January 24, 2007

THE LAME DUCK DEMOCRATS:

Tax Breaks Sidetrack Minimum Wage Bill (JIM KUHNHENN, 1/24/07, The Associated Press)

Democrats' promise of a quick increase in the minimum wage ran aground Wednesday in the Senate, where lawmakers are insisting it include new tax breaks for restaurants and other businesses that rely on low-pay workers.

On a 54-43 vote, Democrats lost an effort to advance a House-passed bill that would lift the pay floor from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour without any accompanying tax cut. Opponents of the tax cut needed 60 votes to prevail.

The vote sent a message to House Democrats and liberals in the Senate that only a hybrid tax and minimum wage package could succeed in the Senate. But any tax breaks in the bill would put the Senate on a collision course with the House, which is required by the Constitution to initiate tax measures.


On to '08.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 24, 2007 1:13 PM
Comments

The Senate is where bills go to die.

Posted by: Stormy70 at January 24, 2007 2:05 PM

Without tax breaks raising the minimum wage kills small business. It seems to me that the Dems would be only hurting themselves to push this.

Posted by: Bartman at January 24, 2007 3:03 PM

The tax-cut/minimum wage connection is the most consistent with market analysis. The market sets the value of labor. A minimum wage is a form of welfare--a transfer payment.

Now to minimize the market distortion, and as a matter of justice, the transfer payment should be borne by the general population, not just the unlucky segment who are consumers of the products of minimum-wage labor.

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 24, 2007 3:06 PM

Note the reporting though - "Republicans kill minimum wage increase". No mention in the early sections that it was killed, with some Dem support, due to GOP pushing for tax breaks.

Posted by: AWW at January 24, 2007 4:48 PM

A:

Yes, the particulars don't matter. The story is that the Democrats can't pass even the supposedly most popular measure from their meager agenda.

Posted by: oj at January 24, 2007 5:42 PM

"The story is that the Democrats can't pass even the supposedly most popular measure from their meager agenda."

The poor Democrats! Now they'll be able to run on the issue in 2008 as well!

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 24, 2007 7:07 PM

The poor Democrats! Now they'll be able to run on the issue in 2008 as well!

Big deal. This is the same party that's been running against Herbert Hoover for over 70 years now. For a group that styles themselves "progressive", they sure do have a dearth of new ideas or policies. If their opposition was half as corrupt and petty as they are the Democrats would never win anything. They should just be thankful that the Stupid Party frequently lives up to its name.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at January 24, 2007 8:03 PM

Hopefully! The next time minimum wage is a salient issue will be the first.

Posted by: oj at January 24, 2007 8:13 PM

"The next time minimum wage is a salient issue will be the first."

What an odd statement in light of the 2006 elections.

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 24, 2007 8:19 PM

If the 2006 election were about the economy the GOP would have won. It was about Iraq. Period.

Posted by: oj at January 24, 2007 8:47 PM

It was merely a coincidence, then, that all those Democrats talking about raising the minimum wage won?

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 24, 2007 9:00 PM

OJ - Iraq and Congress corruption, both of which hurt the GOP (thanks to the MSM and GOP ineptitude)

Posted by: AWW at January 24, 2007 9:01 PM

No one cares about corruption when they vote.

Posted by: oj at January 24, 2007 9:12 PM

Yes, they could have talked about being taken by aliens and probed and they'd have won if they had a D after their name. Combine the natural 6th year factor with a President emphasizing an unpleasant war and the only surprising thing is how narrowly they lost. That's largely a function of their being the dominant party now.

Posted by: oj at January 24, 2007 9:14 PM

"That's largely a function of their being the dominant party now."

A dominant party with minorities in both houses of the national legislature, a minority of governorships, and a minority of state legislatures? That must be some definition of "dominant" of which no one else who speaks English but you is aware.

Posted by: Jack Harkness at January 24, 2007 11:42 PM

Jack: do you always use you dominant hand or foot?

Posted by: Ralph at January 25, 2007 1:11 AM

Jack Harkness, would you please quit posting every comment twice?

Posted by: jgm at January 25, 2007 1:12 AM

The GOP won Congress in '52. The Democrats were the dominant party from '32 to '94. Note that the Democrats agenda for their two years in power is to do nothing--they can't afford to challenge the conservative consensus, just as the GOP had to swallow the New Deal for sixty years.

Posted by: oj at January 25, 2007 8:48 AM

Ralph, sorry for the repetition, but I'm in absolute awe of this construct: That must be some definition of "dominant" of which no one else who speaks English but you is aware.

Posted by: erp at January 25, 2007 8:54 AM
« WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO OFFER BUT REACTION?: | Main | AND WITH THAT HE'S NOT EVEN ONE OF THE FIVE MOST DELUSIONAL SENATORS ANYMORE: »

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference THE LAME DUCK DEMOCRATS::

» Tax breaks sidetrack minimum wage bill from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
Democrats' promise of a quick increase in the minimum wage ran aground Wednesday in the Senate, wher [Read More]