Could Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan really work?
■ No, says a former Treasury official, calling the proposal “a distributional monstrosity.”T RIBUNE W ASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON — Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan sounds simple enough: Eliminate the existing tax code and replace it with a 9 percent tax on personal income, a 9 percent business tax and a 9 percent national sales tax.But could it work?That question has been posed to tax policy experts since Cain unveiled the plan last month. It was a topic that dominated Tuesday’s debate in New Hampshire.Cain insists that the plan would immediately jump-start the economy by putting more money into people’s pockets.But Bruce Bartlett, a Treasury Department official under President George H.W. Bush who studied Cain’s plan and wrote an analysis Tuesday for the New York Times, said Cain “offers no evidence for this assertion; it is simply put forward as self-evident.” Bartlett called the plan “a distributional monstrosity.”He wrote: “The poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut, with no guarantee that economic growth will increase and a good reason to believe that the budget deficit will increase.”That’s because two of Cain’s three 9s — the income tax and a national sales tax — would disproportionately affect the 47 percent of tax filers who don’t pay any federal income tax under the current system — many of whom are elderly or poor.The extra money paid by those people would in effect subsidize the huge tax cut for wealthier Americans who currently pay as much as 35 percent in federal income tax.As for the middle class, the 9 percent sales tax might discourage purchases on nonessential items. Or, as Cain has suggested, it might encourage them to buy used goods instead, which he would exempt from the tax.There would be no exemption proposed for necessities like groceries. That means poor people who can afford to spend only on basic needs would see their cost of living increase 9 percent.Cain has argued that wage earners would save considerably because his plan would abolish the payroll taxes that pay for Social Security and Medicare.“You have to start with the biggest tax cut a lot of Americans pay, which is the payroll tax, 15.3 percent,” the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO said, defending his plan at the Tuesday debate. “That goes to 9 percent. That is a 6-percentage-point difference.“And the prices will not go up. So they have got a 6 percentage point difference to apply to the national sales tax piece of that.”But what Cain did not mention is that employers currently pay half the payroll tax. Under Cain’s plan, employers would save their half of payroll taxes while workers would pay a higher percentage in the form of income tax.The plan could also discourage hiring and wage increases. Companies would be allowed to deduct purchases they made from other businesses before calculating how much of the company’s revenue would be subject to the tax. But Cain’s plan would provide no such deduction for wages.“If you’re the shareholder, you’re going to get a huge increase in your dividends,” Bartlett said Wednesday in an interview. “But if you’re a worker, sounds to me like he’s saying I get a deduction for buying a machine to replace a worker, but I get no deduction for hiring a worker.”Plus, he said, it would encourage employers to find new, taxfree ways to pay employees.“What’s to stop a company from paying its employees by leasing their cars and homes for them and even buying their food and clothing?” Bartlett wrote. “That would reduce (the employer’s) taxable revenue.”The plan also faces political challenges. At a time when the Republican Party is especially negative toward any expansion of the government’s reach, Cain’s proposal would create a whole new category of federal tax.The U.S. Treasury took in about $2.2 trillion last year, most of it from four main categories of federal taxes: income taxes paid by individuals and corporations; taxes on wages; taxes on inheritances; and excise taxes on goods such as alcohol and tobacco.A Bloomberg News analysis estimated that Cain’s plan would have been $200 billion short had it been in place in 2010. The plan would have raised $922.1 billion from the national sales tax, $912.7 billion from the individual income tax and $127.7 billion from the business tax, according to the Bloomberg analysis.Cain’s campaign on Wednesday provided Bloomberg’s Steven Sloan with an analysis done by Fiscal Associates Inc. It suggested that the plan would collect as much money as is raised under the current system.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Pipeline News
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE Legislators to sit down with TransCanada■ A majority of state senators are in favor of a special session on the issue, Speaker Mike Flood says.B Y MARTHA STODDARD AND JOE DUGGAN WORLD-HERALD BUREAU LINCOLN — Speaker of the Legislature Sen. Mike Flood of Norfolk announced Wednesday that key state lawmakers will meet next week with a top Trans-Canada official.Flood, an accomplished negotiator, said he wants to see whether the two groups can find common ground concerning the route of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.But he also said it appears a majority of state senators favor calling a special session to enact legislation regulating the pipeline.TransCanada’s proposal to build the pipeline across Nebraska’s environmentally sensitive Sand Hills has prompted a groundswell of opposition in the state and across the country.The Sand Hills overlie the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies the bulk of Nebraska’s drinking and irrigation water.Flood’s announcement comes as the battle over the pipeline grows more heated.Three environmental groups sued the federal government Wednesday for allowing work to start before the project has reSee Pipeline: Page 2
Article Continued Below
See PIPELINE on Page B02
