Overwhelming proof that Democrats are better than Republicans in running governments.

This link will take you to a post that proves that Democrats run governments far better than Republicans.

For once I agree with Rand Paul. I also don't think Loretta Lynch should be Attorney General

By Dan Riker

I have more reasons than Paul cited.  First, what he talked about.

He is opposing her because she supports the current laws allowing civil forfeiture of property when the owner has not been convicted of a crime. The Huffington Post reports that in her role as U.S. Attorney in New York she has seized about $13 million in private property. Her office once held $447,000 in private property for two years without ever charging the owner with a crime. When questioned before the Senate committee considering her nomination for Attorney General, she said she supports the current law.

I agree with Paul. This may be the only area of agreement with him. There are so many other areas of disagreement between us, I certainly would not vote for him. But I applaud his position here.

Now, here are my principal reasons for opposing her confirmation.

In other testimony before the committee, she said she supports the death penalty, saying she believes it deters crime. There is a world of evidence collected over many years that disputes that belief.  There was evidence in England when there public hangings that the hangings actually caused more crime. We are among the greatest users of the death penalty, in company with China, North Korea, Yemen, and Iran. Isn't that wonderful company to be among? It is time for this nation to join with other civilized nations and ban this barbaric practice. Maybe the Supreme Court will do the right thing this term and end its use in the United States forever.

Lynch also says she opposes the legalization of marijuana. I have questions whether extensive use of it may lead to various kinds of health problems, but current scientific studies of marijuana use do not support my concern. There is plenty of hard evidence that cigarettes are far worse for our health and they are legal. And the same is true about alcohol and it is legal in much of the country. We tried outlawing it and we created organized crime.

We created the drug cartels and a huge prison industry by declaring a war on drugs. It has been the longest war in our history and our least successful. We have more than tripled the number of people in prison since 1985 when mandatory prison sentences for drug offenses were made federal law, and most of those people are in prison for non-violent drug offenses. And nothing we have done has stopped the use of drugs. It just has increased the cost.

When I was in law school back in the 1970s, one of the assigned books in criminal law was then already a classic, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, by Herbert L. Packer, a professor at the Stanford University School of Law. My copy of this book, first published in 1968, was the 76th printing. That shows it was widely read, particularly in law schools. I have to believe that Loretta Lynch has read it. It is a very scholarly analysis of criminal law. His fundamental thesis was that the greater the penalty applied to a criminal offense, the more valuable success in that crime became. And it was especially true when it came to illegal drugs.

He wrote that the use of criminal law to try to control the use of narcotics and other drugs was the greatest example of the misuse of the criminal sanction. "A clearer case of misapplication of the criminal sanction would be difficult to imagine."[i]

Just before that sentence he lists the results of reliance on the criminal sanction to control drugs - and keep in mind, this was written in 1968 before mandatory prison sentences and many of the other expansions of the war on drugs.

"The results of this reliance on the criminal sanction have included the following:

(1) Several hundred thousand people (ed. now more than 2 million), the overwhelming majority of whom have been primarily users rather than traffickers, have been subjected to severe criminal punishment.

(2) An immensely profitable illegal traffic in narcotics and other forbidden drugs has developed.

(3) This illegal traffic has contributed significantly to the growth and prosperity of organized criminal groups.

(4) A substantial number of all acquisitive crimes - burglary, robbery, auto theft, other forms of larceny - have been committed by drug users in order to get the wherewithal to pay the artificially high prices charged for drugs on the illegal market.

(5) Billions of dollars and a significant proportion of total law enforcement resources have been expended in all stages of the criminal process.

(6) A disturbingly large number of undesirable police practices - unconstitutional searches and seizures, entrapment, electronic surveillance - have become habitual because of the great difficulty that attends the detection of narcotics offenses.

(7) The burden of enforcement has fallen primarily on the urban poor, especially Negroes and Mexican-Americans.

(8) Research on the causes, effects, and cures of drug use has been stultified.

(9) The medical profession has been intimidated into neglecting its accustomed role of relieving this form of human misery.

