I don't understand the argument that the Republicans are making about raising the minimum wage would put people out of work.
When Henry Ford raised the wages of his workers, not only did the Ford Motor Company prosper because the employees could afford to buy the cars they were making, but it raised the wages of other auto workers, because employers were competing for jobs, and it enabled the surrounding communities to prosper because the auto workers had more money to spend on clothes, food, housing, and entertainment.
It's pretty obvious that the trickle down economy doesn't work, that there's a big clog somewhere at the top of the drain. By raising the minimum wage, we will have a trickle up economy, which will raise the economy for the majority and not just the rich and greedy 4% at the top of the food chain.

Does anybody understand why the esteemed opposition claims that businessmen need tax subsidies to offset an increase in the before-tax cost of doing business? It's not as if they were paying taxes on their wage expenses, now is it?

As for the general "business first" arguments, they're just wrong. Wages drive the demand side of the economy; higher wages means you end up doing more business. The fear they express is that we're in competition with countries that don't have a minimum wage, and that's a real problem, but it's a trade policy problem, and it doesn't change the fundamental fact that economies need demand to run, and the surest way to generate demand across the breadth of the economy is to raise wages.

It's fairly critical to address the trade policy issues, of course. Buying goods produced through the exploitation of hardship undermines our economy, as well as being morally comtemptible. Almost as morally contemptible as the practices we allow on Saipan, but that's another whole topic.

We need to repudiate the supply-siders, and look back to J.M. Keynes' fundamentals. Keynes recognized that macroeconomic principles apply when you view the economy as a closed system, and the supply siders basically claim that the largesse of the wealthy causes them to give you something for nothing; it just doesn't occur in real life.

When you look at the economy as a whole, both supply and demand have to come from somewhere; when you behave as if the economy begins and ends with your own balance sheet, your judgment is faulty. People with faulty judgment shouldn't have disproportionate influence over the economy.

ImIndependent: That grocery store bagger, is a: a high school kid who's trying to ease the family budget by buying some of his own clothes & stuff, b: a head of household who is working part time because his primary job doesn't pay enough to support a family even with his wife working too, c: a senior citizen, who is trying to suppliment his retirement income so he doesn't have to keep eating cat food in order to pay for his medicine.
If the cost of living requires someone to make "almost$10 an hour" in order to have a roof over their head and a couple of adequate meals per day, why are you being so penurious as to demand that they only make half that. Doesn't your conscience bother you, or don't you have a conscience.
BTW, if more people make more money and come into your store to spend it, why would you have a problem pauing the "almost $10" anyway?

"As the House of Representatives looks to move forward with clean legislation to increase the minimum wage for the first time in a decade (i.e. not containing any gifts to corporate interests), on the other side of the Capitol Sen. Max Baucus, who as Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee is handling the companion bill, has apparently caved to business groups interested in making such a move more palatable to their members. CQ's Midday Update email has the story (no link available)."

I wrote to Sens. Baucus, Reid, and Durbin encouraging them to not give in to Republican and lobbyist demands so soon. Stand up like winners and talk like winners!

"As the House of Representatives looks to move forward with clean legislation to increase the minimum wage for the first time in a decade (i.e. not containing any gifts to corporate interests), on the other side of the Capitol Sen. Max Baucus, who as Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee is handling the companion bill, has apparently caved to business groups interested in making such a move more palatable to their members. CQ's Midday Update email has the story (no link available)."

I wrote to Sens. Baucus, Reid, and Durbin encouraging them to not give in to Republican and lobbyist demands so soon. Stand up like winners and talk like winners!

The problem is that almost every republican is oriented to the big money. Because that's the orientation towards the upper 3% of family-income brackets. And a wealth of disregard of the lower 80% of family-income brackets.

The future of the United States lies, in getting the politicians to stop this crap and go back to start looking at the conditions of life of the great majority, which is the lower 80% of the family-income brackets. We have to do something for the people. The political leader must do something for the people. The 3% can get by quite nicely, they don't need any help. The upper 20% don't need much help. The lower 80% needs a lot of help. And the lower 80% is the number of voters,it's 80% of the voters, it's 80% of the constituency.