Pipeline: Three environmental groups file lawsuitContinued from Page 1 ceived final approval. The groups named the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. State Department in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Omaha. The lawsuit claims that the agencies have allowed TransCanada, the project sponsor, to mow a pathway for the pipeline before the State Department has given final authorization. Such work, when completed before a project’s approval, violates the National Environmental Policy Act, said Noah Greenwald, a staff member of the Center for Biological Diversity. “For that company to have already begun work on the route makes a mockery of the public process,” he said, noting the two public hearings the State Department hosted in Nebraska just last week. The center and Friends of the Earth, both national organizations, joined with the Western Nebraska Resources Council to file the legal challenge. They have asked for a declaratory judgment calling the site preparation work illegal and seeking an injunction to stop it. State Department officials are expected to decide before the end of the year about issuing a permit for the 1,700-mile pipeline, which would carry tar-sand oil from western Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. With the federal review nearing an end, Flood said he understands that time is “of the essence” for action by the state Legislature. But he wants to make sure lawmakers act thoughtfully and have done their homework first. That includes looking into questions about the state’s legal authority regarding an international project and about constitutional limits on state regulation. It also includes talking with constituents to find out what Nebraskans want. “I think this process will unfold itself in the next couple of weeks,” Flood said. He took issue with those, including Gov. Dave Heineman, who have accused the Legislature of a lack of leadership on the pipeline issue. “No one in this branch of government is hiding,” Flood said. “As speaker, I am here to assure the citizens of Nebraska: Your Legislature will be responsible and will act responsibly.” Next Tuesday’s meeting will be a key milestone along the way. Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president of energy and oil pipelines, has agreed to attend on the company’s behalf, Flood said. Flood asked three senators to attend: Sen. Chris Langemeier of Schuyler, the Natural Resources Committee chairman; Sen. Annette Dubas of Fullerton, who has drafted legislation that could become the starting point for a special session; and Sen. Kate Sullivan of Cedar Rapids, who introduced the lone piece of pipeline legislation passed during the regular legislative session. Sullivan’s bill requires crudeoil pipeline companies to reclaim any land disturbed by construction or operation of such a project during its lifetime. Shawn Howard, a TransCanada spokesman, said the company was happy to participate in the meeting. “We look forward to presenting our views and, also, to listen to what others have to say,” he said, while noting that the pipeline route was chosen “based on facts, careful environmental studies and very deliberate considerations.” In commenting on the lawsuit, Howard said TransCanada has not started construction, as the plaintiffs allege. He said the company mowed the grass as part of its commitment to protecting the federally and state endangered American burying beetle. Company officials have said TransCanada spent hundreds of thousands of dollars moving the beetles, which inhabit a limited area that falls on the pipeline’s path. Mowing the roughly 100-foot-wide path through the grass-covered dunes was done to discourage the beetles from returning to the habitat where they were trapped and moved. “We will put our position on this matter to the court in Nebraska,” Howard said. Spokesmen for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Department said Wednesday that they were reviewing the complaint and were not ready to comment. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit said they learned about the site work from a recent World-Herald article revealing that TransCanada hired biologists to capture and relocate the burying beetles. A TransCanada official told The World-Herald the early work was done to avoid a two-year delay in the project. “It was not being done for the benefit of the environment. It was being done for the benefit of the corporation,” said Amy Atwood, a lawyer from Portland, Ore., who helped prepare the lawsuit. The company has said that the pipeline would be the safest ever built and that moving the route would needlessly delay the project. The environmental groups said the early site preparation work is just another sign the State Department intends to grant a permit for the project. They have called upon the president to make the final decision instead
Article Continued Below
See PIPELINE on Page B02
Pipeline: Three environmental groups file lawsuitContinued from Page 1 ceived final approval. The groups named the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. State Department in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Omaha. The lawsuit claims that the agencies have allowed TransCanada, the project sponsor, to mow a pathway for the pipeline before the State Department has given final authorization. Such work, when completed before a project’s approval, violates the National Environmental Policy Act, said Noah Greenwald, a staff member of the Center for Biological Diversity. “For that company to have already begun work on the route makes a mockery of the public process,” he said, noting the two public hearings the State Department hosted in Nebraska just last week. The center and Friends of the Earth, both national organizations, joined with the Western Nebraska Resources Council to file the legal challenge. They have asked for a declaratory judgment calling the site preparation work illegal and seeking an injunction to stop it. State Department officials are expected to decide before the end of the year about issuing a permit for the 1,700-mile pipeline, which would carry tar-sand oil from western Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. With the federal review nearing an end, Flood said he understands that time is “of the essence” for action by the state Legislature. But he wants to make sure lawmakers act thoughtfully and have done their homework first. That includes looking into questions about the state’s legal authority regarding an international project and about constitutional limits on state regulation. It also includes talking with constituents to find out what Nebraskans want. “I think this process will unfold itself in the next couple of weeks,” Flood said. He took issue with those, including Gov. Dave Heineman, who have accused the Legislature of a lack of leadership on the pipeline issue. “No one in this branch of government is hiding,” Flood said. “As speaker, I am here to assure the citizens of Nebraska: Your Legislature will be responsible and will act responsibly.” Next Tuesday’s meeting will be a key milestone along the way. Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president of energy and oil pipelines, has agreed to attend on the company’s behalf, Flood said. Flood asked three senators to attend: Sen. Chris Langemeier of Schuyler, the Natural Resources Committee chairman; Sen. Annette Dubas of Fullerton, who has drafted legislation that could become the starting point for a special session; and Sen. Kate Sullivan of Cedar Rapids, who introduced the lone piece of pipeline legislation passed during the regular legislative session. Sullivan’s bill requires crudeoil pipeline companies to reclaim any land disturbed by construction or operation of such a project during its lifetime. Shawn Howard, a TransCanada spokesman, said the company was happy to participate in the meeting. “We look forward to presenting our views and, also, to listen to what others have to say,” he said, while noting that the pipeline route was chosen “based on facts, careful environmental studies and very deliberate considerations.” In commenting on the lawsuit, Howard said TransCanada has not started construction, as the plaintiffs allege. He said the company mowed the grass as part of its commitment to protecting the federally and state endangered American burying beetle. Company officials have said TransCanada spent hundreds of thousands of dollars moving the beetles, which inhabit a limited area that falls on the pipeline’s path. Mowing the roughly 100-foot-wide path through the grass-covered dunes was done to discourage the beetles from returning to the habitat where they were trapped and moved. “We will put our position on this matter to the court in Nebraska,” Howard said. Spokesmen for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Department said Wednesday that they were reviewing the complaint and were not ready to comment. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit said they learned about the site work from a recent World-Herald article revealing that TransCanada hired biologists to capture and relocate the burying beetles. A TransCanada official told The World-Herald the early work was done to avoid a two-year delay in the project. “It was not being done for the benefit of the environment. It was being done for the benefit of the corporation,” said Amy Atwood, a lawyer from Portland, Ore., who helped prepare the lawsuit. The company has said that the pipeline would be the safest ever built and that moving the route would needlessly delay the project. The environmental groups said the early site preparation work is just another sign the State Department intends to grant a permit for the project. They have called upon the president to make the final decision instead
Middle Eastern Wars
WASHINGTON (AP) — One in every three U.S. veterans of the post-9/11 military believes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting, and a majority think that after 10 years of combat America should be focusing less on foreign affairs and more on its own problems, according to an opinion survey released Wednesday.The findings highlight a dilemma for the Obama administration and Congress as they struggle to shrink the government’s huge budget deficits and reconsider defense priorities while trying to keep public support for remaining involved in Iraq and Afghanistan for the longer term.Nearly 4,500 U.S. troops have died in Iraq and about 1,700 in Afghanistan. Combined war costs since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have topped $1 trillion.The poll results presented by the Pew Research Center portray post-9/11 veterans as proud of their work, scarred by warfare and convinced that the public has little understanding of the problems that wartime service has created for military members and their families.The survey also showed that post-9/11 veterans are more likely than Americans as a whole to call themselves Republicans and to disapprove of President Barack Obama’s performance as commander in chief. They also are more likely than earlier generations of veterans to have no religious affiliation.The Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan organization that studies attitudes and trends, called the study the first of its kind.The results were based on two surveys conducted between late July and mid-September. One polled 1,853 veterans, including 712 who had served in the military after 9/11 but are no longer on active duty. Of the 712 post-9/11 veterans, 336 served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The other survey polled 2,003 adults who had not served in the military.Asked for a single word to describe their experiences, the war veterans offered a mixed picture: “rewarding,” “nightmare,” “eye-opening,” “lousy.”There are about 98,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, where the conflict began with a U.S.-led invasion on Oct. 7, 2001.The Pew survey found that veterans are ambivalent about the net value of the wars, although they generally were more positive about Afghanistan, which has been a more protracted but less deadly conflict for U.S. forces. One-third of post-9/11 veterans said neither war was worth the sacrifices; that was the view of 45 percent in the separate poll of members of the public.Fifty percent of veterans said Afghanistan was worth it, whereas the poll of civilians put it at 41 percent.Among veterans, 44 percent said Iraq was worth it. That compares with 36 percent in the poll of civilians.Pew said its survey results found “isolationist inclinations” among post-9/11 war veterans. About 60 percent said the United States should concentrate on problems at home. In a Pew survey conducted earlier this year, a similar share of the public agreed.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Pipeline bill