(10) A large and well-entrenched enforcement bureaucracy has developed a vested interest in the status quo, and has effectively thwarted all but the most marginal reforms.

(11) Legislative invocations of the criminal sanction have automatically and unthinkingly been extended from narcotics to marijuana to the flood of new mind-altering drugs that have appeared in recent years, thereby compounding the preexisting problem."[ii]

As a prosecutor, Ms. Lynch has been outstanding. That is a crime-fighting job, not a law-making one.  The role of Attorney General is different. Yes, there is crime-fighting, but there also is law-making, or, at least law-influencing. For example, the present Attorney General has stopped enforcement of federal laws against marijuana in states where it has been legalized. That is an act of discretion, but also of common sense.

The Attorney General of the United States is the leading legal administrative official of the United States and has great influence over legislation and over how existing laws are enforced. It is very important that someone hold this position with a forward-looking view, not one based on the past, refusing to see and acknowledge the wrongness of the war on drugs.

One of the greatest mistakes of our past has been the War on Drugs, including the criminalization of marijuana. No sensible person can expect to enforce a law against a plant that can be grown under artificial light in anyone's closet without violating the Constitution in wholesale amounts.

The legalization, or at least de-criminalization of marijuana would save millions of people from criminal records and prison sentences that ruin their lives, and, at the same time, save billions of dollars in law enforcement and prison costs. It also would eliminate a major source of profit of the drug cartels.

Our Attorney General needs to have better judgment that what Loretta Lynch has displayed.

---

[i]  Packer, Herbert L. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1968. p. 333.

[ii]  Ibid. pp 332-333

The TPP so-called trade deal must be stopped. See this video.

Robert Reich explains in two minutes why the Trans-Pacific Partnership must be stopped. It is horrible. It is incredible that President Obama supports this, especially fast-tracking it so it gets no public scrutiny.

Watch Robert Reich's video here.

Raise the minimum wage to $15 and it will set off an economic boom - a revised chapter from my book

This is a revised chapter on raising the minimum wage, From Do What Works and Call it Capitalism By Dan Riker

Part III. Chapter 3. Raise the Minimum Wage to $15 and set off an Economic Boom.

“A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family.”

- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776[i]

“We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age.”

- Theodore Roosevelt, National Progressive Party Convention, 1912

“When someone works for less pay than she can live on – when, for example, she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently – then she has made a great sacrifice for you, she has made you a gift of some part of her abilities, her health, and her life. The 'working poor,' as they are approvingly termed, are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard    housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone else.”

- Barbara Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed, 2001[ii]

Congress could do one single thing that would have a greater positive impact on our economy, than any other. It raise the hourly minimum wage to $15 and link it to the cost of living. The result would be an economic boom unlike anything we have seen since the 1950s.

Today in the United States more than 3.8 million people are being paid the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, or less,[iii]an annual gross of about $15,000, or less. However, fully 25 per cent of all hourly workers are classified as “low wage” workers, which means they are making less than two-thirds of the median hourly wage, which was a little less than $17.00 in 2013. The average hourly wage for these “low wage” workers is less than $12.00 an hour,[iv]or approximately $23,000 a year. For 2013 the poverty levels in the United States were set at $11,490 for a single person, $15,510 for a two-person family, $19,530 for a three person family and $23,550 for a four person family, The minimum wage and the “low wage” are not living wages, but millions of impoverished Americans are trying to live on them, and the number is increasing every year.

This problem would not be nearly as severe if the minimum wage had been indexed to inflation all along. If the minimum wage in 1968 has been indexed to inflation, the minimum wage today would be around $11.00. That still isn't enough, and even then, it would not have kept pace with the growth of productivity. If it had kept pace with the improvement in productivity it would be more than $18.00.  In inflation-adjusted dollars, employers of minimum wage and low-wage workers are paying less than half of what they were in 1968.

