Iraq bill contains: no benchmarks AND first minimum wage increase in years

[pnwmom]

How do people feel about the $2.10 raise in the minimum wage (first raise in ten years) being part of the horse-trading in the Iraq bill?

One of the trade-offs involved the Democrats giving up fixed benchmarks in exchange for Bush's caving in on the minimum wage increase (and several other benefits to poor and middle income people). The minimum wage increase and these other benefits were incorporated into the Iraq funding bill.

The Democrats could have tried to pass the wage increase on their own, but most likely Bush would have vetoed it, as he's threatened to veto every other attempt. And we don't have the votes for an override.

I hate the fact that the benchmarks have been taken out of the Iraq bill, but I have some sympathy for what Pelosi and Reid were trying to accomplish. Horsetrading has always been a part of politics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070523/us-iraq

[bahrbearian]

1. It would ruin our economy, and bankrupt the Treasury,,Oh wait, never mind

[kickysnana]

2. Too little too late and we cannot overcome a veto. Forget about it.

[pnwmom]

3. It won't be vetoed because it's in the Iraq bill that Bush agreed to.

[kickysnana]

4. I already wrote my congressfolks to vote against that bill.

[pnwmom]

6. I am very unhappy about the loss of the benchmarks.

But I think that the decision wasn't as clear cut as some here would like to think. Perhaps Pelosi and Reid thought that the benchmarks in the end would end up being toothless -- and that it was better to trade for things like the minimum wage increase. (And there were several additional items in the funding bill of benefit to lower and middle income people that Bush would otherwise have vetoed.)

If you're not down at the minimum wage level, it might be easier to think it wasn't worth it, but I think it will help a lot of people.

So I'm torn.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. We should have brought it up separately

By doing this we would give him a chance to do further damage to himself and the Republic Party by vetoing an increase in the minimum wage, a popular idea. We could then have tied the minimum wage increase to the next bill that we perceived as "vital." We could have won both politically and substantively on the issue--if we were willing to fight...

[pnwmom]

7. What other bill would BUSH have perceived as vital?

It's his perception that would matter if we were trying to avoid a veto.

[sandnsea]

8. Not worth it

Let Bush veto minimum wage. It seems like that's what it's going to take to wake this country up to what these Republicans really stand for. I can't believe they put that in there, just plain stupid.

[pnwmom]

10. I'm wondering if their reasoning was

that any benchmarks would be toothless anyway, given the behavior of this administration.

So that it might be worth it to trade for vital matters?

[sandnsea]

12. Embarrasses anti-war legislators

What are they supposed to do? It sounds like blackmail to me. I don't like it one bit. Minimum wage passed with fairly decent Republican support. There was no reason to tack this on to the emergency spending bill, and make people vote against minimum wage in order to vote against war funding.

[pnwmom]

15. The ostensible reason was that Bush would have vetoed it otherwise,

even with "fairly decent" Republican support. We don't have enough votes for an override.

[sandnsea]

16. I don't think so

Even Florida has increased their minimum wage. I don't think the Republicans can risk opposing an increase. I think the reason Dems put that in there was to use it against the anti-war bunch. Nothing else really makes any sense.

And you know what else. All the Republicans are going to do is claim THEY passed minimum wage.

[bluestateguy]

9. And there you have it

In order to get a minimum wage increase for the first time in 11 years, we have to fund a war that 70% of the American people oppose.

States are already taking the lead on this issue anyway.

[pnwmom]

11. Isn't politics fun?

:sarcasm:

Some, but not all states.

[pschoeb]

13. The increase won't occur for two years

By that time US Economy will be $2.10 shittier from Iraq war, among other things, so will make no difference to workers.

Also, most States already have higher minimum wage than previous federal $5.15. I live in Illinois and two years from now our minimum wage will be $8.25. So for a substantial number of Democratic Party constituents, this does nothing.

States with substantially the same or higher minimum wage than the one that will only take place in two years.

Alaska
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington St.
West Virginia

[pnwmom]

14. That leaves 34 states that will benefit.

[pschoeb]

17. But some not by much as they have current minimum wage in the

6.75-7.15 range

Arizona
Colorado
Florida
Maine
Ohio
Wisconsin

Republicans win on this, as they can blame this on Democratic Party when going to corporate sponsors, but benefit because their base in deep red states that have no minimum wage laws will feel less of a pinch, but probably never even think to give credit to Democratic Party for it, and the constituents of most of the Democratic Party reps, get nothing from this increase.