It's been interesting how the conversation has quickly been framed into how bad the Dems are and how insignificant the recent wave was. Since we are all Americans (well, most of us hehe) we have a shared interest in seeing what the recent political changes might bring our way.

Heard a great caller on KOPJ talking about this last night.

Essentially, the caller said the Dems should start introducing single subject legislation. Clean, simple, no riders:

-increase minimum wage

-undo draconian executive power legislation

-allow medicare to use it's size to drive down the price of drug purchases...

IMHO, it's a great time to score some good stuff for the people! Bush has a really fresh VETO pen after all. Let him use it or not and tell us why.

This would force the issues back toward our interests and that would be a good thing IMHO.

Another thing I would like to see is the congress working on more than one thing at a time. The GOP seemed to bring one issue up and just hammer it over and over. There is no reason why we cannot be drafting simple and clean legislation, while at the same time investigating things that one party alone would not.

What would you see the Dems doing that would benefit us?

I think I heard the same comment (same show or caller? I forget where I heard it). And I agree: the Dems should pass simple, single-issue bills and send them up to Bush one at a time. Minimum Wage? Medicare Part B Group Discount Negotiation? Enact the 9/11 Commission Recommendations? Let Bush veto or pass them one at a time.

The American people will also appreciate the simplicity and transparency of what has been increasingly seen as a bloated Congress that produces bills that are thousands of pages long, that many members of Congress never even read before the final vote. I'd love to see Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid holding up the stacks of paper in some old bills from the last Congress and then hold one of the new bills that, hopefully, is only a few pages long. That kind of thing would go light years toward establishing credibility with the American people.

Andrew

Increasing the minimum wage will be basically token music in a lot of ways. Yes, it hasn't been raised in some 15 years ... the thing is now that many states have a minimum wage that supercedes the fed's ... and the federal minimum wage is only effective on federal jobs.

I would love to see legislation that pushes REAL energy conservation and alternative energy sources. Ethanol being one for vehicles (perhaps following Brazil's lead, as discussed in other threads). Wind and solar power ... coming up with other alternatives. The way for us to become less dependent on foreign oil is NOT to tap into our reserves, or drill the ANWR or other places here in the US. We need to think outside the box.

Er, no, the Federal Minimum Wage covers all American workers, not just government jobs. It covers the workers at McDonalds and everywhere else.

Congress shouldn't get bogged down in scientific details about energy independence. Instead, it should allocate research money for different areas and set goals for energy independence. We really need something like an Apollo Program to develop a 250MPG car engine by 2015 or something like that. The US Congress didn't determine the best way to get to the Moon - NASA did. Scientists and engineers did. You'd think the Department of Energy would be mandated to do the energy thing but I'm not sure if that agency can. It really needs to be a team comprised of industry and research/academia with guideance, oversight, and funding from the government.

Andrew

Yep, I'll bet we heard the same caller. Or maybe, there are a few people saying it, which would be good!

I'm gonna write some letters advocating exactly this. Probably won't do much good, but I'll feel better about it anyway.

Your visual is perfect! Just the kind of easily digestable bit that would really resonate. The Dems could learn a thing or two from the GOP on that score. (hoping they do)

Dems need a coupla sound byte catchphrases to go along with it. Wonder if any of the GOP spinmeisters would consult? Dollars might go a long way in this regard!

cram and scam

pack and pass

load the boat and vote

stash and dash

muddy legislation

wheel and deal

blur and slur

force vote

...etc.

Get the right soundbytes, spend a little time getting the delivery just right and have Pelosi deliver it to the media, packaged and ready to go! Nice, clean clear.

"Instead of the usual GOP cram and scam legislation, we [Democrats] propose clear cut, single subject legislation to address basic issues on the minds of the American people. Our system of checks and balances can only work when it's not abused with muddy bills that force votes without real accountability. We will honor that system with clean and clear legislation that does not muddy the water on issues that matter to Americans."

Done right, this framework can be used to properly position all the key issues with clarity, thus marginalizing the bad practices we've seen to date.