No American who works full-time should live in poverty. There is no full-time job in existence that has so little value that adults who do it should not be able to live decently. In fact, I think it honestly can be argued that some of our lowest-paying jobs are among our most important – the jobs of taking care of the elderly – our parents and grandparents - in nursing homes; the jobs of tending to our hospital rooms to ensure they are sanitary; the jobs of cleaning our hotel rooms of the soil of others; the jobs of cleaning, peeling and preparing for cooking, or eating, much of the food we buy in restaurants, coffee shops, and fast food places, as well as in supermarkets and institutional cafeterias; all the jobs of people who – often invisibly – do the tough, dirty, unhealthy, and often, dangerous, tasks in society that make for a livable civilization. Whatever the costs to the rest of us, all of these people deserve to earn livings that permit them and their families to enjoy decent lives and a reasonable share of that civilization they have helped create.

Far too many Americans work for the minimum wage, or for wages very close to it.[v] For example, the annual gross of the average sales associate at Walmart, is only about $16,000, before the subtraction of Social Security and Medicare withholding of about 10 per cent. What is left is not a living wage.[vi]The wage levels of most national retailers and fast food restaurants are similar.  Today, at the rates paid by these companies, a husband and wife both have to work to earn in inflation-adjusted dollars what one Ford worker made in 1914.

In 1914, Henry Ford decided to pay the workers on his assembly line $5.00 a day. That was considered radical. It was, by far, the most money ever paid to industrial workers up to that time. In today's money it amounts to $114.00 per day, or about $30,000 annually. Nearly 100 years ago Ford was paying almost twice in real dollars than America's largest employer, and one of the most profitable companies in the history of the world, is paying its workers today.

Henry Ford was very clever. He said he wanted his employees to be able to buy his cars, so he paid them enough so they could buy his cars, and they did. By the early 1920s Ford was the world's largest carmaker and extremely profitable. After World War I other companies followed Ford's example. They began to pay more workers a living wage. They began to add fringe benefits. Productivity and profitability increased significantly. The 1920s economy boomed, and a real middle class emerged, driving cars, and buying homes in the new suburbs.

Our major employers today seem to be ignorant of the lesson of Henry Ford, or they just don't care. Their wages are so low that to support a family any worker has to have two jobs, and probably has to have a spouse who also works, also maybe two jobs. Millions of Americans are struggling to survive. They have no money to spend on anything other than the bare necessities. They are not “bootstrapping” their way out of poverty. Most are locked into it. And most of these low wage jobs have little or no vacation, or sick time. Until the Affordable Care Act, most had no health care, and some still do not. Low-wage workers in the United States have the fewest benefits of any low-wage workers in the industrialized world.[vii] Not only is this a national scandal for which we should be ashamed, it also is a national economic emergency. We will not see sustained and substantial economic growth while so many of our citizens are so underpaid.

Most of the jobs created in the past 30 years have been in the low paying service industries. Many people who lost their jobs that paid $20-30 per hour now are working for wages less than half of that. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco early in 2013 reported that since 2007 60 per cent of the job losses were mid-wage jobs, but only 22 per cent of jobs created were mid wage. While 21 per cent of the job losses were low wage jobs, 58 per cent of jobs created were low wage. [viii]

The report said the effect of this was that “for many of the largest occupational categories in the country median wages are significantly below the levels needed to cover essential household costs.” Combine this with the impact of the dramatic decline in housing values – but increases in rents - and it should be obvious why the economy for millions of Americans is stalled. They have very little money to spend on anything other than necessities, if they even have enough for those. This is a huge drag on the economy. The lack of demand is why companies are not expanding, not creating more jobs.

While this has been happening, most of the major corporations in the nation have operating profits, and some have record profits. The number of billionaires has increased dramatically. The disparity between the rich and everyone else has reached record highs. Why do we permit enormous wealth to be earned by the owners and executives of corporations when the products and services of those corporations – what they sell to make enormous profits – are the result of virtual slave labor, the payment of wages that do not permit the workers to have decent lives, that require many to work two jobs, and many to seek public assistance?