Bill would require state OK of pipeline routes Sen. Dubas hopes proposal will persuade colleagues to support special session
B Y JOE DUGGAN WORLD-HERALD BUREAU LINCOLN — Oil pipeline routes in Nebraska would require state approval under a proposed bill intended to rally support for a special legislative session on the controversial Keystone XL project.Sen. Annette Dubas of Fullerton emailed a copy of the Oil Pipeline Siting Act to her legislative colleagues Monday and planned to follow up this week with phone calls to press for a special session.“We have a very short timeline here,” she said. “If we don’t do something before the end of the year, there’s not much chance we’ll have any ability to interact with this particular project.”She referred to the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would carry 700,000 barrels of oil daily from the tar-sand region of western Canada to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. She and other elected officials, including Gov. Dave Heineman, want the project rerouted to prevent possible contamination of groundwater supplies beneath the Nebraska Sand Hills.Because the project crosses an international border, the U.S. State Department will decide whether the pipeline is in the national interest. Department officials have said they intend to make a decision by the end of the year.TransCanada, the project’s sponsor, insists that the proposed route is the most cost-efficient of several paths that were considered. Spokesmen say the comSee Pipeline: Page 2 CONTINUING COVERAGE >> Sen. Johanns says emails show that the State Department has already decided to approve the pipeline. Page 2A >> Read more at Omaha.com/ topics/pipeline
Article Continued Below
See PIPELINE on Page A02
Pipeline: Senator says she thinks colleagues may be open to sessionContinued from Page 1 pany has committed to make the Keystone XL the safest pipeline ever built. The Dubas bill would require TransCanada and other large pipeline builders to submit applications to the Nebraska Public Service Commission, which would have eight months to review the route and make a decision. Approval would give the applicant the power to use eminent domain to obtain right of way for the pipeline. Other provisions of the bill would require recommendations from eight other state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Natural Resources, the Game and Parks Commission and the Department of Revenue. The Public Service Commission also would be required to hold public hearings on proposed pipelines. The $517,000 annual cost of the bill would be covered by fees to pipeline applicants and would not require taxpayer dollars, Dubas said. The bill would require pipeline applicants to identify “unusually sensitive groundwater areas” near proposed routes. In addition, they would have to report the number of jobs anticipated for construction and operation of the pipeline, with an estimate of how many employees would come from outside the state. Currently, two underground oil pipelines cross the state: One runs through eastern Nebraska and another follows a stretch of the Platte River. Neither pipeline crosses the Sand Hills. Sen. Ken Haar of Malcolm, who worked with Dubas on the bill, said it gives Nebraska a way to protect its unique interests when a project is national in scope. Haar also has been working to convene a special session through a poll of legislators, which has never been done. It would require 33 of 49 lawmakers to agree to the special session. An informal poll of 48 state senators reached last week by The World-Herald found seven in support of a special session, nine against and 32 undecided. Nearly all the undecided senators said they wanted to see a bill. “It gives me hope that senators are keeping an open mind and waiting for something to form an opinion about,” Dubas said. While Dubas, Haar and other senators will work the phones this week, it’s safe to say Trans-Canada will, too — the company has hired Walt Radcliffe, one of Nebraska’s most influential lobbyists, to fend off a special session. Although the governor could call the special session himself, he has been unwilling to do so. Instead, he has encouraged Nebraskans who want the pipeline rerouted to make their views known to the U.S. State Department. State Department hearings last week in Lincoln and Atkinson drew hundreds of comments from supporters and opponents. In an interview Monday with The World-Herald, Heineman said he must be convinced that Dubas has the votes to pass the bill before he calls lawmakers back to the State Capitol. The governor also acknowledged that he and other state leaders should have reacted much sooner to the pipeline. Heineman did not take a firm stance against the Sand Hills route until several weeks ago. “We’re very late to this game. I don’t think there is any question Nebraska should have done something years before,” he said. The governor also said Monday that he still questions whether Nebraska has the authority to pre-empt the State Department, which already has determined that the proposed route is appropriate. For that reason, he argued that pressure needs to be applied on President Barack Obama. Dubas said Monday that she believes the state has clear constitutional authority to decide the pipeline’s route. That’s a change from the last legislative session, when she held the view that pipeline siting authority rested solely with the federal government. “It just started to bubble up to the surface that maybe states have more rights than we were led to believe,” she said. “It became more clear to me that we did have this authority.”
