Congress would pass an increase in the minimum wage before leaving Washington for vacation, but only as part of a package rolling back taxes on the heirs of multimillionaires, a Senate leadership aide said Friday.
The GOP package would also contain a popular package of expiring tax breaks, including a research and development credit for businesses, and deductions for college tuition and state sales taxes.
The wage would increase from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, phased in over the next two years, the aide said.
The maneuver is aimed at defusing the wage hike as a campaign issue for Democrats while using its popularity to spur enactment of the Republican Party's long-sought goal of permanently cutting taxes on millionaires' estates.
Friday, July 28, 2006
HOUSE GOP LEADERS OK MINIMUM-WAGE HIKE
But of course it isn't a standalone proposal. The Associated Press reports on an especially breathtaking bit of shamelessness:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
I am shocked to hear you say that House Republicans are lacking in principle. I mean with all the backbone and leadership that congress has displayed in the last 5 years...
Oh god he's been president a long time.
The classic poison pill ....
Don't forget my "friends" that one of the main reasons Dems call for a hike in the minimum wage is because pay increases in union contracts are tied to the minimum wage.
And what is with this rich friends stuff when it comes to Republicans? There's as much truth in that as there is in the myth that Democrats care for the working man.
And by mentioning "heirs" I'm assuming were talking about the death tax? Now there's a tax dems should hate. After some schmuck works his butt off for 50 years to live the American dream, he dies and there's Uncle Sam taking the majority of the wealth instead of it going to his/her "heirs."
I'm surprised dems haven't come up with a frickin' resurrection tax.
Newtster again? With the same tired nothing to say? YAWN.
Yep. Once again Kid Nytol to the rescue. Putting the left asleep so they're unable to forward their losing agenda.
Keep sleeping anon. And don't let the tax bugs bite.
newtster refers to the death tax. No such thing. That's a Republican talking point. The Estate Tax affects fewer than 2 percent of Americans who die. More than 98 percent pass their estate on to their heirs completely tax-free — in fact, they get a valuable tax break on capital gains. Zero estate tax is charged on assets left to a spouse or to charity.
newtster also claims the Estate Tax takes away over half the value of the estates of those whom it affects. The reality is that the Estate Tax actually shields assets from capital gains taxes. For the two percent of Americans whom it applies to, the average effective tax rate is 17%. Hardly "the majority of the wealth."
And the reason "dems haven't come up with a frickin' resurrection tax" is primarily because we live in reality, where there is no such thing as resurrection, not mythology.
Larry, you made good sense until you threw that stereotype in the ballgame. As an educator you should know better than to rely on stereotypes to define our culture.
Amazingly enough, there are many Christians out there who are Democrats. There are Christians who believe in stem cell research. There are Christians who do not like the idea of a politican, any politican, using Christ as a political platform for election. There are Christians who believe in the science of evolution.
There are Christians who are very upset with the war and killing of innocent people. There are Christians who are against President Bush. There are Christians who think that Pat Robertson, Jim Hagee, and Jerry Faldwell are hate mongers.
So I take umbrage with your assertion that Republicans are Christians and Liberals are not. I don't mind it that you might see religion as a crutch or mysticism. So it is with many people -- many poor misguded people. [we're just having fun, right?]
(Man-o-man I love it when an occassion pops up for me to use the term umbrage.)
doclarry, if 98% of the estates in this country are passed on to relatives "tax free" then we should do away with the so-called death tax. But, if there is no such thing, why was the topic debated in 2004 by Bush and Kerry?
As for the resurrection tax, I knew that would be your reaction. Not that it matters to me, you understand, but that mind-set is why most left-wing Democrats don't resonate with most of the country.
I agree to a point with fat jack. I too am not fond of politicians who go biblical all the time. However, just because a man or a woman has faith, I'm not going to roast them for the same reason that I wouldn't roast you for not having any.
It boils down to convictions and principle. Bush has both and you hate him for it. Joe Lieberman has both and he's being destroyed by his own party.
You jumped all over the "death tax", but why did you not challenge the labor contracts and their salaries being tied to a hike in the minimum wage? Is that another Republican talking point?
Anyone who tries to talk sense to Newtster would be well advised to heed the old adage about not trying to teach a pig to sing. It's purely a waste of your time, and it only annoys the pig.
You know, I'd make fun of newster for having a nick related to both a pompous gas bag AND a weird looking amphibian if I myself weren't nicked for a buck-toothed rodent and now the victim of a campaign to change me to a naked mole rat ... not that I'm bitter Larry Litle.
I am against the increase in the minimum wage. I agree with Ron's point that these Republicans should stand for principle and either support the increase right out or stand against it. Both sides have points on this debate. When I see one side cave because they are scared little children is quite frustrating. If you believe something, stand up for it and be a man (or woman). The Republicans are making it difficult to vote for them when I know they will cave on their principles so quickly. I may not agree with the Democrats on this issue but at least they are standing on their principles on this issue.
Thank you, Fat Jack, for your response. I could not agree more.
Amy,
Rufus is so cute. Bryan and I were just thinking of wonderful (and cute) you are, just like Rufus.
Fat Jack refers to me as an educator. As such, let's do some critical thinking.
"So I take umbrage with your assertion that Republicans are Christians and Liberals are not. "
Where did I say this? newtster's bait, which Fat Jack took, was a surprise that Democrats hadn't propsed a resurrection tax. I said it was because Dems live in reality. It has nothing to do with religion.
newtster wants you to believe I attacked Christianity since Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Resurrection refers to the event of a dead person returning to physical life. As far as I know, Christians do not believe resurrection is a common, every-day occurrence. Therefore, it cannot be taxed. Only in mythology do you find resurrection as a common experience.