In fact, the American taxpayer is subsidizing these enormously profitable corporations through the food stamp, Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC), and other aid programs these employees qualify for because they are being paid so little. In 2004, a study published by the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center found that Walmart employees in California were receiving $86 million in public assistance.[ix] A documentary also was made, based on the study.  Walmart attempted to refute the study by arguing that the reliance on public assistance by their workers was not substantially different from that of the employees of their competitors.

As of April, 2014, according to studies[x] conducted by Americans for Tax Fairness and Democratic Staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Walmart employees were receiving more than $6 billion in federal aid and their stores were capturing 18% ($13.5 billion) of all food stamp sales. And this is a company 50% owned by the richest family in America. Collectively the Waltons are worth $148 billion.[xi] Of course, their market dominance almost certainly has had a deflationary effect on wages throughout their industry as many competitors  are forced to keep prices and wages low.

In 2009, the maximum eligible family income under the EITC program was raised to $50,000 and $60 billion in tax credits was paid to 27 million families that year.[xiv] Today, billions of dollars in government aid are going to impoverished workers of many the nation's largest and most profitable corporations, including one of the most profitable corporations in the world, because they are not paying their workers a living wage. Instead, these huge corporations are taxing the American to support their workers and to maintain their high profits. This is both shameful and insane.[xv]

That these low wages have no business justification is demonstrated by the fact that while Walmart, (along with many other major retailers), pays an average of less than $9.00 per hour to its hourly sales personnel – not a living wage – CostCo has become a hugely successful, multi-billion dollar corporation, offering many of the same products and services, while paying its workers an average hourly wage almost exactly twice as much. Trader Joe's is another very successful chain that pays decent wages.

Walmart has successfully prevented unionization, and despite enormous publicity over quite a few years about their meager wages, the corporation has done nothing to improve its workers lives. Meanwhile, the heirs of Sam Walton collectively are worth nearly $100 billion, as much as 30 per cent of all Americans.

There are four obvious conclusions from this. First, no matter how much bad publicity companies like

Walmart receive, they will not voluntarily raise wages to living levels, although Walmart said late in 2014 that they were not going be paying any workers the minimum wage. Second, There are no third parties, such as unions, in these businesses and industries, positioned to force the corporations to improve their wages. Third, state and federal governments could save tens of billions of dollars if it were not for the huge, and growing number of low-wage workers receiving public assistance and EITC payments in the U.S. The amount of money such workers are receiving is close to the amount dictated to be cut from the federal budget in 2013 by the “sequester.”

And, fourth, only the government can solve the problem by raising the minimum wage substantially.

The current minimum wage dates to 2009, but in real terms it has been declining in value for many years because it has not been indexed to inflation. Nine developed countries have minimum wages higher than the U.S.: Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Belgium, Australia, France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Luxembourg. 

While it seemed unlikely that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would even vote on President Obama's request to raise the minimum wage, what he originally asked for, $9.00 an hour was inadequate. A minimum wage of $9.00 per hour would yield an annual gross of about $18,000. That still is not a living wage. The President subsequently endorsed a bill in the Senate that would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 over three years, still not a living wage.

It is time to do something dramatic to change the lives of millions of Americans and end our economic emergency. And it would take just one act.  Congress should raise the minimum wage through a series of increases over a three-year period, and index it for inflation. This would propel millions of people out of poverty and generate enormous economic activity that would spur the economy into dramatic growth. A limited exemption, or time extension, may be necessary for very small companies, say, under 10 employees. Care also would have to be used to insure that companies did not try to evade the increase by significantly increasing the number of part-time employees. The minimum wage should apply to permanent part-time, as well as, full-time employment.

Imagine what would happen throughout the economy if every major employer had to pay at least $15 per hour, more twice the current minimum wage in the states that have not increased their minimum wages above the federal minimum wage. There would be no one left in the current classification of  “low wage.” Workers would spend that money to improve the lives of themselves and their families. The economy would boom. Their employers would experience greater growth, and probably recoup the additional expense in a relatively short time. And tens of billions of dollars in public assistance and EITC payments would be saved.

It will be argued, as it has in the past, that increasing the minimum wage – especially an increase of this magnitude – would cost jobs and increase unemployment because many employers would cut back to save money.