B Y JOE DUGGAN WORLD-HERALD BUREAU LINCOLN — Oil pipeline routes in Nebraska would require state approval under a proposed bill intended to rally support for a special legislative session on the controversial Keystone XL project.Sen. Annette Dubas of Fullerton emailed a copy of the Oil Pipeline Siting Act to her legislative colleagues Monday and planned to follow up this week with phone calls to press for a special session.“We have a very short timeline here,” she said. “If we don’t do something before the end of the year, there’s not much chance we’ll have any ability to interact with this particular project.”She referred to the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would carry 700,000 barrels of oil daily from the tar-sand region of western Canada to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. She and other elected officials, including Gov. Dave Heineman, want the project rerouted to prevent possible contamination of groundwater supplies beneath the Nebraska Sand Hills.Because the project crosses an international border, the U.S. State Department will decide whether the pipeline is in the national interest. Department officials have said they intend to make a decision by the end of the year.TransCanada, the project’s sponsor, insists that the proposed route is the most cost-efficient of several paths that were considered. Spokesmen say the comSee Pipeline: Page 2 CONTINUING COVERAGE >> Sen. Johanns says emails show that the State Department has already decided to approve the pipeline. Page 2A >> Read more at Omaha.com/ topics/pipeline
Article Continued Below
See PIPELINE on Page A02
Pipeline: Senator says she thinks colleagues may be open to sessionContinued from Page 1 pany has committed to make the Keystone XL the safest pipeline ever built. The Dubas bill would require TransCanada and other large pipeline builders to submit applications to the Nebraska Public Service Commission, which would have eight months to review the route and make a decision. Approval would give the applicant the power to use eminent domain to obtain right of way for the pipeline. Other provisions of the bill would require recommendations from eight other state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Natural Resources, the Game and Parks Commission and the Department of Revenue. The Public Service Commission also would be required to hold public hearings on proposed pipelines. The $517,000 annual cost of the bill would be covered by fees to pipeline applicants and would not require taxpayer dollars, Dubas said. The bill would require pipeline applicants to identify “unusually sensitive groundwater areas” near proposed routes. In addition, they would have to report the number of jobs anticipated for construction and operation of the pipeline, with an estimate of how many employees would come from outside the state. Currently, two underground oil pipelines cross the state: One runs through eastern Nebraska and another follows a stretch of the Platte River. Neither pipeline crosses the Sand Hills. Sen. Ken Haar of Malcolm, who worked with Dubas on the bill, said it gives Nebraska a way to protect its unique interests when a project is national in scope. Haar also has been working to convene a special session through a poll of legislators, which has never been done. It would require 33 of 49 lawmakers to agree to the special session. An informal poll of 48 state senators reached last week by The World-Herald found seven in support of a special session, nine against and 32 undecided. Nearly all the undecided senators said they wanted to see a bill. “It gives me hope that senators are keeping an open mind and waiting for something to form an opinion about,” Dubas said. While Dubas, Haar and other senators will work the phones this week, it’s safe to say Trans-Canada will, too — the company has hired Walt Radcliffe, one of Nebraska’s most influential lobbyists, to fend off a special session. Although the governor could call the special session himself, he has been unwilling to do so. Instead, he has encouraged Nebraskans who want the pipeline rerouted to make their views known to the U.S. State Department. State Department hearings last week in Lincoln and Atkinson drew hundreds of comments from supporters and opponents. In an interview Monday with The World-Herald, Heineman said he must be convinced that Dubas has the votes to pass the bill before he calls lawmakers back to the State Capitol. The governor also acknowledged that he and other state leaders should have reacted much sooner to the pipeline. Heineman did not take a firm stance against the Sand Hills route until several weeks ago. “We’re very late to this game. I don’t think there is any question Nebraska should have done something years before,” he said. The governor also said Monday that he still questions whether Nebraska has the authority to pre-empt the State Department, which already has determined that the proposed route is appropriate. For that reason, he argued that pressure needs to be applied on President Barack Obama. Dubas said Monday that she believes the state has clear constitutional authority to decide the pipeline’s route. That’s a change from the last legislative session, when she held the view that pipeline siting authority rested solely with the federal government. “It just started to bubble up to the surface that maybe states have more rights than we were led to believe,” she said. “It became more clear to me that we did have this authority.”
