August of 1978.

I've told this story before, about my return from college after only two years, tail between my legs, back living at home with my teacher parents, and hating every minute of everything, including my Dad's way of 'inspiring me' to look for a job.  That process, as annoying as it was for a short period of time, led me to actually find a job, working in the headquarters of a multi-state industrial laundry. As a microfilmer. You know: pulling staples, straightening corners, and running documents through a camera thingy to save them for posterity. I also volunteered to learn how to use the Pitney Bowes mailing equipment. Big doings, right?  My starting salary was $140/week, for I think a 37.5 hour schedule.

Clearly it was not my dream job, but it was a paycheck. I was able to pay rent to my parents (another part of the 'learning from your failures' lesson), and I could save money with a goal of getting together the security deposit and first month's rent for my own apartment someday.

I found out shortly after I started working there that August was the time that annual salary increases were handed out.  Shoot, I thought -- looks like it's going to take longer to get that apartment.  When I was called to the office of the Finance VP, it was with more than a little trepidation that I headed off to the executive suite.

The VP, Randy, was a nice guy, but someone I had very little interaction with.  When he told me that, while I had only been there a couple of weeks, he had heard good things about me and that I was going to get a raise, I was surprised. When he told me that he couldn't remember a similar situation of someone being there such a short period of time and getting a raise, I was stunned. I got bumped up to $145 per week, the thanks of the VP, and his encouragement to keep up the good work.  Within a few months, I was handling more responsibility, and had saved enough to move into my own apartment, which had been my goal all along. Mission accomplished, as they say.

A few days ago, I read that the company had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy; although I only worked there for about three and a half years, I have fond memories of  many folks I worked with, some of the crazy things that happened there, and of everything I learned, much of which still serves me today. And, of course, one lesson I've never forgotten is that it's possible to work hard, learn more, do more, and get rewarded for it.

At least, it's possible to do that, if wages aren't artificially manipulated by elected officials.

My Middle-Aged White Lady Perspective: $15/hour

So you've all heard by now that New York's Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo, called for a Wage Board to rubber stamp the idea that fast food workers deserve to make $15 per hour. Eventually. Not right now, of course, when they're struggling making less than a living wage, but later -- 2018 in New York City, and 2021 across the rest of the state. Said rubber stamp was applied, and without more than three or six years of further ado, wages will go up for folks who work in places food is paid for before it's eaten, as long as the establishment meets the requirements.

From my middle-aged white lady perspective, this is a ridiculous idea, on several fronts.

(1) How many fast food workers are people "trying to raise a family" on minimum wage? I suspect there are some, and we've of course seen them on news stories about the wage hike, but most folks I see working in these restaurants are teenagers, not adults. High schoolers, not grandmas and grandpas. That may be a factor of where I live (Syracuse) or how infrequently I go to Arby's, McDonald's, Burger King, or Dunkin' Donuts, but generally my experience is, the person wearing the manager or supervisor name tag is the only 'adult' behind the counter. Do high school juniors really deserve to make as much as college graduates?

(2) If the entry level job pays $15, how much will these businesses have to raise the salaries of the assistant shift supervisors? Shift supervisors? Store managers? District managers? And how much will that cut further into the restaurant's profitability or even ability to survive?

(3) Have we no plans to grow the economy and the job market in New York, that we are anticipating people will still be in the same fast good positions three or six years out? And have we no plans to reduce the cost of living here in the Empire State, to reduce government mandates and taxes and wasteful spending, the things that would make all salaries last longer, leaving arbitrary wage increases as our best option? And if that's the best answer today, what will it be six years from now? Will a 'living wage' be $20 then?

(4) What makes fast food workers special, compared to, say, substitute teachers? Home care workers? Cashiers? Stock boys at grocery stores? Retail employees? Do we really value someone who puts donuts in a box more than someone who teaches or cares for the young, the elderly, the disabled?  Is that who we want to be here in the great state of New York?

(5) Why would we want to devalue experience and education?  Some time ago, I posed the question on how we can double or significantly increase the minimum wage without making the same adjustments in all other wages, which are 'commensurate with experience' or require college degrees, or both.