Companies do not routinely hire people they don't need. The bigger the company the more adept they are at calculating exactly what they need, and hiring no more than that. For most of these large corporations, wages are not their major expense. Most of the studies that have been done of this issue have concluded that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no effect on employment. In June, 2014, more than 600 economists signed a letter to the Congressional leadership supporting an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 and stating:

"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market."[xvi]

It is possible that some jobs would be lost with an increase of this magnitude. However, the economic boom that will occur will create many more jobs, and better-paying jobs.

It also will be argued that such an increase will be inflationary, that it will cause prices to rise.  This probably is true to some extent, especially if the minimum wage is doubled. But using Walmart as an example, actual price increases should be minimal.

Walmart’s annual revenues in 2014 were $473 billion, of which $279 billion was generated by stores in the United States. Operating income was $26.8 billion, of which 83% was gained from U.S. operations.[xvii] There are a number of reports of what Walmart pays its employees, from company statements that the average is above $12.00 to industry estimates that it is under $9.00. The problem, as explained in a Wall Street Journal story is that cashiers and floor clerks at Walmart make less than comparable positions at other chains, but management personnel, especially store and regional managers are paid much more than are the same types of personnel at some other chains.[xviii]

The impact on Walmart of raising the minimum wage to $15.00 probably would probably cause an increase in wage expense of $15 to $18 billion.[xix] Let's assume that with Social Security and Medicare withholding it is $20 billion. The company's domestic U.S. revenues were $279 billion in 2014. That $20 billion is about 7% of its U.S. revenues. If the minimum wage increase were spread over three years, Walmart could cover the expense by increasing prices about 2.3% per year. That seems like a very reasonable price to pay for a living wage for its employees - and for saving $6 billion annually in federal subsidies.

The overall impact of the influx of cash into the economy would more than offset price increases. By spreading the doubling over a three year period, employers would have time to adjust, as would the economy overall.

There also are those who advocate expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program as a substitute for increasing the minimum wage. They argue that it would be less disruptive to business, employment and inflation. However, the EITC program, which almost entirely benefits families with children, is very complicated. It also is a publicly-funded program that simply subsidizes major corporations indirectly. However, it has been one of the few successful federal programs assisting the poor that has been supported by both political parties. Consequently, until the minimum wage is raised to a decent level, such as $15.00 per hour, the EITC will continue to be a valuable and necessary program.[xx]

Corporations should have to bear the real costs of their businesses, and their employees should receive living wages. If that happened, the EITC could be significantly reduced and the tens of billions of government dollars currently going to public aid and EITC payments could be used far more effectively to provide free college education as many other countries now are doing.

There is another substantial national economic benefit of increasing the minimum wage to $15.00: substantially greater payments into Social Security and Medicare.  The elimination of nearly all “low wage” jobs and a higher percentage of EITC payments could go a long ways towards easing the pressure on Social Security and Medicare.

It is in the national economic interest for all working Americans to have decent incomes and be able to support families. It also is in our moral interest. Employers should not be able to exploit the desperation of people to have some kind of income and force them to accept wages that will not provide for a decent life. That is what existed for millions when Upton Sinclair's The Jungle was published in 1906. In many parts of the country, and in many businesses, we have returned to conditions not significantly different from what he described. How can anyone defend this?

As a people, as a nation, we should insist that businesses recognize that their employees are essential contributors to their profits, and deserve to earn living wages. It is not right to argue that because a job does not require great skills it is not important, and should not command a living wage. No pizza company can make any money without the people in their restaurants who make the pizzas. McDonald's cannot make any money without workers who cook those hamburgers, and take orders and payments from customers. Those tasks are essential to those businesses. The people who perform those tasks are essential to the businesses. It doesn't matter if they are easily trained, or easily replaced, or if the job has no educational requirements. Their value is in the work they do, which is critically important to the success of those businesses.

