Area Republicans Vote Against Raising Minimum Wage

It's a little out of sequence, but among the notable bills being debated by Congress this week was passage of a hike in the minimum wage. If you missed it, it might be because this long-overdue Democratic victory was buried behind the controversy over troop surges. The Fort Worth Star Telegram put its announcement in the business section.

Unlike some of the other bills discussed since the start of this session, North Texans voted on this issue along nearly straight party lines.

On a 315-116 roll call Wednesday, the House voted to increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over 26 months.

Voted Yes (in favor of a minimum wage increase)
Chet Edwards, D-Waco
Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas
Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell (Ed. note: the Star-Telegram article wrongly lists Rep. Marchant as voting against the legislation, while the official record has him voting in favor.)

Voted No (in opposition to a minimum wage increase)
Joe Barton, R-Ennis
Michael Burgess, R-Flower Mound
Ralph Hall, R-Rockwall
Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas
Sam Johnson, R-Plano
Pete Sessions, R-Dallas
Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth

The minimum wage has not seen an increase in over nine years. In fact, based on buying power, it is at its lowest in over 50 years. During that same nine years, congress has voted itself $31K in pay increases, three times the yearly wage of someone earning the minimum.

So it may surprise you that your Republican congressmen and women would fail to see the benefit of raising the minimum wage standard. It shouldn't. Republicans not only fail to see the need for a raise, they fail to see the need for a minimum wage at all. Here's the quote from the Texas GOP party platform.

We believe the Minimum Wage Law should be repealed and that wages should be determined by the free market conditions prevalent in each individual market. [page 25, 2006 State Republican Party Platform]

Last year, under pressure from Republicans running in close districts, they voted to couple the minimum wage hike with an $90 billion decrease in the inheritance tax for America's wealthiest families, in what one Democratic congressman called

"the kind of cynical ploy that makes Americans lose faith in their government."

That bill passed the House, with Edwards joining Burgess, Marchant and Sessions in supporting the bill, Johnson, Hensarling and Barton opposed and Granger abstaining. It failed in the Senate.

This year, the rationale was that a minimum wage increase must be coupled, in the same bill, with tax breaks for small businesses.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said "lucky" workers would see their pay rise to $7.25 an hour, but he predicted that many more will have their hours or benefits cut or lose their jobs.

"In America we can either have maximum opportunity or we can have minimum wages. We cannot have both...."

Well, maybe you can. According to a study by a nonpartisan research group...

Some observers contend that because many small businesses are labor intensive and largely employ low-wage workers, they will experience sharp cost increases when the minimum wage is increased, leading them to reduce employment levels. However, this report examined recent state-by-state trends for small businesses employing fewer than 50 workes and found that employment and payrolls in small businesses grew faster in the states with iminimum wages above the federal level than in the remaining states where the $5.15 an hour federal minimum wage prevailed.

This report also found that total job growth was faster in the higher minimum wage states. Faster job growth also occurred in the retail trade sector, the sector of the economy employing the most workes at low wages, in the higher minimum wage states.

The simplest introductory economics prediction that an increase in the minimum wage will result in job loss clearly is not supported by the actual job growth record. Rather, faced with an increase in the minimum wage, small businesses may have benefited from some combination of higher productivity through improved worker retention and savings on recruitment and training. There may also be a "Henry Ford" effect at work: if you pay workers more, they can buy more, boosting the overall economy, especially among small retail businesses.

Here's the roll call vote. To view Congresswoman Johnson's press release on the bill, click here. The bill still needs to pass in the Senate.

house votes in favor of stem cell research; bush likely to veto (again)

According to Friday's issue of Quick, the Democratic-controlled "House of Representatives passed legislation yesterday to lift President Bush's limits on federal embryonic stem-cell research..." The Republican 109th Congress passed similar legislation last year, prompting President Bush to use his first ever veto stamp to block it from becoming law.

With a 253-174 vote, Congress failed to pass the bill with more than two-thirds support, meaning it will be unlikely that Bush's expected veto on the new legislation could be overridden. For what it's worth, you can contact the White House and pledge your support for stem cell research. Perhaps an overwhelming show of support could convince the president to sign the legislation.

How did the North Texas legislation vote on this important issue? Find your legislator on the list below and make sure to write them a letter of either support or condemnation, depending on how they voted.

