Over 80% of Americans support a raise in the minimum wage, and only 6% oppose it. Its purchasing power has fallen every year since 1997, and it is worth less today than it has been worth in all but two of the last 48 years.

And yet, yesterday the Senate rejected two proposals to raise the minimum wage (which is a ghastly $5.15 an hour and has not been raised since 1996). By this point an increase is so overdue it hardly seems worth fighting over raising wages a dollar — which is why some people have turned to working for a living wage.

The Kennedy amendment to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour was defeated 46-49, and Santorum’s bill lost 61-38. The latter bill was shamelessly duplicitous. The bill pushed a wage increase (to a whopping $6.25) but would have cut overtime pay by abolishing the 40-hour work week, and would have forced local governments to adopt a 100% tip credit (which means that if you earn tips where you work, you would get virtually no paycheck if your tips equaled the minimum wage).

In and of itself, the fact that Congress has not raised the minimum wage in 8 years is disgraceful. Couple that with the fact that over the past five years they have given themselves raises totalling $28,500 and it is simply un-American.

Here’s an explosive match-up: John Bolton v. Mohamed ElBaradei.

Bolton is the Bush administration’s top expert on arms control. ElBaradei heads the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog group. For months, Bolton has led the White House campaign to oust ElBaradei from the International Atomic Energy Association, using underhanded tactics like secret wiretaps on ElBaradei’s phone and alleged leaks of false information. And if Bolton becomes the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the two will likely butt heads again over Iran’s nuclear program.

Who can you trust? Take a look at the tale-of-the-tape below. Looks like ElBaradei scores a knock-out:

ROUND 1: WMDs IN IRAQ (PRE-WAR)

Vice President Cheney: “We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong.” (3/16/03)
ElBaradei: “We have, to date, found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.” (3/7/03)
Winner: ElBaradei (notwithstanding Cheney’s smack talk)

ROUND 2: ALUMINUM TUBING

President Bush: “Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam Hussein] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. (1/28/03)
ElBaradei: “From our analysis to date, it appears that the aluminum tubes would be consistent with the purpose stated by Iraq [for conventional rocket production].” (1/27/03)
Winner: ElBaradei (extra points for timing)

Read more

James Taranto, the right-wing editor of the Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal.com, made a revealing comment about Bolton’s nomination to be ambassador to the UN:

[I]t will be interesting to see how many Democrats take the side of the U.N. and complain about “harsh criticism” in light of the Sept. 11 attacks…

Taranto exposes what this nomination is about. It is a signal to the right-wing by the Bush administration that it is ready to attack the U.N. as an institution. That’s why Taranto describes being critical of Bolton as taking “the side of the U.N.”

And maybe I’m missing something here but what, exactly, did the U.N. have to do with the September 11 attacks? How do they make the U.N. less relevant or justify Bolton’s polemics against the organization?

This is the right-wing’s MO: anything that happens is further proof of the UN’s irrelevance. Don’t let logic get in the way.

Looks like Bolton’s in for a bumpy ride during his confirmation hearings:

Senate Reactions

CORZINE: In a possible preview of Senate debate, Democratic Senator John Corzine of New Jersey said he was deeply disappointed over the nomination of Mr. Bolton.  Mr. Corzine described Mr. Bolton as a leading foreign policy hardliner, and said he was responsible as much as any member of the Bush administration for needless confrontations with other countries and the international isolation he said had plagued the president’s first term. (VOA)

DODD: Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said Bolton was the wrong choice when the United States was seeking to mend fences after the Iraq invasion. “I have every reason to believe that John Bolton’s antipathy to the U.N. will prevent him from effectively discharging his duties as our ambassador,” he said. (Reuters)

BIDEN: Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said he was “surprised” by Bolton’s nomination and said his “stated attitude toward the United Nations gives me great pause.”  (Reuters)

LUGAR: Sen. Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, said he would probably vote to approve Bolton but did not offer a clear endorsement. “I’m going to reserve any comments about the appropriateness or not of the president’s choice,” he told reporters. (Reuters)

Read more

It is interesting how conservatives and progressives are switching roles lately. In Montana, progressive Gov. Brian Schweitzer has said he will do everything he can to prevent tax increases because he believes he can manage the state more efficiently. Part of that management strategy involves his announcement yesterday of a comprehensive plan to aggressively go after tax cheats, and close abusive tax loopholes. As Schweitzer said, “Montana’s hardworking and law-abiding citizens do not deserve to be ripped off by high net worth individuals and multistate corporations who aren’t playing by the rules.”

In Indiana, on the other hand, a conservative governor is doing exactly the opposite. Gov. Mitch Daniels (R.), formerly President Bush’s budget director, is pushing a 29 percent income tax increase on his state’s residents. Worse, he’s raising taxes at the same time he’s also pushing a “tax amnesty” (read: tax cheaters bill of rights) through the legislature. According to the Indianapolis Star, Daniels’ bill “waives unpaid interest, penalties and fees” from those who owe back taxes or who are cheating on their taxes. Read more

Yesterday, in the context of a larger debate that shows what little regard conservatives in Congress have for struggling Americans, the Senate shot down two different proposals to increase the federal minimum wage. Since the minimum wage is not adjusted for inflation, its purchasing power has been starkly declining for decades now and its real value in 2004 — $4.82 — was the second lowest since 1955. The so-called wage floor has become a glass ceiling since the working poor have no chance of even seeing their way out of poverty.

Today, on International Women’s Day, it is only fitting to point out that minimum wage increases are very much a working woman’s issue. A 1999 report by the Economic Policy Institute revealed that the main beneficiaries from a minimum wage increase would be women since this group makes up a disproportionate majority of low-wage workers. As such, “a minimum wage increase would help to reduce the overall pay gap between women and men.” Furthermore, “forty percent of minimum wage workers are the sole breadwinners in their families” and women are overrepresented in this group as well.

Raising the minimum wage does not hurt businesses or minorities but keeping the wage stagnant breaks the backs of decent, hardworking Americans, a significant portion of whom are women. On this day that we set out to honor women, we need to make sure that we commit to letting them live lives of dignity.

Just to recap: Today, a man with clear ties to terrorism can stroll into a gun shop and buy a semi-automatic assault weapon or — if he’d rather, an easily concealable Five-seveN “cop-killing gun.” In most states, he can carry that firearm, loaded, into a restaurant or bar, although in Alaska and Arizona, he won’t be allowed to have a drink. But until he opens fire, he still won’t have broken the law.

Not that you should worry: Our government and its friends at the NRA are working hard to ensure that gun dealers will be “shielded” from prosecution, in the increasingly likely event that someone should happen to shoot you with their merchandise.