"You'd think the Department of Energy would be mandated to do the energy thing but I'm not sure if that agency can. It really needs to be a team comprised of industry and research/academia with guideance, oversight, and funding from the government."

The Department of Energy is only going to do what the White House tells it to do. It IS part of the executive branch, I do believe.

I guess I worded what I meant wrong Andrew, you hit it more on the head. We can't dive in to energy independence legislation without knowing WHERE to divert the time, effort and money ... the fact is, we need to do SOMETHING. I would LOVE to see a bipartisan effort to piece together a team that has people from ALL sides to put together something that works best for everyone ... but you know damn well that Bush and his guys aren't going to listen to someone who represents environmental interests (not Greenpeace or the Sierra club, mind you, but say Northwest Steelheaders, pro-salmon recovery interests for example), and the environmental groups are going to tend to blow off Exxon and BP and the automakers and the like. There HAS to be a way to get something done.

I doubt that much really can get done if the President doesn't sign off on it, regardless of what the Congress passes. Bush is really an anti-science president, but maybe there are common areas where he will allow research funding that the Democratic congress can also agree on. But we aren't going to get far if he keeps insisting on drilling in ANWR.

Andrew

I strongly agree with new energy efforts.

If I can get my car, made in 89, to exceed 40mpg, then we could easily get vehicles produced today that would at least double that. And that's a small sedan.

The little sprint I owned, made in 88 would regularly exceed 50 mpg on just gas! Was a hell of a lot cheaper to produce than the current hybrids too.

Lots of innovation possible in this area. Would love to see it.


We need to raise the minimum wage federally because it does cover all workers. States are free to raise it further, but not less. It would be a strong statement of the minimum work value acceptable in these times.

We've exactly zero reasons to pay people an amount that is not worth consuming. That's government sanctioned exploitation and should not be allowed for any reason.

In those states where the minimum has been updated to reflect current economic realities, the kinds of businesses that always cry about overhead being too high exist just fine.

Other energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal) all can contribute to reducing our dependance. Frankly, we need oil for a lot of things besides moving us around and keeping us warm. Without it, whole classes of materials become too expensive or impossible to produce.

This worries me more than the general energy dependance does. We can stay warm and move around on other things. Without some pressure applied on industry to actually start doing this, we will just sit on the easy high energy density oil until it's too late.

I'm not sure Bush will go along with any of this stuff. However we just won't know until we try it.

If presented in a clear manner, the worst he can do is VETO it. That will position the issue for '08, when we get a chance to address the executive, then get something done.

"We need to raise the minimum wage federally because it does cover all workers. States are free to raise it further, but not less. It would be a strong statement of the minimum work value acceptable in these times."

You would think that the administration would WELCOME this. It's extra tax income into the IRS after all ... and trust me, it won't get raised enough to make it a "living wage".

I operate a small business, pretty much everyone working for me is at minimum wage. Yeah, Oregon's higher minimum wage and the yearly adjustment does hurt a bit, it's hard to pass it on to consumers when we are already perceived as being a high price point ... but it's not a threat to close our doors by any stretch. My salary goes up on a yearly basis a lot slower than my employees wages do partly because of that, but hey I CHOOSE to have the job and I have no issues with it. If anything, it makes me manage better.

"My salary goes up on a yearly basis a lot slower than my employees wages do."

But does the equity stake your employees own go up as much as yours does every year?

"But does the equity stake your employees own go up as much as yours does every year?"

Yep.

Zero.

I am given carte blanche to run the business as I see fit, I guess the owner likes how things are going ... but I have zero equity stake in the business itself.

Okay, when you said "operate" I assumed that meant you "owned" the business. Two different things.

My point is, is that although the low level employees are seeing raises each year, perhaps more than what the owner pays himself salary wise each year, you can bet that the owner of the business is gaining much more on the other side of the equation. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I think sometimes business owners tend to forget about that.

If the left increases the minimum wage, it will only make illegal labour more attractive.

That hurts the very people you say you want to protect, the legal working poor.