It is illegal for a business to price its products so low that no profit can be made from them by anyone. Companies occasionally use this practice, known as “predatory pricing,” to monopolize a product by driving out competition. It can be challenged under the antitrust laws. It doesn't happen very often, but the protection exists for the unusual case. There is no such protection for the individual. Within the limits of the minimum wage laws, people can work for wages that do not support them. And when they do, they effectively are reducing the number of jobs that do offer living wages.

We currently are experiencing a downward spiral of wages because of the growth of minimum, and near-minimum wage jobs. A monopoly in a product is viewed as a negative to the economy. Low wage jobs also are a negative to our economy. They reduce the amount of spending by consumers. They increase government expenses. They reduce economic opportunity. And they provide no benefit to the nation. This must end. Wages must be set at a level that sustains life. And since businesses will not do this voluntarily, governments must require it.

Communities across the nation, and especially state and local government officials, should consider whether those big box stores, which may have received some financial incentives to locate in their areas, really are a benefit to their communities. Their poorly paid employees are likely to seek public assistance just to survive. If these giant stores don't drive out the local competing businesses, whose profits stay in the community, those businesses may be forced to lower prices to compete, and also to pay lower wages. Walmart buys most of its products from China, not from American companies.

Local officials should insist, before granting any special considerations, that any major business located in their areas pay living wages to their employees, and certainly no wages so low that employees need, and can qualify for, public assistance.

"It was only after his death, after Wal-mart's down home founder was no longer its public face, that the country began to understand what his company had done. Over the years, America had become more like Wal-Mart. It had gotten cheap. Prices were lower and wages were lower. There were fewer union factory jobs, and more part-time jobs as store greeters. The small towns where Mr. Sam had seen his opportunity were getting poorer, which meant that consumers there depended more and more on everyday low prices, and made every last purchase at Wal-Mart, and maybe had to work there, too. The hollowing out of the heartland was good for the company's bottom line. And in parts of the country that were getting richer, on the coasts and in some big cities, many consumers regarded Wal-Mart and its vast aisles full of crappy, if not dangerous, Chinese-made goods with horror, and instead purchased their shoes and meat in expensive boutiques as if overpaying might inoculate them against the spread of cheapness, while stores like Macy's, the bastions of a former middle-class economy, faded out, and America began to look more like the country Mr. Sam had grown up in."[xxi]

The huge growth of the American industrial base in World War II led to the explosion of the middle class in the 1950s when, for the first time, the overwhelming majority of Americans earned incomes that provided well for their families. Things began to change in the late 1970s, and for the middle class, things have gotten steadily worse ever since. Real poverty has returned to a level not seen since the 1960s. All of this is shameful, and unnecessary.

Ensuring that all who hold full-time jobs are able to make decent livings would create an economic boom that would be sustainable into the foreseeable future. That can begin by increasing the hourly minimum wage to $15.00. Whatever its price, it is the price of having a civilized and economically stable society that we cannot afford not to pay.

---

[i]  Adam Smith, p. 28-29.  He further elaborated: “The labour of an able-bodied slave...is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an able-bodied slave. Thus far, at least seems certain that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance...”

[ii] Ehrenreich, Barbara. Nickel and Dimed. New York:Metropolitan Books 2001, p. 221.

[iii] Various minimum wage exceptions apply under specific circumstances to workers with disabilities, full-time students, youth under age 20 in their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment, tipped employees and student-learners.

[iv] Bureau of Labor Statistics. May 2011 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates

United States. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

[v] Twenty-nine states have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage. Recently, a number of states have raised minimum wages to reach as high as $11.50 (District of Columbia in 2016). California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massaschusetts and Vermont all will have minimum wages at $10.00 or higher by 2018, or sooner. A number of communities have raised their minimum wages to higher levels, including the City of Seattle, which increased it to $15.00. Multnomah County, Oregon, which includes the City of Portland, increased the minimum wage for its employees to $15.00. The District of Columbia's currently minimum wage is $9. Among the states, Washington currently has the highest statewide minimum wage, $9.47. Oregon is second at $9.25. A bill to raise Oegon's minimum wage to $15.00 was being considered by the state legislature in 2015. Both Washington's and Oregon's minmum wages increase with the cost-of-living.