(6) Mandating $15/hour doesn't only raise the hourly rate of pay for workers. It also raises the cost of benefits for the company; it raises the taxes that the businesses pay; and it obviously will raise the cost of the food sold at the restaurant. Those increased costs will be passed on to consumers, including all of those folks who are NOT getting a massive, government-directed raise.

(7) The new wage comes without any expectation of increased productivity or service; it only brings added cost to the businesses and their customers.

I'm old enough, and fortunate enough, to have spent my adult life working at jobs where there was incentive to work harder, to do more, to go the extra mile on behalf of my employer or our customers. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be able to advance, to take on added responsibilities and to be financially rewarded for doing that.

I understand that not everyone has that chance today. I get that. But randomly eliminating that opportunity because it's been priced out of the market by a Governor who's pandering for support, money and votes (or in my opinion, lamenting that he hasn't been more like his late father and trying to make amends), serves us how? Randomly deciding that only a portion of the labor force in New York is, by stroke of a pen, suddenly worthy of a 60 - 70% salary increase serves us how?

It is, on its face, nothing but a poorly conceived government-ordered handout that will not solve the income gap, or reduce income inequality. It is intended to replace one government benefit (SNAP and other assistance paid to low-wage earners), but as designed may actually end up increasing government benefits for the cheering workers we saw on television when this was announced.

The next time you're in your local Panera Bread, look around for the tablet computers where you can order and pay for your food, without having to talk with a cashier. Or, when you're sitting at your table after doing your own ordering, waiting for your food to be brought out, take a look at the little sign on the wall advising that you could have ordered from your table - no need to even stand at a tablet. That's right - you can grab your table first, pull out your smart phone, place your order and pay, and then go back to playing Words with Friends without ever batting an eyelash.

Those tablets? They don't call in sick; they don't require 30 percent or more in benefits overhead; they don't costs the business increased payroll taxes; and they government can't raise their salary.  I'm willing to bet we'll see a lot more of those, and fewer fast food workers, working fewer hours, by the time the vaunted $15 hourly wage is in place.

And the other big reason? Because the people who pushed for the huge pay increase for fast food workers are not regular customers of fast food restaurants. I maintain that they should be, particularly when full increase finally goes into effect, because of that whole 'walk the talk' thing. You know, kinda like Donald Trump not liking that his ties and shirts were made in China and complaining about the quality and that China is raping America, but continuing to have his line of branded items made in China anyway. Walk the talk, folks.

I'll give a 2021 fast food hour's pay to the first person who gets a shot of the Governor and Sandra Lee chowing down on a Brown Sugar Bacon BLT.

Questions for Zephyr Teachout

Fordham University law professor Zephyr Teachout seems to be having the time of her life in her primary campaign against our Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo. There's been a lot of attention, much of which is pro-Zephyr, not just anti-Andy. I find that encouraging; it's easy to support someone new simply out of dislike of the other guy.

AP photo/Hans Pennink

I would love a debate between Cuomo and Teachout.

It's important that incumbents don't sit on their high horses (or, in Cuomo's case, in another country) during the primary season, ignoring their challengers, and the voters.

We deserve better.

The only sure thing is that I will be voting in the primary on September 9th - right now my vote's up for grabs.  And on the likely chance that we won't get a debate, here are some questions for Zephyr Teachout.

(1) Economic Development:
Your position on economic development touches four points: economic fairness, having a 21st century Internet, stopping consolidation, and infrastructure.

You note that you would push to increase the minimum wage, pointing out that Cuomo's increase (implemented incrementally over three years) did not go far enough. I admit to some discomfort with, say, doubling the minimum wage without making changes to all wages.  But let's agree that the minimum wage should be higher, and should get there faster than 2016.

Would you leave in place the minimum wage reimbursement credit that is paid to businesses to cover a sizable portion of the hourly increase, or should businesses pay the fair wage on their own?

As part of economic fairness, you reference Cuomo's focus on big business, specifically changes in the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and certain taxes paid by banks.  However, you did not mention one of Cuomo's economic development achievements, the Start-UP NY, or Tax Free NY program, which allows new companies to come to New York, plop down near a SUNY Campus or a designated private college or university and get a pass on sales, property or business taxes. And their employees don't have to pay state income taxes for 10 years.

