Skip to main content

Democratic hypocrisy on the minimum wage increases

Now Representative Helen Keeley has joined Byron Short in a public call to increase the minimum wage by a dollar.  It is particularly instructive to look at this Democrat's argument:
Our constituents have long supported an increase in the minimum wage. They have seen the prices of groceries, gas and utilities climb while their wages stay the same. They work hard to provide for themselves and their families. Any increase in their wages is going to be spent locally on food, clothes and other necessities.
The only problem, here, Helen, is that exactly the same could be said about State employees (including teachers), for whom Delaware Democrats have been remarkably unresponsive about provide wage increases for many years.

Apparently, for Helen, one of the perks of state employment is that they get to shop in special grocery stories, purchase gas at special pumps, and buy their electricity from special co-ops where the prices never go up?  She doesn't, apparently, notice the state workers whose full-time salaries are low enough to qualify them for food assistance and Medicaid.

You see, the first difference here, is that raising the minimum wage is simply passing a requirement for other people to pay out the money.  If the Democrats who control both the Executive and Legislative branches of the government actually dealt with state workers pay they'd have to figure out where to get the money themselves.  That's hypocrisy number one.

Hypocrisy number two is that the Delaware Democratic Party platform does not call for a raise in the minimum wage, but rather calls for a law requiring a "living wage":
Enacting a livable wage,
Strangely enough, no Democrat in the General Assembly has ever--at least to my knowledge--introduced legislation requiring employers to pay a living wage.  Gee, why not?  It is in the Democratic Party platform, isn't it?  If they're not ever going to even attempt it, why would they try to tell voters that they value it?

By the way, according to MIT, the living wage in New Castle County for a family with one adult and two children is $26.47/hour.  The poverty wage for that same family is $8.80/hour--BELOW the new minimum wage that Democrats are now patting themselves on the back for having the courage to propose.

So let's count up the hypocrisies of the Delaware Democratic Party once again:

1.  Minimum wage increase for private sector employees while no raises for State employees.

2.  No effort (not even a mention) of the party platform calling for a living wage.

3.  The minimum wage raise they are proposing would still leave everyone depending on it in poverty.

And, my favorite, the fact that the minimum wage does not cover living expenses and has not kept pace with inflation, is something that Democrats really don't want to touch, because it would get us into discussing the fiscal policies they have been supporting for decades.

To wit:


Remember:  today's Delaware Democratic Party is all about rhetoric and promises, not delivery.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hmm... Your piece made me realize the timing is such that they hope to undercut even a higher minimum wage from passing, by first low-balling the total ahead of the Feds...

Somewhere near $9.00 should be the minimum wage. $8.25 is a corporate bargain.

That is why those who were against it, are now for it. And I'll ask you since you've been on top of it and would be more aware of the timing, but didn't Short's editorial on his reversal, come out, only after the President made some noise he'd push for a higher total?

Anonymous said…
"Our constituents have long supported an increase in the minimum wage. They have seen the prices of groceries, gas and utilities climb while their wages stay the same." All of which the legislators have raised taxes on considerably over the last several years becasue of their lack of abilty to actually budget.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...