[vi]  Near the end of 2014 Walmart announced that it would be increasing wages so that no employee worked for the minimum wage, but how the change would affect overall wage levels was not revealed.

[vii]  John Schmitt. “Low Wage Lessons.” Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research, January 2012.

[viii] “Vantage Point, January, 2013,” The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Feb.11, 2103.

                http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/vantage-point/2013-01/vantage-point-january-2013.pdf

[ix]  Arindrajit Dube & Ken Jacobs. “Hidden Cost of Walmart Jobs.” UC Berkeley Labor Center. August 2, 2004.

[x] http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart-on-Tax-Day-Americans-for-Tax-Fairness-1.pdf

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Rep. George Miller/Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. U.S. House of Representatives. “Everyday Low Wages: the Hidden Price We All Pay for Walmart.” February 16, 2004.

[xiii]  Clare O'Connor. "Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance." Forbes April 15, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/ (accessed July 26, 2014)

[xiv] Schmitt p. 6.

[xv] For other examples, see The Thom Hartman Show. "How All of Us Are Paying a Heavy Price for Corporate Greed." Alternet.org. July 23, 2014. http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/how-all-us-are-paying-heavy-price-corporate-greed?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark   (accessed July 26, 2014)

[xvi] "Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage." Washington, DC: The Economic Policy Institute. June, 2014. http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/ (accessed July 26, 2014)

[xvii]  All figures from the Walmart 2014 Annual Report. http://cdn.corporate.walmart.com/66/e5/9ff9a87445949173fde56316ac5f/2014-annual-report. (accessed Jan. 25, 2015)

[xviii] Shelly Banjo. "Pay at Wal-Mart: Low at the Checkout, But High in the Manager’s Office." The Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2014. http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2014/07/23/pay-at-wal-mart-low-at-the-checkout-but-high-in-the-managers-office/ (accessed Jan, 25, 2015),

[xix]  This is my own estimate based on calculations in other studies of increases in the company's salaries and wages but without a breakdown by job type and wage, it cannot be anymore than an estimate.

[xx]  For a detailed analysis of the EITC see: "Chart Book: The Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit." Washington, DC: Ccnter on Budget and Policy Priorities. Jan. 16, 2015. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=5253 (accessed Jan. 16, 2015).

[xxi] Packer, George. The Unwinding. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003. p. 105.

The nine Democratic Senators who voted for the Keystone Pipeline

The Senate voted 62-36 to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Here from the National Journal is the list of the nine Democratic Senators who voted for the Keystone Pipeline, something that never should be built.

1. Michael Bennet, Colo

2. Thomas Cerper, Del.

3. Robert Casey, Pa.

4. Joe Donnelly, Ind.

5. Heidi Heitkamp, N.D.

6. Joe Manchin, W.V.

7. Claire McCaskill, Mo.

8. Jon Tester, Mt

9. Mark Warner, Va.

Best Governor in the Nation? A true Progressive Democrat - Guest posting.

This is a terrific piece that calls attention to a true progressive Democrat who should be getting more national attention. Reprinted from www.wisdomvoices.com by permission.

Best Governor In The Nation?

By Joanne Boyer, www.wisdomvoices.com

“The land may be yours. But the water belongs to all of us, and to all who will follow all of us.’’

– Minnesota DFL Governor Mark Dayton

It’s hard to escape headlines made by Republican governors across the country. There’s New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who always seems to be in the news, whether it’s bridges or NFL owners’ boxes. Then there’s Scott Walker of Wisconsin prowling around for his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. And Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a spot-on Melissa Harris-Perry “letter of the week” Sunday for his announcement that he plans to continue “trickle down” economics for his state, which is now running close to a $300M deficit after his disastrous tax cuts for the wealthy in that state. And the 2014 state-level red landslide swept back into power what seems like dozens of Republican governors.

