Missing Ingredient on Minimum Wage: A Motivated G.O.P.

Today's post was shared by The New York Times and comes from www.nytimes.com

Photo WASHINGTON — Each of the three previous presidents — two Republicans, one Democrat — signed an increase in the federal minimum wage. Given Mr. Obama’s emphasis on income inequality, and the popularity of an increase in opinion polls, you would think he would. But the story of recent increases underscores the indispensable ingredient he so far lacks: a Republican leader strongly motivated to make a deal over the party’s philosophical objections. In 1989, it was a new Republican in the White House. President George Bush, while campaigning to succeed Ronald Reagan, had promised “a kinder, gentler America.” The Democrats then controlling both houses of Congress set out to take him up on it. Mr. Bush drove a hard bargain on the minimum wage. He vetoed the first version Congress sent on grounds that it raised the wage by 30 cents an hour too much. But he eventually accepted a two-stage increase to $4.25 an hour on the condition that lawmakers include a lower “training wage” for teenagers. Photo President Bill Clinton and the Republican former Senate leader Trent Lott in 2009, 13 years after they forged agreement on a minimum-wage increase. In 1996, it was a new Republican Senate leader. Trent Lott took over after Bob Dole, then running for president against the incumbent Democrat, Bill Clinton, resigned his Senate seat. Mr. Clinton, who had battled fiercely with the House speaker, Newt Gingrich, and Mr. Dole,...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Related articles

• Election-year Senate vote nears on minimum wage (kansascity.com)
• Pressing Obama's Agenda, Maryland Lawmakers Raise Minimum Wage (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• The Case for a Higher Minimum Wage (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Report: Minimum wage hike would cut food stamp spending by $4.6 billion a year (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Rauner makes U-turn on minimum wage: 'I was flippant' (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Minimum wage in California to be $10 an hour (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Minimum Wage, Maximum Outrage (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

Government Shutdown Simulates “Small Government”

The US Senate again set the stage for another governmental shutdown. The Republican's blogged the nominations of President Obama's nominee for the the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the nominee for the head of the Federal Housing Agency. This strategic move puts into play the potential of another filibuster and how far a minority party can thwart the majority party.  Today's post comes from guest author Kit Case, from Causey Law Firm of The State of Washington.

Every news program announces the ongoing shutdown of non-essential federal government services.  News articles delve into the possible consequences.  Republicans and Democrats fight over whether the other is willing to negotiate.  Members of the Republican Party bicker within their ranks about the shutdown. 

Everyone should take note that what we are experiencing with the current shutdown provides us all with a practice-run for the level of government desired by the Tea Party members of the Republican Party.

Wikipedia notes that the current "small government" movement in the United States is largely a product of Ronald Reagan's presidency from 1980–88. The Tea Party movement is a modern reflection of this belief in small government. 

They claim that in the past the United States had a small government, and that it has turned away from that ideal. Some members of the Republican Party advocate small government, especially its libertarian wing, which includes politicians such as Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul. 

The Libertarian party, a third party, supports small government. A 2013 poll showed that the majority (54%) of Americans think the government is trying to do too much.

We now have an opportunity to define “essential” services.

Although 54% is only just a majority, Americans can now ponder the concept of small government and what the effect of shrinking the government would have on federal, state and local jurisdictions.  The “non-essential” services now halted would likely have to be replaced by those jurisdictions, where possible, were the federal government to be stripped down to the vision of the Tea Party and Libertarian Party members.  We now have an opportunity to define “essential” services.

Cities across the country will feel the pinch of the shutdown, particularly if it drags out beyond a few days. Furloughs of non-essential federal employees won't just affect D.C. and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs. Cities around the country host full-time, non-Post Office federal employee populations. New York is home to 26,696 federal employees; Atlanta is home to 23,718; Philadelphia is home to 19,940; Chicago has 16,069; Houston has 15,530; and Los Angeles has 14,689. The list of the top 50 cities with the highest federal employment is here.¹

Let’s get rid of (the term) entitlements

Is Workers' Compensation thought to be an "entltlement?" Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.washingtonpost.com

Let’s drop the whole notion of “entitlement.” Just eliminate it. Politicians, pundits and academics who talk about entitlements would then have to name the actual programs and argue their merits and demerits. This would encourage clarity and candor. Of course, that’s why it won’t happen. Generally, Americans don’t want clarity and candor in their fiscal debates. We blame our leaders for budget brawls — this latest was a doozy — but forget that our leaders are largely governed by public opinion, which is awash in contradictions. So the government is “open” and the immediate threat of default has lifted. Great. But the political stalemate remains. Americans oppose excessive government spending and persistent deficits. Yet they also support the individual benefit programs (a.k.a. “entitlements”), led by Social Security, that drive spending and deficits. Until the 1980s, entitlement wasn’t part of everyday language. Ronald Reagan was apparently the first president to use the term extensively. He may have “tired of getting beaten up every time he mentioned Social Security, and wanted a broader and more neutral term,” political scientist Norman Ornstein has suggested. Entitlement is a bland label. To say there’s an “entitlement problem” shrewdly avoids connecting it explicitly with popular programs. President Obama evasively speaks of entitlements in this way; so do most...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Related articles

• The Future of Workers' Compensation (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Social Security raise to be among lowest in years (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• What a Government Default Will Do To Workers' Compensation (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• What Does That Stand For? Commonly Used Acronyms in Workers' Compensation Cases (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• The Government Shutdown is a Kick-In-Gut to Workers' Compensation (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Parma considering following Cleveland in suing Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation over inflated premiums (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Hank Patterson Receives the 2013 Lifetime Achievement Award (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)