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

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?