Clearly, this program is not fair to existing companies and their employees, including those companies who can expand into these tax-free zones, as long as they maintain their existing workforce.  And of course we've been promised that the shirt-changing, game-playing of similar programs from the past will not happen this time.

Given your stated preference for economic fairness, would you continue this program as-is, continue it with changes that make the playing field more level and fair for existing companies, the ones that do pay sales, property and business taxes, and their employees who are required to pay income tax, or would you scrap this program all together and do something else to promote development, increase employment, and encourage growth? If the answer is scrap it, describe what you would do to engage businesses to come to - or stay in - New York? 

You also reference infrastructure and expanding competition, rather than consolidating it, as other key components of your economic development platform. I agree with you both on the critical need for all New Yorkers to have affordable, reliable access to high speed Internet and on disapproving of the Comcast - TimeWarner merger.

Here in my neck of the woods, the infrastructure issues that are of greatest concern are the deteriorating condition of roads, bridges, and our water delivery system. We have streets in desperate need of repair in our central business districts and our neighborhoods, and not enough time or money to fix all of them. Syracuse had the dubious distinction of making NY Times this past February, with our 100+ water main breaks just in the first six weeks of the year. Our water delivery infrastructure is decades-old  and acts it, in an ornery and cantankerous fashion. Whenever a main breaks, there are not only issues with a lack of water for the impacted area, but the ripple effect, pardon the pun, is extensive AND expensive for local businesses, employees, and customers.

In addition to having New York companies work on New York infrastructure, and restoring infrastructure funds 're-purposed' for the state's general fund, what assistance can local municipalities expect from the state to help correct these critical infrastructure issues?

Another 'up here' issue is the effort to get some sort of high speed passenger rail service along the Empire Corridor, a route that generally follows the path of the existing Interstate network from Buffalo and Niagara Falls to NYC.  How much use this high speed rail system might get depends on how fast the trains go, where they stop, how often they run, and of course how (and how much) work will be done to separate existing passenger and freight lines, which everyone seems to blame for Amtrak trains travelling more slowly than cars on the Thruway. 

Regular infrastructure problems -- roads and bridges, water delivery, broadband access - these are all people problems, they're fiscal problems, and they're future growth and development problems. And as you note they're public health and safety issues as well, in light of the problems experienced after Hurricane Sandy (and I'd add Super Storm Irene as well). Those storms opened our eyes to a whole other set of infrastructure and service delivery issues which have not effectively been addressed. 

How do you prioritize these issues?  Is attention going to be paid first to NYC, the MTA and the Sandy fallout, and let the upstate chips fall where they may?  Or can you fund critical priorities in both areas without breaking the bank or our collective financial back?

(2) Energy:
You support a full and fast ban on fracking, and an end to the dance around the issue, which I cynically believe is designed to prevent a decision from occurring during a Cuomo administration. Many residents in the Southern Tier, who see the economic boom happening across the border in Pennsylvania, not only want a decision now, but they want a 'full steam ahead' decision, now.

What industry or industries do you feel could provide similar economic impact as fracking, but without the risk to the environment? 

You also note that we need large-scale public works programs to help us retrofit existing structures, from public buildings to gas stations, to improve energy efficiency and reduce costs.

Do you envision a modern-day Works Progress Administration (WPA) for the unemployed and able-bodied people in the safety net?

(3) Clean, fair and open elections:
I agree with most of your positions on campaign finance reform, including limiting the amount that can be contributed, closing the LLC loophole, and the unfettered use of housekeeping accounts. I would go farther on this issue, however.

Do you support term limits for those who serve at the state level, including members of the Legislature, the Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, and so on, with a maximum combined 12 years in state elected office?

Would you support campaign finance laws that require donations only from residents of the legislative district where applicable, meaning no out-of-state funds, and no out-of-district funds for legislative seats as well as seats at the county, town and village level?

Would you apply the same limits to unions (public employee groups as well as others) as you would on corporations? 