That's the problem, and we have to recognize, that's the two problems. First of all the republicans are corrupt, especialy - the upper 20%, because because they kiss the butt of the uper 3%, and they consider that politics. Because they count on getting large contributions from the upper 3% to fund their politics. I don't know how many republicans can kiss that butt at the same time, but that's all right. They don't give a damn about the lower 80%! They say they do, but they simply don't.

If we, the democrats, go to the lower 80%, the fact that we convince them that we really care about them, and we're coming with some ideas that will work for them, with cooperation, WE NOW HAVE THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY. And if you have the overwhelming majority, you can tell the neo-cons go to hell and transform their corrupted colture of governing. I believe that's what happened this last november when the majority of americans voted and kicked the republicans out of Congress. A statement was made.

The problem is that almost every republican is oriented to the big money. Because that's the orientation towards the upper 3% of family-income brackets. And a wealth of disregard of the lower 80% of family-income brackets.

The future of the United States lies, in getting the politicians to stop this crap and go back to start looking at the conditions of life of the great majority, which is the lower 80% of the family-income brackets. We have to do something for the people. The political leader must do something for the people. The 3% can get by quite nicely, they don't need any help. The upper 20% don't need much help. The lower 80% needs a lot of help. And the lower 80% is the number of voters,it's 80% of the voters, it's 80% of the constituency.

That's the problem, and we have to recognize, that's the two problems. First of all the republicans are corrupt, especialy - the upper 20%, because because they kiss the butt of the uper 3%, and they consider that politics. Because they count on getting large contributions from the upper 3% to fund their politics. I don't know how many republicans can kiss that butt at the same time, but that's all right. They don't give a damn about the lower 80%! They say they do, but they simply don't.

If we, the democrats, go to the lower 80%, the fact that we convince them that we really care about them, and we're coming with some ideas that will work for them, with cooperation, WE NOW HAVE THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY. And if you have the overwhelming majority, you can tell the neo-cons go to hell and transform their corrupted colture of governing. I believe that's what happened this last november when the majority of americans voted and kicked the republicans out of Congress. A statement was made.

My compliments to Speaker Pelosi for delivering on yet another campaign promise. Well done, Madame Speaker, well done.

UNDUE BURDEN or GREED??

With regard to Senator Ted Stevens' whining and complaining today, January 10, 2007 on the floor of the Senate about his need for FREE CORPORATE TRANSPORTATION on private aircraft or FREE FIRST CLASS AIR TRANSPORTATION at the public expense, I DO NOT AGREE with Senator Stevens. Stevens talks about "undue burden"; "undue burden" from not being allowed to fly first class at the public expense, or on private or corporate aircraft without charge. Give me a break.

I am more concerned about laws passed by Congress and signed by the President that forcefully expropriate the subsistence resources of the Working and Poor Class and Culture that leaves the Working and Poor Class and Culture having nothing but their DREAMS.

Both Houses of Congress and the President, inclusive of Senator Ted Stevens, must learn to tread softly when they tread upon the DREAMS of the Working and Poor Class and Culture, by using law to forcefully expropriate the subsistence resources of the Working and Poor Class and Culture that perpetually leaves the Working and Poor Class and Culture without subsistence resources, having nothing but our DREAMS.

When taxes and laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President ARE an undue burden on the American people, the Working and Poor Class and Culture, it is unseemly for Senator Ted Stevens to be whining and complaining about an "undue burden" being placed upon him and his RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN EXTREMIST cohorts by not being able to get FREE transportation on CORPORATE aircraft. Senator Ted Stevens says he cannot afford to pay for his transportation on private and public aircraft, but didn't he just get a raise from WE THE PEOPLE? Let's see. How many raises has Senator Stevens given himself? Is there a GREED problem, or what?

The laws and taxes of all levels of the government: City, County, State and Federal, leave the Working and Poor Class and Culture unable to pay for their own subsistence; tread softly when the rights of the government to travel first class indiscriminately at the public expense and FREE travel on private aircraft come first before the right of WE THE PEOPLE to subsist, subsistence rights; tread softly when you tread upon our DREAMS.

Being poor, WE THE PEOPLE have nothing but our DREAMS; tread softly when you tread upon our DREAMS.

Thomas G. Miller

DOWN WITH MYTHICAL DEMOCRACY IN THE USA

Will WE THE PEOPLE allow COMMERCIAL ARISTOCRACY to get in front of the GRASSROOTS REVOLUTION of the Democratic Party to reform the Government of the United States and the Democratic Party?