Voted Yes (in favor of stem cell research)
Joe Barton, R-Ennis
Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas
Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth

Voted No (in opposition to stem cell research)
Michael Burgess, R-Flower Mound
Ralph Hall, R-Rockwall
Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas
Sam Johnson, R-Plano
Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell
Pete Sessions, R-Dallas

stem cell research enhancement act: vetoed

Recently, the Senate passed legislation that would enhance stem cell research by loosening restrictions on federal funding. The legislation passed in the U.S. House back in 2005 without help from several North Texas Republicans that voted against it: Rep. Michael Burgess (Flower Mound), Rep. Ralph Hall (Rockwall), Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Dallas), Rep. Sam Johnson (Plano), Rep. Kenny Marchant (Carrollton), and Rep. Pete Sessions (Dallas). Two North Texas Republicans supported stem cell research and are to be commended: Rep. Kay Granger (Fort Worth) and Rep. Joe Barton (Ennis).

How did the Democrats vote? Totally in favor of stem cell research. Texas Democrats stood in solidarity; not a single one voted against the legislation. If you're represented by a Texas Democrat, take a minute to write them a letter and thank them for supporting stem cell research.

Over in the Senate, our two Republican senators were split. Sen. John Cornyn voted against the stem cell research legislation, while Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison voted for it. Sen. Hutchison is to be commended for standing up and letting her vote be counted to help save lives. Unfortunately, Sen. Cornyn decided to cater to the religious right.

Regardless of how everyone voted, President Bush used the first veto of his presidency today to reject this legislation that was overwhelmingly passed by Congress.

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said Wednesday afternoon. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it."

Attending the White House event were a group of families with children who were born from "adopted" frozen embryos that had been left unused at fertility clinics.

"These boys and girls are not spare parts," he said of the children in the audience. "They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research. They remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells."

Despite Bush's decision, the issue has divided much of the Republican Party. Only two Texas Republicans (North Texas Reps. Barton and Granger) strayed from Republican talking points to cast their vote in favor of the legislation, but across the nation things were different. In the Senate, many states were split with one senator voting one way and the other voting another. In the House, a coalition of 200 Democrats and Republicans co-sponsored the legislation. Even top Republicans in Congress were forced to publicly disagree with the president.

The Senate bill's principal sponsor, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, who recently survived a brush with cancer, was joined by Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, a physician who argued that Bush's policy is too restrictive.

"I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president's decision to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act," Frist said in a statement. "Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available."

Currently, House Republicans plan to re-introduce the legislation in an attempt to override President Bush's veto. Please help this effort! If your legislator voted against the bill last year, there's a chance that public opinion could change their mind this year. If they supported it last year, make sure you write them to encourage them to cast the same vote to override the veto. Right now, House leadership isn't sure that they'll have enough support for the measure, so this requires immediate action if we want to save lives. Contact your representatives in Congress here.

All You Need to Know About the Paris Hilton Tax Cut

The Republicans believe that there is no problem facing Americans that a tax cut for the wealthy can't cure. Any crisis, it seems, justifies a tax cut. The response to the 9/11 attacks? Tax cut. Facing war in Iraq? Tax cut. As Tom DeLay noted at the time, "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes."

Last fall the Senate Republican leadership decided that the appropriate response to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina was to reward the ruling class yet again, this time by eliminating the estate tax. But public censure over such a brazen and callous move in the face of a national tragedy, coupled with general disgust at the emerging incompetence of political leadership from the White House on down, actually moved Senator Frist to reconsider. The estate tax bill was shelved, awaiting a more auspicious time.

That time, apparently, is now. And perhaps the timing has less to do with a better opportunity than the perceived lack of it going forward. What chance would such a bill have if the House or the Senate lost Republican majority in this fall's election? So, with the pending marriage amendment as cover, the Senate is considering re-introducing Jon Kyl's bill, dubbed "Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act" by it's sponsors, and the "Paris Hilton Tax Cut" by Michael J. Graetz and Ian Shaprio in their book Death by a Thousand Tax Cuts.

The Senate debate is crucial, because the measure has always been blocked by Democrats in the Senate. The House version, H.R. 8, passed with 99% Republican support, including proud co-sponsors Rep. Ralph Hall and Kenny Marchant. But no one in the House has been a bigger supporter of the repeal of the estate tax than Congressman Michael Burgess. Burgess promotes the fallacy that the estate tax is responsible for the liquidation of businesses and family farms. It would take an entire separate post to to do justice to this argument, but here's the take-away:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 65 farms and 94 family-owned businesses in the entire country would have owed any estate tax in 2000 if the $7 million exemption level that will take effect in 2009 had been in place back then. And the American Farm Bureau could not cite a single family farm that has ever been lost because of the estate tax, according to The New York Times.

The logic of cutting this tax truly cuts at the heart of the idea of a progressive tax plan. Some of business' biggest scions are behind this legislation, including the Waltons, billionaire heirs of Sam Walton.