I also agree that we need to reboot the Moreland Commission, but I have a concern with the make-up of the committee, particularly the fact that eleven of the commissioners are elected District Attorney, including two of the three commission chairs. I'm not convinced that these folks are any more pure than the others, who as you point out, may not be doing anything "technically illegal" but are "epitomizing legal corruption."

Would you consider reinstating and fully funding a Moreland Commission that did not include any elected officials as members?

(4) Guns and gun control:
Governor Cuomo, with the help of liberal Dems and moderate Republicans, passed the NY SAFE Act, which includes a host of changes to New York's gun laws, including ammunition limitations, more background checks, increased penalties for gun crimes (including those impacting first responders), and tries to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental illnesses. It also touches on Internet sales, the permitting process and school safety.

The SAFE Act has been widely derided by legal experts, police departments, fraternal police organizations, gun clubs, politicians in office an out, just about all of the 62 county legislatures in the state, and many ordinary New Yorkers. At the same time, even strongly pro-gun folks can find agreement with much of what's included in the law, as we all can disagree with the heavy-handed method in which the law was passed.

In addition, many counties have a significant backlog in the processing of handgun permits, which some feel is one more violation of their 2nd Amendment rights (on top of the SAFE Act itself).

Explain your position on gun control, and what if anything would your administration would do with the SAFE Act -- leave it alone, scrap it and start over, or modify it?  Please provide details if you would make changes to or scrap the current program. 

I keep thinking of other questions, but I have to save some for whoever ends up facing Rob Astorino.

Overall, I see many areas where Teachout and I share positions, and some where we don't. I like that we have a choice, and I'm a firm believer in the primary process.  I just wish our current governor was more of a believer.

I'll keep you posted on any responses I receive.

The Irony Board 4/30/14

I'm not going to spend a lot of time today discussing whether we should have a federal minimum wage, or whether it should be $10.10 per hour, or whether if we raise it we'll ruin the economy or help the economy.

I've admitted being conflicted about the minimum wage issue, in part because when the minimum wage goes up, all other wages don't go up, and I have a hard time understanding how a job that a 'qualified' person has today that pays twice the minimum wage wouldn't be worth twice the minimum wage tomorrow if politicians vote to raise it. On the other hand, I believe that in order for our economy to improve, people need to have money to spend, and to save, and you can't do either of those if you're slaving away for $15,000 per year. So, yes, I'm conflicted on this one, and would appreciate assistance if you can offer some.

But where I'm not conflicted is on the ridiculous nonsense that played out in Washington today when, failing to muster the magic 60 votes to break a filibuster, the Senate was unable to even discuss the minimum wage hike the Dems have made a priority this year.

Since this is a key election-year battle the Dems want to fight (whether that's a good idea or a bad one remains to be seen), they'll be bringing the bill back again, and if it fails again they'll try to get it back again before the mid-term elections.

The filibuster was not unexpected -- that's the way business doesn't get done in DC, as we know.  But the irony of Republicans complaining about a vote designed to go nowhere was not lost on me. Here's Senator John Cornyn of Texas, one of the Republican leaders, commenting on the vote:

Let's talk about the 800-pound gorilla here in the Senate chamber.  This is all about politics. This is all about trying to make this side of the aisle look bad and hardhearted.

Remember, these are the Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell who once made it his top priority to keep Barack Obama from becoming a two-term president. The same Republicans who have filibustered too many federal appointees since the beginning of Obama's first term to count.

These are the same Republicans, and this is the same Mitch McConnell, who fought so hard to win the McCutcheon case, that further relaxes limits on money er, I mean speech, in politics.

And this is the same Republican Party -- different chamber, different leaders, but it's the same party -- that took us to the fiscal cliff, and that voted dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of times to repeal the Affordable Care Act -- the epitome of a vote that's going nowhere.

Yes, these are the Republicans who today refused to even discuss raising the federal minimum wage, which hasn't been increased since 2009, and the tipped wage, which hasn't been increased since 1991, and who complained that the Dems were playing politics.

Nah -- I'm not conflicted on that part at all.

Sidebar: Equal Opportunity Angry Voter

Democrats.org image

 Listen, Democrats - if you think my Angry Voter  Knock Knock post   yesterday means you're off the  hook, you are sorely mistaken.