Herb

Fed minimum wage applies to all workers, unless the state has a higher minimum wage, not just fed jobs.

However, if the minimum wage is increased, expect a lot of small business to go under.

The demos have a big problem, in that they ahve a very small majority, and they have such extremes between their party, IE the southen democrats arent going to go along with any extreme liberal issues.

They can probably get a small minimum wage hike through.

They wont get anything through on health care.

They won't be able to reverse the southern wall being built. But may get some small immigration reform through.

Yeah, Herb, but if we simply crack down on hiring of illegal immigrants - actually punish the companies who knowingly hire them, because at this point the government rarely even looks at this - you would suddenly see far fewer illegal immigrants working here.

Andrew

Can you show some proof of this?

In places where the minimum wage is higher, we see more Americans willing to do the work! This puts illegals at a disadvantage. Combine the wage increase with some serious enforcement of labor laws and it's a slam dunk in this regard.

The reality is that we need as few of the legal working poor as is possible. Wages that are more in line the real work value will be more appealing to Americans, thus more of them will take the jobs!

We need business owners to pay a wage that makes a minimum of sense. Keeping it low to appease them is the wrong answer. Better to raise the stakes and thus the risk attached to employing illegals. If it's not worth it, they won't do it will they?

Preventing illegal labor is a seperate issue from establishing the minimum work value that makes sense. By tying the two together, you really are just making the working poor as poor as is possible! That does not get any of us anywhere really.

If they don't have enough to spend, we all end up taking up the slack. Fix that and other costs go down, thus we all improve.

Make hiring illegals difficult and high risk and we will see a lot less of them overall. With that done, we can take down the damn fence because they won't have a ready source of income here.

The way I see it, I'm just happy that the demos are in power to stop Bush's destructive behavior. At least now there is some sort of balance. Anything the demos get is a bonus.

Of course, at the top of my list is a minimum wage bump. Ridding ourselves of mideast oil dependency is a nobrainer and of course, legislation to address al gore's environmental concerns is a must.

right wing whiners can just wait until the next election.

Missing, I think what Herb means is that if the minimum wage is raised, there will be more incentive for employers to hire workers under the table. But if the government actually enforced laws against hiring illegal immigrants, it would be kind of a moot point.

Andrew

Yep. I was trying to respond to that. You did a far better job of it.

You are as solid as usual!

There is no proof what so ever that if the minimum wage gets increased, it will result in business shutting down. That's just a right wing conspiracy theory people like to throw around.

And as far as this proposal increasing illegal immigration, I think that's a stretch. A simple solution to the illegal immigration problem is to levy a fine of $250K per illegal worker if your company gets caught. That will make it no longer cost effective for business to hire illegals. That and a nice big tall fence covering the entire span of the US/Mexico border should take care of it.

Just as there is no proof a tax cut for the higher income groups will result in economic growth and therefore an increase in tax revenue to offset the tax decrease. There is evidence that tax cuts for the upper income groups simply end up in the pockets of the beneficiaries of the cuts rather than put back into the economy in the form of employment.

There are no doubt a far greater number of Americans that would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage than a tax cut for the upper echelon of this country. Certainly, the increase in the wage at the lower end of the income brackets will result in additional spending and would arguably result in more growth than a tax cut to the rich. The individuals earning at or near the minimum wage do not have the same investment opportunities and given the country's abysmal savings rate, its easy to conclude the increased wage rate would be put back into the economy in the form of consumption.

That's where I'm at on the issue. Besides, the places where the wage is higher appear to be doing just fine. No reason not to support a solid minimum on that basis alone.

Herb said>>>
If the left increases the minimum wage, it will only make illegal labour more attractive.

So you LOWER it??? Are YOU going to lower the prices in the grocery stores? At the gas pump? At Wal-Mart???
What should the minimum wage be????
Herb???
$3.25 an hour???
You neo-CONers want to cut benifits to those who don't make enough money to survive now you don't want them to even make a decent wage period?? Do you expect them to work 3 jobs?