COMMERCIAL ARISTOCRACY and COMMERCIAL DEMOCRACY is trying and will get in front of the GRASSROOTS DEMOCRATIC PARTY MOVEMENT to reform the Government of the United States and the Democratic Party, just the same as the Federalists got in front of the American Revolutionary War Movement in the 18th Century and co-opted the American Revolution for commercial interests and the interests of capital away from the interests of actual democracy and subsistence rights for the general population of the United States as represented by the Anti-Federalists.

In the 18th Century, it was the Federalists that got in front of the Anti-Federalists and co-opted the American Revolution for commercial interests and the interests of capital away from actual democracy and subsistence rights being specified and empowered in the Constitution of the United States.

In the 21st Century it is the Neo-Liberals, the Professional Class, the Middle Class, the 20% minority class in the middle between the 10% minority Elite Capitalist Class and the 70% MAJORITY Working and Poor Class that is trying to get in front of the GRASSROOTS DEMOCRATIC PARTY MOVEMENT to reform the Government of the United States and the Democratic Party.

The GRASSROOTS of the Democratic Party must not allow the Neo-Liberal Professional Class to get in front of the GRASSROOTS DEMOCRATIC PARTY MOVEMENT and lead the GRASSROOTS DEMOCRATIC PARTY MOVEMENT away from the interests of actual democracy and subsistence rights for the general population that is defined and empowered in the Constitution of the United States.

What I would like to see to assure that this does not happen is a Congressional Blog for BOTH Houses of Congress and a Presidential Blog for the President of the United States, so that WE THE PEOPLE can talk directly to our Government, and so that WE THE PEOPLE can tell our Government directly and exactly what we think.

At first, I would like to see a Congressional Blog and a Presidential Blog empowered by law as a right of WE THE PEOPLE; and secondly, I would like to see both blogs empowered by a Constitutional Amendment.

A Congressional Blog and a Presidential Blog will give WE THE PEOPLE direct access to WE THE PEOPLES' Representative Government of the United States and will be a good 1st Step toward the foundation of actual democracy with subsistence rights that is defined and empowered in the Constitution of the United States to replace mythological democracy that has been in existence in the United States from 1776 to the present.

Which is it, Terrorism or Shopping???????

George W. Bush went on television and told the American people that "terrorism is a grave and gathering threat", to the extent that WE THE PEOPLE, the American people, must turn AUTOCRATIC POWER over to the government and forsake democracy to be protected from terrorism. But, George W. Bush added that the threat of terrorism was not sufficient that terrorism should deter WE THE PEOPLE, the American people, from SHOPPING.

The threat of terrorism is not sufficient to deter the American people from transferring the benefit of their labor, their money, from their pockets to the pockets of commercial interests and the interests of capital by way of the economy; but the threat of terrorism is sufficient to segue the United States from a democracy to a COMMERCIAL DICTATORSHIP!!!!

Heil Bush and "Shop til you Drop".

If the American people are ignorant and unaware enough to go for this kind of rhetoric, they deserve what it will bring.

I can see a light at the end of the tunnel and I hope that it is not a train being driven by the DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL, DLC, that is taking control of the November 7, 2006 electoral victory of the Democratic Party to cooperate with the RIGHT WING EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN PARTY and help to usher in BUSH, or some other RIGHT WINGER as Der American Furer, so that the American people can continue to Sig Heil the onset of an American Commercial Dictatorship with an agenda of "Shop til you Drop" in defense of terrorism.

Thomas G. Miller

Which is it, Terrorism or Shopping???????

George W. Bush went on television and told the American people that "terrorism is a grave and gathering threat", to the extent that WE THE PEOPLE, the American people, must turn AUTOCRATIC POWER over to the government and forsake democracy to be protected from terrorism. But, George W. Bush added that the threat of terrorism was not sufficient that terrorism should deter WE THE PEOPLE, the American people, from SHOPPING.

The threat of terrorism is not sufficient to deter the American people from transferring the benefit of their labor, their money, from their pockets to the pockets of commercial interests and the interests of capital by way of the economy; but the threat of terrorism is sufficient to segue the United States from a democracy to a COMMERCIAL DICTATORSHIP!!!!