 Because you're spending too much time on the wrong  things, too, just  like the Republicans are. At the  federal level and at the state level, just  like the  Republicans are.

 Need some examples?

• limiting bullets in ammo clips does not create jobs
• universal pre-k does not create jobs
• extending unemployment benefits does not create jobs
• raising the minimum wage does not create jobs
• regulating the size of a soda is not going to create jobs

There's more, but I'll stop with these.

Now, don't get me wrong: I believe that we can have reasonable limits on guns -- I've talked quite a bit about that (here, here and here, for example). And I believe we have a problem with gun violence that is not going to be solved simply by changing gun laws. And while bullet limits might make us feel better, we're not going to see more than a handful of jobs created (to make ammo clips smaller) in the overall scheme of things.

And yes, I understand that having a good start at the pre-k level is important, but not if we stop there.  I believe that we need to do something about education in America, something that neither demonizes nor blindly rewards teachers, something that doesn't just take another pile of money and throw it at the problem, and we should ensure that what we teach in schools matters.  Meaning, we should not be teaching to the test if the testing is not going to accomplish anything.

I also think we should not be giving incentives to people to take their children out of public elementary and secondary schools in favor of private schools; in fact, the opposite would make more sense. Give tax breaks to people who keep their kids in public schools.

While universal pre-k is believed by many to help get kids and families on the right track, help them move down the path to eventual gainful employment, it's not going to create a whole lot of jobs, and all of that preparation could end up being wasted if we don't have jobs when these kids get out of school.

And yes, unemployment benefits are always an important and necessary evil in our economy, even when it was booming back in the day. In today's economy, the need is higher, but making sure the safety net is larger or longer-lasting doesn't address the foundational issue, which is that we are not putting people back to work fast enough.

Raising the minimum wage is something we can debate forever; there are significant areas of disagreement on the benefits of doing this, and there are examples on both sides of how beneficial or horrible it will be if we paid everyone at least $8 or $9 or $10 or $15 an hour for typically unskilled jobs, and the implications on jobs that already pay that amount to people who have skills and qualifications.

I'm conflicted on what the minimum wage should be, and whether there should even be a federal minimum wage. But I'm not conflicted on this: raising the minimum wage is not apt to create a ton of jobs, and the jobs that would be created at this wage level are not the kind that will help grow and sustain our economy over the long term.

One place I think we don't need to be conflicted at all is on how many jobs regulating the size of a cup of soda will create. I mean, talk about a drop in the bucket. I think everyone can at least understand where this type of thing comes from -- as a whole we drink (and eat) far too many empty calories and in the short- and long-term that's not good for us and leaves us open to significant health issues and potentially disability and that will tax the safety net and cost us more money and so on.  I get that - but I don't for a moment believe this is something that we need to have politicians spending time on.

We need jobs. Good paying jobs. We need a solid education system that will prepare the next generation for what's to come in the workplace, whether it's renewable energy or high-tech manufacturing or low-tech manufacturing or pharmaceuticals or old fashioned energy jobs or long-haul truckers or infrastructure repair experts or teachers or physicians assistants and nurse practitioners or diabetes educators or registered dietitians or personal trainers or ammo clip makers or yoga instructors or wolves of Wall Street.

We need jobs that allow people to work full time, to earn enough to take control of their own lives, to get unentwangled from the safety net.

And we need them yesterday.

So, Dems, figure out a way to talk to the Republicans and find some common ground. Because I'm not really any happier with you than I am with them.

Wage Wars

By a show of hands, how many of you are conflicted about the latest wage wars?  I'm not talking about CEO pay compared to employee pay, I'm talking about the minimum wage protests that are occurring at Walmarts and fast food restaurants across the country. Bueller? Anyone?

I readily raise my hand on this one.

In case you missed it, protests were organized last week by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other labor groups. Much of the effort has been pushed towards this magical $15 hourly federal minimum wage, the thinking being that at that level, a person is making a living wage - over $31,000 annually for a full time job, compared to about half that at today's minimum.

Am I the only one that doesn't agree with the assumption (presumption?) that minimum wage earners are predominantly full time workers who need to make a 'living wage' in order to support themselves and their families?