Monday, October 3, 2011
100% Idiot.
Michele Bachmann Thanks Supporter Who Says He'd Rather Vote For Charles Manson Than Barack Obama
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) thanked an Iowa radio show listener who said he'd rather vote for Charles Manson than President Barack Obama.
Bachmann appeared on Des Moines-based WHO Radio with Simon Conway, a conservative radio show, on September 26 for an interview and to take questions from listeners. One caller told Bachmann that he had attended several rallies and thanked her for signing a t-shirt. After the host asked him to ask a question, he said that the president was a "walking nightmare" who was "blowing up our country."
"I would vote for Charles Manson before this guy," he said. "But I’m pulling for you big time, all the way, go Michele!"
"Thank you for saying that," she replied
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) thanked an Iowa radio show listener who said he'd rather vote for Charles Manson than President Barack Obama.
Bachmann appeared on Des Moines-based WHO Radio with Simon Conway, a conservative radio show, on September 26 for an interview and to take questions from listeners. One caller told Bachmann that he had attended several rallies and thanked her for signing a t-shirt. After the host asked him to ask a question, he said that the president was a "walking nightmare" who was "blowing up our country."
"I would vote for Charles Manson before this guy," he said. "But I’m pulling for you big time, all the way, go Michele!"
"Thank you for saying that," she replied
Why not Nebraska?
Minimum Wage Raised In Four States, Washington First To Top $9
WASHINGTON -- Four states have announced that they will be raising their minimum wage rates for 2012, led by Washington state, which will become the first in the country with a minimum wage over $9 per hour.
The 37-cent bump in Washington will hike the wage to $9.04, or $1.79 per hour more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25. The raise will mean an additional $770 annually for a full-time minimum-wage worker in the state.
Workers will also see a modest hike of between 28 and 30 cents in Colorado, Ohio and Montana, as well as in Oregon, which announced a wage raise on Sept. 15. In those states as well as in Washington, the higher rates trump the federal rate. The new raises are all due to cost-of-living adjustments written into state wage laws. Similar hikes are expected to be announced next month in Arizona, Florida and Vermont.
Tsedeye Gebreselassie, staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group for low-wage workers, said that the raise once again sets Washington state apart from others in its progressive approach to the minimum wage.
"This shows the value of indexing," Gebreselassie said. "The reason it's $9.04 is that it's been keeping up with the cost of living over the years."
Advocates for low-wage workers argue that in addition to helping the working poor make ends meet, higher minimum wages help pump money into local economies, since such workers often have no choice but to spend their entire paychecks.
Washington passed an initiative in 1998 that tied the minimum wage to the national consumer price index, assuring that the lowest wages would rise in tandem with inflation. Some states have since followed suit, although the federal minimum wage does not include a cost-of-living adjustment.
The Washington minimum wage initiative was written by Jeff Johnson, president of the Washington State Labor Council, an affiliation of unions and labor groups. Johnson told HuffPost that despite the Washington minimum wage being the highest rate of its kind in the nation, there are many areas of the state where it doesn't amount to a living wage. Even so, he called the impending bump "the one bright spot on our horizon" in a down economy and dismal job market.
"At least these low-wage earners will maintain their purchasing power and go purchase things," Johnson said. "The money will go right back into the economy."
A number of states passed laws with cost-of-living adjustments after Washington did in 1998, although not as many states as advocates like Johnson had hoped. Most states continue to set their rates at the federal minimum, which Gebreselassie said has been stagnant for years. The $7.25 federal rate works out to a salary of about $15,000 and is well below the living wage for many states. Gebreselassie said the federal rate would now be over $10 if it had kept pace with inflation over the years.