Eighteen families, including the owners of Nordstrom Inc., The Seattle Times Co., Mars Inc., Koch Industries Inc. and Wal-Mart Inc., that stand to save $71.6 billion in taxes are financing lobbying efforts to repeal the estate tax, according to a study by two groups....
Wiping the estate tax off the books would mean about $1 trillion in lost revenue for the government between 2010 and 2019, according to private and government estimates.

Every time the Bush administration wants to reward the rich patrons who pull their strings, they trot out tired arguments about economic stimulus and the virtues of the free market. Every time they want to cut benefits for the rest of us, they point with justified alarm to the economic state of our government.

The bottom line as far as I am concerned is that we just cut $4.8 billion in Medicaid in February 2006. The President said this just absolutely needed to be done. Yet, right after that, he signed a bill that cut income taxes by $70 billion on dividends and capital gains, and now wants to cut an additional $25 billion per year by repealing the estate tax. All of this being done at a time when our national debt is approaching $10 trillion. Who elected these people?

And if all this weren't enough to convince you of the lunacy of eliminating the estate tax, consider these facts:

House Democrats have released a report detailing the effect that a repeal of the tax would have on the estates of oil company executives and members of the Bush cabinet. According to the report, estate tax repeal would save the estate of Vice President Cheney between $13 million and $61 million, and would save the estate of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld between $32 million and $101 million. The family of retired ExxonMobil chief Lee R. Raymond would receive a $164 million windfall.

What more do you need to know?

texas reps vote to "sell out" the internet

Internet users in Texas should be ashamed of their delegates to the U.S. Congress. Texan members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Rep. Michael Burgess (R) of Flower Mound, Rep. Joe Barton (R) of Ennis, Rep. Ralph Hall (R) of Rockwall, Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D) of San Antonio, and Rep. Gene Green (D) of San Antonio all voted to "sell out the Internet" by rejecting the Markey Amendment, which would protect Net Neutrality.

Texans, please contact your representative in D.C. and let them now that you are disappointed in his vote that would favor the communications companies over his constituents. Learn more about how Net Neutrality affects you from a previous post at NTL.

It's a sad day when Texas Democrats will vote against the will of the people. The Democrats cannot claim to be a populist party if they vote like corporate-minded Republicans. Please take the time to send an email to Rep. Green and Rep. Gonzalez, letting them know that they have let us all down as Texas Democrats. (This vote is expected of former Democrat Rep. Ralph Hall, who became a Republican in 2004 when he formally endorsed President Bush's re-election campaign.)

Rep. Joe Barton, an Ennis Republican, is one of the co-sponsors of this bill and his mind probably can't be changed (for fear he'd be casted as North Texas's very own flip-flopper), but if enough constituents in CD 26 express their outrage concerning Rep. Michael Burgess's anti-consumer and anti-small business vote, it's possible that he'll change his mind. Democrat Tim Barnwell, who will challenge Rep. Burgess for his seat in November, has come out in favor of Net Neutrality.

save the internet - support net neutrality

The Internet as we know it is in danger. Congress may pass a radical new law that would give giant corporations control over the Internet. Communications giants like Verizon and AT&T are lobbying Congress in an attempt to have Network Neutrality gutted and hung to dry -- this would allow them to purposively slow down the loading rate of certain sites, causing a bidding war between websites in an attempt to ensure a fast download rate for their viewers. For instance, Amazon and Barnes & Noble would be forced to enter a bidding war, otherwise networks like Verizon could slow down the rate at which users could load a certain site. If the website owners don't pay up to the big corporations, they risk a slow processing time for their viewers. This is a huge issue that affects every single Internet user. You can learn more about the threat here.

It is imperative that we tell Congress to vote in favor of Network Neutrality. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce will vote this week on the issue; three members of Congress that represent North Texas sit on this committee and will have a say. If you are represented by Rep. Ralph Hall of the 4th Congressional District or Rep. Michael Burgess of the 26th Congressional District, please contact your Representatives and let them know where you stand. The third North Texas, a Republican from the 6th District, is the sponsor of the bill. Joe Barton represents parts of Ellis County and Tarrant County. We probably can't change his mind, but we can certainly flood his mailbox with angry letters. Hall and Burgess are both Republicans, but this should not be a partisan issue. It will affect all of us negatively, Republican or Democrat. It is certainly plausible that Hall and Burgess can be persuaded to vote for the preservation of Net Neutrality.

Please consider joining the diverse coalition to save the Internet: MoveOn PAC, Craig Newmark (founder of Craigslist), Google executive Vint Cerf, the American Library Association, the Gun Owners of America, Common Cause, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Religious Broadcasters, and the Consumer Federation of America are all teaming up to support Network Neutrality. Visit the coalition website to Save the Internet right now and find out how you can help the cause.