The most recent post from FactCheck.org takes issue with the AARP’s newspaper advertisement opposing President Bush’s Social Security privatization scheme. Specifically, it seeks to cast doubt on the claim — which it attributes to the AARP — that “the current Social Security system” can “be fixed with only ‘a few moderate changes.’”

FactCheck then goes through some reform plans that don’t include privatization and notes that “some proposals turn out to be only temporary fixes” that merely “put the system in balance for a 75-year period immediately following enactment.” FactCheck cautions that making the system solvent in perpetuity “requires bigger changes.”

What’s puzzling about this is that the AARP’s ad never claims moderate changes could “permanently fix” the system. As FactCheck acknowledges, the ad simply says, “Yes, the program is in need of reform, which can be done with a few moderate changes.” FactCheck’s own analysis states there are several moderate changes that could make the system rock solid for 75 years.

Take a quick look at USA Today’s politics page and you will see two stories that tell it all about the right wing’s radical agenda. The first story is about how conservatives want “to cut taxes and trim spending” as they prepare for budget battles on Capitol Hill. They are being led by right-wing-radio-talk-show-host-turned-Congressman Mike Pence (R.), who heads a group of the House’s most fringe radical elements.

The very next story down on USA Today’s page is about a report from the nation’s civil engineers that notes, “crowded schools, traffic-choked roads and transit cutbacks are eroding the quality of American life.” Those problems, not surprisingly, have been exacerbated by the same massive federal budget cuts that conservatives want to keep in place in the name of tax cuts.

Better quality of life for all Americans, or tax cuts for the rich? The right wing has, unfortuntely, made its choice.

Last month, right-wing front group USA Next ran ads suggesting AARP, which represents 35 million seniors, did not support America’s troops and was pursuing a pro gay-marriage agenda.

Republican strategist Ed Rollins said it was “nuts” going after the AARP

Turns out not just nuts, but expensive:

Following an admission of photo theft by the creator, advertiser and publisher of the ad, the gay couple whose image was stolen for the ad – Rick Raymen and Steve Hansen of Portland, Oregon – today filed a four-count $25 million lawsuit in federal court in Washington, DC. The suit alleges that the use of the couple’s image without permission constituted an invasion of privacy, was libelous, violated their right of publicity and constituted an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Read all about it

The Heritage Foundation published a memo last week on why raising the minimum wage would be an “outright disaster” for American workers. The memo parrots familiar conservative objections to minimum wage laws, making use of virtually no data while reciting familiar capitalistic slogans. Think Progress decided to look into the memo’s major claims:

Heritage Claim: Minimum wage increases unemployment

Heritage Evidence for Claim: One-third of surveyed economists at top universities “agree outright” with the statement, “a minimum wage increases unemployment among the young and unskilled” (yes, 1/3 agreement is actually cited as proof of “consensus”).

FACT: In three states with recent minimum wage increases, data shows the increase had no effect on job growth. A well-regarded 1994 study determined that an increase in the New Jersey minimum wage did not lead to any measurable impact on employment.

Heritage Claim: States with high minimum wages experience economic “stagnation.”

Heritage Evidence for Claim: None

FACT: Hawaii, Delaware, and Vermont, three states with higher minimum wages, were among the 15 states with unemployment rates less than 5 percent as of December 2003, when the national average was 5.7 percent. Read more

In its March 4th web memo on the minimum wage issue, arch conservative research organization The Heritage Foundation makes the same old tired arguments against the minimum wage: “Raising the minimum wage will hurt low-income workers, cost jobs, and hobble the American economy.” Setting aside that Heritage presents these claims as facts, even though they are seriously disputed, what stands out is that Heritage suddenly calls upon the usually disdained liberal elites to descend from their ivy towers and bless us with their intelligence, namely, “Bring in the expert economists from MIT and Chicago and Harvard who will force Sen. Kennedy to hear that his policies are hurting the poor.” Here are just some of the institutions’ professors who may not rise to the call from Heritage; they all support a minimum wage increase. Oh, and for good measure, we threw in some professors who not only represent those revered universities but are also past Nobel Prize winners and former presidents of the American Economic Association.

Alice Amsden Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Francis M. Bator Harvard University
Lawrence F. Katz Harvard University
Frank Levy Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Paul A. Samuelson Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Robert M. Solow Massachusetts Institute of Technology
David C. Cole Harvard Institute for International Development
Peter Diamond Massachusetts Institute of Technology Read more

Last November, the voters of Florida went to the polls and — by an overwhelming majority — passed a constitutional amendment raising the state minimum wage by $1, to $6.15 an hour, and indexing it to inflation. Now a cadre of anti-democratic right-wingers in the Florida legislature are working furiously to undermine the voters’ intent. The group, led by Florida House Judiciary Chairman David Simmons, is pushing a bill that “creates loopholes for employers and eliminates vital protections for workers.” Simmons got help writing the bill from the Florida Retail Federation, which lobbied furiously last year to kill the amendment.

The bill being pushed by Simmons requires employees to provide their employers with 15-days notice before suing over a minimum wage dispute. If the employer pays the back wages during that time there can be no suit. This effectively eliminates any incentive for employers to comply with the law. Employers can simply withhold wages until their employees call them on it. Failing to comply with the law is transformed from a criminal offense to an interest free loan from the employees to the employer. Simmons said that employers shouldn’t be punished for “not knowing all the ins and outs of the law.”