"A lot of people are shocked when they realize it's $7.25 an hour," she said. "There's a lot of catching up to do."
Several states, including Maryland and Illinois, have recently considered adding cost-of-living adjustments to their minimum wages, often prompting an outcry from the business community. Business owners argue that requiring them to pay higher wages will force them to cut their number of positions, pushing jobs into neighboring states.
Backed by the state Chamber of Commerce, Missouri Republicans even mounted an unsuccessful campaign to roll back their state's cost-of-living adjustment, arguing that it would lead to job growth.
Johnson said many businesses grumble when Washington hikes its minimum wage each year, but that so far the cost-of-living adjustment doesn’t seem to have sent many jobs over the border.
"Washington state has one of the highest rates of growth in small business and retail," he said. "It doesn’t seem to be stopping these people from creating new businesses
WASHINGTON -- Four states have announced that they will be raising their minimum wage rates for 2012, led by Washington state, which will become the first in the country with a minimum wage over $9 per hour.
The 37-cent bump in Washington will hike the wage to $9.04, or $1.79 per hour more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25. The raise will mean an additional $770 annually for a full-time minimum-wage worker in the state.
Workers will also see a modest hike of between 28 and 30 cents in Colorado, Ohio and Montana, as well as in Oregon, which announced a wage raise on Sept. 15. In those states as well as in Washington, the higher rates trump the federal rate. The new raises are all due to cost-of-living adjustments written into state wage laws. Similar hikes are expected to be announced next month in Arizona, Florida and Vermont.
Tsedeye Gebreselassie, staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group for low-wage workers, said that the raise once again sets Washington state apart from others in its progressive approach to the minimum wage.
"This shows the value of indexing," Gebreselassie said. "The reason it's $9.04 is that it's been keeping up with the cost of living over the years."
Advocates for low-wage workers argue that in addition to helping the working poor make ends meet, higher minimum wages help pump money into local economies, since such workers often have no choice but to spend their entire paychecks.
Washington passed an initiative in 1998 that tied the minimum wage to the national consumer price index, assuring that the lowest wages would rise in tandem with inflation. Some states have since followed suit, although the federal minimum wage does not include a cost-of-living adjustment.
The Washington minimum wage initiative was written by Jeff Johnson, president of the Washington State Labor Council, an affiliation of unions and labor groups. Johnson told HuffPost that despite the Washington minimum wage being the highest rate of its kind in the nation, there are many areas of the state where it doesn't amount to a living wage. Even so, he called the impending bump "the one bright spot on our horizon" in a down economy and dismal job market.
"At least these low-wage earners will maintain their purchasing power and go purchase things," Johnson said. "The money will go right back into the economy."
A number of states passed laws with cost-of-living adjustments after Washington did in 1998, although not as many states as advocates like Johnson had hoped. Most states continue to set their rates at the federal minimum, which Gebreselassie said has been stagnant for years. The $7.25 federal rate works out to a salary of about $15,000 and is well below the living wage for many states. Gebreselassie said the federal rate would now be over $10 if it had kept pace with inflation over the years.
"A lot of people are shocked when they realize it's $7.25 an hour," she said. "There's a lot of catching up to do."
Several states, including Maryland and Illinois, have recently considered adding cost-of-living adjustments to their minimum wages, often prompting an outcry from the business community. Business owners argue that requiring them to pay higher wages will force them to cut their number of positions, pushing jobs into neighboring states.
Backed by the state Chamber of Commerce, Missouri Republicans even mounted an unsuccessful campaign to roll back their state's cost-of-living adjustment, arguing that it would lead to job growth.
Johnson said many businesses grumble when Washington hikes its minimum wage each year, but that so far the cost-of-living adjustment doesn’t seem to have sent many jobs over the border.
"Washington state has one of the highest rates of growth in small business and retail," he said. "It doesn’t seem to be stopping these people from creating new businesses
New Administrator
Hello fellow Democrats I have taken over running the CD3 blog. Please feel free to get on the blog and write what you think about what I and others put up. Put your own stuff on this blog if you wish. Please don't trash any fellow democrats. We are all on the same side. Getting after Tea Party fools is ok though. thanks Bud Pettigrew, Chair of Chairs NDP, SEC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