Heil Bush and "Shop til you Drop".

If the American people are ignorant and unaware enough to go for this kind of rhetoric, they deserve what it will bring.

I can see a light at the end of the tunnel and I hope that it is not a train being driven by the DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL, DLC, that is taking control of the November 7, 2006 electoral victory of the Democratic Party to cooperate with the RIGHT WING EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN PARTY and help to usher in BUSH, or some other RIGHT WINGER as Der American Furer, so that the American people can continue to Sig Heil the onset of an American Commercial Dictatorship with an agenda of "Shop til you Drop" in defense of terrorism.

Thomas G. Miller

Democracy For Those Who are Governed,
Or Democracy For Those who Govern?

Those that govern are of commercial interests and the interests of capital. Those that are governed are of democratic interests and the interests of subsistence.

The interests of those that govern, the American aristocracy, are in conflict with the interests of those that are governed in the United States, the citizens, the general population. Commercial interests and the interests of capital are provided for in the Constitution of the United States, while the interests of democracy and subsistence interests are not provided for in the Constitution of the United States.

The problem with the United States is that WE THE PEOPLE have mythological democracy that is not provided for in the Constitution of the United States, and that the United States has commercial interests and the interests of capital that are being represented as mythological democracy.

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States need actual democracy with teeth that is represented in the Constitution of the United States; actual democracy to counter balance commercial interests and the interests of capital that have enforcement authority in the Constitution of the United States.

WE THE PEOPLE need actual democracy in the United States in the 21st Century, rather than mythological democracy that WE THE PEOPLE have had since 1776, when the Federalists got in front of the American Revolution and co-opted the Constitution of the United States from the Anti-Federalists who stood for the interests of actual democracy, rather than mythological democracy.

Thomas G. Miller

On the Interests of Capital and DEMOCRACY

The culture of the government empowers commercial interests and the interests of capital, and the culture of the government claims to protect and serve the democratic and subsistence interests of the general population.

However, the culture of the government does not in fact protect and serve the democratic and subsistence interests of the general population; because, if it did the culture of the government would empower democratic interests and subsistence interests of the general population in the United States Constitution and the law to the same degree as commercial interests and interests of capital are empowered, rather than maintaining a charade of perpetual innocence for societal wrongs done to the general population in the interest of capital and commercial interests without institutionalization of a cause in the U. S. Constitution and the law to effect a cure that would serve the democratic interests and subsistence interests of the general population to the same degree that commercial interests and the interests of capital are served by the U. S. Constitution and the law.

Thomas G. Miller

A Republic, Not a Democracy

Throughout the presidential election controversy, we have been bombarded with references to our sacred "democracy." Television and radio shows have been inundated with politicians worried about the "will of the people" being thwarted by the courts. Solemn warnings have been issued concerning the legitimacy of the presidency and the effects on our "democratic system" if the eventual winner did not receive the most popular votes. "I'm really in love with our democracy," one presidential candidate gushed to a reporter. Apparently, the United States at some point become a stealth democracy at the behest of news directors and politicians.

The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago (remember the Pledge of Allegiance: "and to the Republic for which it stands"...?). The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added). The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis.

In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The electoral college is an obvious example. Small states are represented in national elections with greater electoral power than their populations would warrant in a purely democratic system. Similarly, sparsely populated Wyoming has the same number of senators as heavily populated New York. The result is not democratic, but the Founders knew that smaller states had to be protected against overreaching federal power. The Bill of Rights provides individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor. Would the same politicians so enamored with democracy be willing to give up freedom of speech if the majority chose to do so?

Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob. They believed that a representative government, restrained by the Bill of Rights and divided into three power sharing branches, would balance the competing interests of the population. They also knew that unbridled democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered by the colonies under King George. In other words, the Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty. Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the "excesses of democracy."

Last week I introduced a resolution in Congress which reaffirms our nation's republican form of government. H.Con Res 443 serves as a response to recent calls for the abolition of the electoral college. The collectivist liberals want popular national elections (rather than the electoral college system) because they know their constituencies are concentrated in certain heavily populated states. They want to nullify the voting power of the smaller, pro-liberty states. Supporters of my resolution in Congress can send a strong message that every state still matters, and that liberty is more important than shifting majority sentiment.

