Raising The Minimum Wage Is Not The Answer
Bill Clinton and Al Gore, self proclaimed defenders of the common working man, are once again pushing for an increase in the minimum wage. Congressional Democrats want to pass legislation raising the minimum wage by a dollar, to $6.15, in the next two years. Both the Clinton administration and the Democratic leadership are challenging the Reublican led Congress to make this happen.
The debate over raising the minimum wage is always a tough issue. Opponents of raising it are usually percieved, especially by minimum wage workers, as having an unwillingness to help those hourly workers who are struggling just to get by. Supporters of raising it will usually point to the struggle as proof that they are trying to fight for working families everywhere. The debate is often used by politicians to gain the support of laborers and unions alike, rather than for any other legitimate purpose. Now, this is not to say that it should never be raised. I would never suggest that. The minimum wage has to be raised peiodically to counter the affects of the devaluation of the dollar. However, Clinton's plan to raise it by a dollar in two years is not the answer. In fact, we can even use his very own words and the words of his supporters to show us what can either be called hypocrisy or just a lack of good economic judgement in regards to the fight to help common working Americans.
"If Republican leaders send me a bill that makes workers wait for another year for their full pay raise and holds the minimum wage hostage for risky tax cuts that threaten our prosperity, I'll veto it," Clinton said.
My first reaction to this statement is as follows. To me, he is almost implying that the 'wealth' in this country is ultimately in the hands of the federal government. It is absolutely not the duty of the congress to issue pay raises. It is absolutely not their decision, as the 'wealth' in this nation belongs to the people and the private industry which created it, not the congress. For him to tell Americans that Republican leaders are withholding their pay raises is a flat out lie. If these people are not getting raises, it is their bosses who are withholding it from them, not the Republican party as Bill wants you to think. This sort of statement is exactly the kind of partisan politics that Bill claims the Democrats don't play. Since this is an election year, he is trying to convince the average worker to associate his low wages with Republican greed.
Secondly, am I the only one bothered that Bill is calling the tax cut proposals risky? Lets take a minute to see some of the highlights of this 'risky business'. Bill thinks that it is too risky to reduce Estate taxes. Bill thinks that it is too risky to make health insurance premiums fully tax deductable for the self employed in 2001, which is sooner than the law had provided for. Bill thinks that it is too risky to increase the annual contribution limit to 401(k) plans. Bill thinks that it is too risky to increase the low-income housing credit. These are just a few of the proposals in the House Republicans $122.7 billion tax cut plan over the next ten years. After reading this, who's prosperity do you think is being risked here? It seems to me that when he said "our prosperity" he was refering to the federal government and himself. He couldn't possibly be refering to average working families and himself because he is truely out of touch with them if he feels that taking less money from them, in the form of taxes, is going to threaten their prosperity. Lowering taxes can only add to their prosperity. For Bill, and for liberalism for that matter, the only risk posed by cutting taxes is the risk that the government will have less money with which to promise to the people in an election year. This is why they would rather vilify the tax cut as a whole, hoping to scare people into just assuming that it must be bad, by calling them "risky" and "a threat to our prosperity", instead of encouraging them to look into it further.
Clinton further went on to say, "It is time to stop nickel and diming American working people out of the money that they need and deserve. This is just wrong."
If Clinton truely was interested in easing the burden on average working families, he would address an issue that truely affected nearly all of the so called average working families he claims to be fighting for instead of the minimum wage issue. By raising the minimum wage right now, the majority of people that will be recieving a pay increase will not be the struggling families that Bill says that he is helping.
The majority of people who work for minimum wage are not supporting families. They are more often teenagers, students, and housewives. Sure, I am not nieve enough to sit here and say that there isn't anyone who is trying to support their family on or near the minimum wage. There are many people who are stuck in this position. However, I feel that a majority of working people who could be considered as struggling to support their families are earning between $7 and $11 an hour. By forcing companies to increase the minimum wage they are essentially taking these very nickles and dimes away from the majority of these people who are actually trying to support families. Most businesses only have so much money that they are either willing or are able to spend on payroll. They will not be able to give the people in the $7-11 range a raise because they were forced to give it to the minimum wagers. This is why we cannot allow the minimum wage to grow at a rate faster than real wages. If it does, then we will eventually have a working class of people who are all making the same minimum wage. This is why Bill's push to raise the wage by 19.4% in only two years without some form of small business tax relief is flawed and will not help the working families that he claims it will.
It makes no sense to say that Bill Clinton is helping the struggling working family by improving the standard of living for a few American workers at the expense of the nickles and dimes of the majority of people who really need them. If Bill Clinton was really interested in ceasing the nickle and diming of the American people, then why doesn't he temporarily reduce or suspend the gasoline tax? This is an issue that is of great concern to the average American working family that Bill claims to be defending. As gas prices continue to skyrocket, the budgets of these families are being torn apart. However, Uncle Sam is still getting his money while families are struggling to find ways to make ends meet until the oil crisis passes. If Clinton really wanted to help these struggling working families, then he would stop nickle and diming them at the gas pumps. He would stop nickle and diming them when it comes to heating their homes with oil products.
Bill Clinton's desire to raise the minimum wage has nothing to do with wanting to help working families. It has everything to do with trying to gain support from laborers and the unions for Al Gore's presidential campaign. It is nothing more than the sort of partisan politics that he claims only Republicans play. Lowering taxes on fuel costs, even if only temporarily, would be just one example of an issue that really affects struggling families. His unwillingness to act in this area proves that he is either a hypocrite or that he is truely out of touch with the very people he claims to be concerned with.
Back to the Wildebeest Editorial