Ergo, those who live in the reality-based community do not attempt to tax something which is non-existent.
newtster is part of the unfortunate wing of Republicans who believe they can just make up stuff, work from their "gut," and never look back.
As George Paine stated so well, "Here in Reality Country we believe in considering the consequences of our actions. Here in Reality Country we believe in reason and logic. Here in Reality Country we construct plans for going about complex tasks (you know, like invasions of sovereign countries). Here in Reality Country we allow the evidence to speak before we defer to our "gut".
Believe or don't believe. I don't care. Have all the faith you want. That's great for you. But if you base all your actions entirely on a belief you're on a mission from God and can do nothing wrong, you need a reality check.
And those who read my earlier comment with logic and reason should be able to understand that. Others, well, I agree with anonymous...why bother trying to teach a pig to sing?
Y'know, I've leafed through my CATO pocket Constitution, and damned if I can find where it says "Congress shall make laws telling employers to pay X dollars per hour"...
Well, Lib-guy, I was looking at the ACLU version of the same and I didn't see a single word in there that said the government air controllers could tell a passenger jet engaged in free-trade where to go in the sky.
As a matter of fact I didn't find anything there about the free exercise of the rights of meat packers to let hamburger lie around for a day or two so they could sell it -- if the buyer wants to buy it that's his problem. Didn't see a word in there about why Johnson and Johnson couldn't put cyanide in their tylenol free-market tabs. So what if a few die? They should have taken the personal responsibility to know that they were overly sensitive to cyanide.
It's all about personal responsibility, ya' know ....
BIG difference between jet planes, and how much someone gets paid. Not a safety issue for the latter.
How much gov't is too much, John?
Dear Nutster, Responding to your earlier comment that we hate W. because he has"convictions and principle".
We hate him becuse he is a bad leader and a fool. Just wanted to clear that up. Oh and he is a failure. Way to go for picking him as the best your party could muster.
notafinga. If Bush is a bad leader, a fool and the best we could muster, what does that say about John Kerry?
Me, I didn't vote for either one of 'em.
I agree completly. Kerry is a putz.
Most people with families who are making a minimum wage are eligible for earned income credit, food stamps, section 8 or subsidized housing, and medic-aid for their children if they're lucky. Who pays for these necessities of life for the mimimum wage earner? Of course, the answer is John and Jane Q. Taxpayer. Or under the current plan, your children-- Deficit and TaxCut Q. Taxpayer--aren't they the lucky ones!
Which is why it should be mandatory: For every tax cut, a corresponding cut in spending.
But, I doubt the RepubliCrats will ever use such logic. Gov't must grow, and it must be fed. Can't have people taking care of their own needs... that takes power away from the Almighty FedGovGod. Keep us dependent, dependent-minded - or, like a mushroom: In the dark, and fed full of shit.
"simply to defuse a campaign issue (and give a perk to their rich friends) -- shows their lack of principle."
So, do Dems have rich friends, to whom perks are given?
I do love the bread'n'circuses battle between the RepubliCrats. Rome fiddled while Nero burned, and all that. Highly entertaining.
I see both sides of this issue. As the owner of a small business, I have had a starting wage of $7 per hour for the last couple of years. Those who will work for less can't perform adequately in my workplace. I also have relatives who work for minimum wage and know how difficult their lives are. It does seem to be a fact of life that those with above average means will exploit the lower echelon of workers, thus the need to legislate a living wage. Slavery is a thing of the past...or is it?
There's nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to force employers to pay "living wages", or any other amount for that matter.
I work for a two-man company... me, and the owner. If he were forced to pay me more than he does now, he'd have to raise his rates, or cut his own pay (which isn't much; I've seen the books). Should he be forced, at the threat of gunpoint, to hand me more money every week?
That, in essence, is what "legislat[ing] a living wage" means, after all: Fail to comply, and goons with guns will eventually show up at your place of business.
I wonder if the person who posted this: (Most people with families who are making a minimum wage are eligible for earned income credit, food stamps, section 8 or subsidized housing, and medic-aid for their children if they're lucky.) knows anyone who tries to live on minimum wage. I wonder if they have any idea how hard it is to get subsidized housing. There is a waiting list that stretches literally for years. Not to mention the fact that if you have bad credit, you can't get the housing. It is pretty hard to live on $5.15/hour and have good credit. Medicaid, well that issue has been beaten to death, but I guess the anonymous poster hasn't followed this in the news. Just to let you know, Medicaid is difficult to use-even if you are "lucky" enough to get it (interesting choice of words, anonymous) most doctors, dentists and counselors can't afford to take it. Food stamps aren't an open debit card for food. You get a specific dollar amount, usually about a fifth of what is realistic to feed a family.
And it is horrible to think that you are working full time, usually more than one job, and you still have to rely on the government for basic needs.
You might want to get a little more education about life on $5.15 an hour before you spout off about how "lucky" a poor person is to get medicaid and section 8 housing.
So, it's the job of gov't to subsidize people who make minimum wage?
Sorry if it sounds heartless, but I disagree.
Yes, libertarian guy. It is the job of government to support the working poor,the disabled and "the least of these." And by the government, I do mean the government "of the people, by the people and FOR the people." People helping people. What a concept. Or as Yaakov would say: What a country.
We Americans are truly lucky that most people understand this very basic concept
It doesn't just SOUND heartless, Lib Guy, it IS heartless.
Study the early Greek philosophers and what they had to say about the true measure of any great society, and how that relates to the strength of its commitment to help the least of its members.
The basic notion is that if we were wild animals, it would be fine to live by the law of the jungle. The physically weakest would always die out. Only the strong would survive.
I hope you never require public assistance of any form. Or, if you do, I hope you don't confront attitudes like your own. You'd be even more screwed than you are.
Post a Comment