Superdawg:

You have made a Federalist argument that was made by the Federalists in the 18th Century. The Anti-Federalist argument has not been made since the 18th Century. The Anti-Federalist prized democracy and feared unbridled commercial interests and the interests of capital as much or more than the Federalists feared democracy, the tyranny of the majority.

If you want to be constructive to dialog with regard to both commercial interests and the interests of capital as well as the interests of democracy, the dialog and debate between 18th Century Federalists and Anti-Federalists must be revived in the 21st Century.

The myth of democracy in the United States came from the aspirations of the Anti-Federalists, their desire for democracy and their fear of commercial interests and the interests of capital gaining power and control over the U. S. Government.

The worse fear of the Anti-Federalists has happened in the United States 230 years after the American Revolution in 1776, in the 21st Century, and it is now time for the Anti-Federalists to reemerge with their dialog and agenda for ACTUAL DEMOCRACY as opposed to mythical democracy that has been the standard of government for 230 years, and for actual democracy to be revived, reevaluated and God willing instituted in the United States and made a permanent enforceable part of the U. S. Constitution, along with reevaluation of the excesses of commercial interests and the interests of capital, so that the American people can choose by a Constitutional Amendment whether or not they want actual democracy with enforcement authority as a part of the U. S. Constitution, or whether or not they want to keep the Constitution as it is, representative of commercial interests and the interests of capital ONLY; the Republic that the Federalists wanted and got, and that presently exists in the United States.

I want the American people to have the opportunity to vote for a Constitutional Amendment that will give democracy teeth that are co-equal with the teeth in the U. S. Constitution for commercial interests and the interests of capital.

Someone explain to me how excluding America Samoa from the new Federal Wage fulfills the spirit of this quote? "For 10 years the lowest-paid Americans have been frozen out. They have been working at a federal poverty wage, not a federal minimum wage," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., author of the legislation." It seems to me that the two largest employers in America Samoa, Chicken of the Sea and StarKist Tuna, are two California based companies who are benefiting from this exclusion. Someone here please tell me how this exemplifies the transparent, honest government that Ms. Pelosi promised.

Please try to stay on subject and away from platitudes about greedy corporate America or endless digressions into the Federalist papers.

Just tell me how it is that Ms. Pelosi and those who supported her are not now liars and thieves. Make it convincing so the people in America Samoa can understand why they are being cheated and feel good about it at the same time.

Predator: That question was brought up this morning while I was watching CSPAN. It has to do with some kind of difference in status between American Samoa and the Marianas. I'm not sure what, it sort of sounded like it was similar to the status Indian Reservations have. They are managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the Department of the Interior, even though the tribes are also, at times, considered sovereign.
Yeah, I know, it's confusing, but I guess when you live in a state with six reservations you get used to it.

YES WE MUST KEEP STANDIND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE'S A GOVERNMENT THAT IS FOR THE PEOPLE'S AND BY THE PEOPLE'S SO WE MUST KEEP STANDING UP PEOPLE'S

THE POOR PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN INC
MR JERRY ROBINSON

KEEP STANDING UP. YES WE MUST KEEP STANDING FOR WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE'S WE NEED A GOVERNMENT THAT IS FOR THE PEOPLE'S AND BY THE PEOPLE'S SO WE MUST KEEP STANDING UP NOW AN ALL WAYS WE ARE POOR POWER

THE POOR PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN INC
MR JERRY ROBINSON

Amen, Mr King;
There's a lot of people out there who don't have much, except for the vote.
If we don't get campaign and election reforms soon, we'll all loose that, and none of us will have anything.

If is a big word. If the minimum wage clears the Senate and the Presidential veto, and actually gets put in place, DO NOT ALLOW the Cost of Living to be immediately increased to gobble it up, or the minimum wage increase will be a futile effort.

Why is there a section on this site that wants us to send letters to editors?
Editors are already getting letters in opposition to the war.
We need to send letters to Senators and Congressmen, because they aren't listening, yet.
www.senate.gov and www.house.gov will get you sites to email your legislators.
They are the people who need to know!
They are the ones who are blowing us off!
A lot of these legislators are ignoring the people they're supposed to be representing.
Remind them that 2008 isn't just a presidential election, it's also for the House of Representatives, and 1/3 of the Senate!
Tell them Impeach Bush, End the War, Reform campaigns and elections!