Well, no. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2012, here are your minimum wage employees:

• workers under age 25 make up about half of all minimum-wage workers
• about 21% of teenagers and about 5% of whites, blacks, and Hispanics who are paid hourly earn the federal minimum wage or less (which is legal in certain situations). 
• part-time workers are much more likely to earn minimum wages than are full-timers, and 
• so are never married people, and those without high school diplomas.

But, again according to the BLS data, the percentage of all hourly-paid workers who earn minimum wage in 2012 was 4.7%, down from 5.2% in 2011; these are nowhere near the high percentages that were seen back in the 1970's. (And, not for nothing, at least at one of the events in my neck of the woods, the protesters were not current minimum wage workers, but looked rather more like aging liberals who conceivably could have worked for minimum wage back in the day when that percentage was way up there.)

Another reason I'm conflicted is I don't understand how we can double the minimum wage without making corresponding changes in the wages paid to everyone else.  Here's an example from the local job listings; many of them don't include salary info, but I did find this ad which did:

Location: Syracuse NY Hourly $11 - $15 

Always seeking candidates with experience in Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable, Bookkeeping, Reconciliation and Payroll. Qualified candidates must have 2+ years of experience. Strong attention to detail, great organizational skills, computer proficiency including strong data entry skills and MS Word and Excel. Knowledge of specific accounting software a plus (QuickBooks, etc.). Pay DOE and level of skills. 

So, pretend you're working at the high end of the range in that ad, making $15 per hour with a corresponding set of skills/education/training, and suddenly you're on equal footing with a minimum wage worker.  If the work you were doing yesterday was worth about twice minimum wage, wouldn't it be worth about twice minimum wage today and tomorrow and the next day, even if some unions protested and politicians listened and randomly decided to double the minimum wage? Wouldn't you expect your employer to double your wage?

And wouldn't the same be true for the wages of the person earning $18 per hour? $20 per hour? $45 per hour? I don't think it really matters what the non-minimum wage salary is, it's hard not to think it should be doubled if the minimum wage is doubled. It's also hard not to think what it would do to our economy if suddenly wages doubled and prices went up accordingly to support them.

Another concern  -- call me crazy -- is that I don't trust politicians to make a change and do it logically. Why?  Well, let's look at New York, my home state. The minimum wage here will increase to $8 for 2014, and then move to $8.75 for 2015, and finally to $9 for 2016.  Sounds good, right?

Not so fast, my friends, not so fast. This is New York, after all.

To make the wage requirement more palatable to businesses, there's a 'minimum wage reimbursement credit' that we taxpayers will have to pay, in order to allow businesses to offer the higher base wages. From the Bloomberg Businessweek article:

Employers would be compensated at a rate of 75 cents an hour per employee when the minimum wage rises to $8 beginning next year, an election year.  Employers would get $1.31 an hour for workers paid minimum wage when it rises to $8.75 in 2015. When the minimum wage raises to $9 in 2016, employers would be subsidized $1.35 an hour for three years. 

So, to recap:  the NY State legislature, with the support of our Sonofa Governor Andrew Cuomo, increased the minimum wage but are making regular Janes and Joes pay for it, not just in the reimbursement credit, as they so delicately call it, but almost certainly in the higher prices that goods and services will cost once the minimum wage goes up. Do you wonder why I'm cynical? And conflicted?

Do I believe the minimum wage should be increased? Sure. The benefits, including the potential for folks to get out of safety net programs and instead be more economically productive members of society, are probably worth it.  And after all, if we are wiling increase other programs on a fairly regular basis (Social Security, for example, has an inflation multiplier), we should be willing to have regular, reasonable increases in the minimum wage.

Oh -- one more thing: there is no requirement for businesses to pay only the minimum wage. They are free to pay hourly employees what they like as long as it's at least the applicable federal minimum or state minimum, whichever is higher. Some businesses do, some don't, but ultimately they have the choice - and they'll likely base that choice on a combination of their business needs, their social compass, and our buying habits.

Maybe we should think about that the next time we the pull into a drive-through to grab something off the dollar menu.