1
   

After 100 hours, prospects look bleak

 
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 04:59 pm
@Drnaline,
Townhall.com::Sticking it to low-skilled workers::By John Stossel

In the first hundred hours of the just-started session of Congress, the new leadership promises to raise the minimum wage. The Democrats won't be opposed by many Republicans. President Bush says he'll go along with a higher minimum wage if it's coupled with tax and regulatory breaks for small businesses.

Raising the minimum wage is definitely popular. Voters in six states approved higher minimums last Election Day. State politicians in both parties are practically drooling with eagerness to "help" lower-income workers. After all, how can you call the current minimum, $5.15 an hour, a "living" wage? Who can live on that?

We all want the poor to make more money. So if government can raise wages by decree, why are the popular proposals so stingy? What good is a measly buck or two extra? Let's really do something for the poor. Let's raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour. Even better, $50!

Or maybe we should take a deep breath and think like economists for a change.

The law of supply and demand, which operates whether we like it or not, says that when the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. That's why environmentalists like higher gasoline taxes, and anti-smoking activists back higher cigarette taxes.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 05:32 pm
@Drnaline,
Congress

100-Hour Agenda: Democrats' attempt to implement their "first 100 hours" agenda has had mixed results so far, with some successes but a few bloopers as well.

Ethics Reform: The Democrats' House ethics reform hit a snag with their prohibition of travel by members on corporate jets. The new rule bans travel on non-governmental planes that are not licensed by the FAA for commercial air travel. The problem is that the FAA does not license planes for commercial air travel -- only pilots. The way the rule is written, members of Congress would literally be forbidden from flying on any commercial flight as well as any corporate jets. Republicans pointed to this difficulty as a result of Democrats' failing to put any of their "100 hour" legislation through the committee process.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are not following their House counterparts in enacting a ban on Senators' flying on corporate jets. The main concerns are that the provision could make re-election more difficult for many incumbents. As a compromise, their package makes such travel much more expensive for senators by requiring them to pay a charter rate.

_____________________

Brainiac's some of these Dem's.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 05:44 pm
@Drnaline,
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 09:32:28