The great state of Minnesota and its governor, Mark Dayton, showing a model of leadership

The great state of Minnesota and its governor, Mark Dayton, showing a model of leadership

I would argue, however, that the governor who should receive more national attention resides in Minnesota, a “blue island” in a sea of red. Take a look at a map. Surrounded to the east by Wisconsin (Scott Walker back for 4 more years of destroying public education and unions); to the south by Iowa (Joanie Ernst off to DC); to the west by South Dakota (God bless the memory of George McGovern. Will a Democrat ever see the light of day there?); and North Dakota (can you say pipelines and fracking no matter what your political affiliation).

Minnesota DFL (Democratic Farm Labor) Governor Mark Dayton, narrowly elected in 2010 and re-elected with a resounding majority in 2014, has made huge strides in cleaning up the mess left by his predecessors: Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty, and Jessie Ventura (Green Party). As one local progressive talk show host has repeatedly stated since 2010, “Mark Dayton put on the big boy pants” and took on the needed leadership role to get the state back to prominence by recommitting to funding public education and to creating a thriving environment for jobs.

A recent editorial in a Wisconsin newspaper compared the border states and pronounced Minnesota the winner hands-down. Equating the same time in office with Scott Walker, the paper concluded this about Dayton and Minnesota:

“Dayton grappled with a $5 billion deficit and after a grueling fight with Republicans that resulted in a government shutdown in 2011, the state balanced its budget in part by borrowing against its commitment to education aid (later repaid in 2013 and Minnesota now runs a budget surplus). After the 2012 elections when Democrats took control of the Legislature, taxes were raised on the wealthiest Minnesotans and tobacco taxes were increased…Minnesota has increased its minimum wage to $9.50 an hour and has it indexed to increase with inflation…Minnesota took Medicaid money and created its own health care marketplace, reducing the number of uninsured residents. Wisconsin rejected federal money…that cost the state an estimated $206 million over the past two years…Forbes ranks Minnesota as the ninth best state for business, No. 7 in economic climate and No. 2 in quality of life. Wisconsin is ranked 32nd, 27 and 17 on the same measures. The cost of doing business in Minnesota is 0.2 percent below the national average. Wisconsin is 1.7 percent above the average. The median household income in Minnesota is about $60,000. It’s just below $52,000 in Wisconsin.”

I have always been a fan of Mark Dayton. For starters, he played hockey at Yale. College hockey — perhaps the best sport out there. But more than anything, I’ve admired his commitment to promoting and pursuing social and economic justice. For a man born into wealth (the great-grandson of one of Minnesota’s founding families; the Dayton’s Department Stores later became Target Corp.), Dayton came of age during the days of the Peace Corps and VISTA (Volunteers In Service To America) and the ideals of public service. He has been a living example of the words: Much will be asked to whom much has been given. After graduation from Yale, he taught 9th grade general science for two years in a New York City public school, and he still refers to it as the toughest job he ever had. He also credits it with providing him a first-hand knowledge of the importance of properly funding public education.

I will never forget his remarks in November 2012 when Minnesota had just beaten back a constitutional amendment (put forth by the Republican controlled legislature) on voter ID. Dayton worked tirelessly — with former Republican governor Arnie Carlson — to defeat this transparent assault on our right to vote. A somewhat shy individual who is often uncomfortable speaking to groups, Dayton’s voice boomed to a packed gathering after the election when he said, “Thank You…You saved democracy in our state.”

Yet, it was his actions this past week that profoundly illustrates this man’s commitment to leadership for the “common good.” In a day and age when Republicans in the United State Congress cannot acknowledge the science of climate change, the Minnesota governor stood before a gathering of the state’s Department of Natural Resources and proclaimed an idea that has slipped from our collective consciousness: that polluting the state’s waters with agricultural waste and runoff impacts all of us. And that water is part of the commons—that water is not for the proprietary use of one person or one industry. And that without leadership, Minnesota’s natural resources could end up destroyed now and for future generations.

His simple yet haunting comment came after he proposed a 50-foot grass or similar buffer be placed around all state waters to help with contamination of the waters. He concluded by saying:

“The land may be yours. But the water belongs to all of us, and to all who will follow all of us.’’

Star-Tribune columnist Dennis Anderson captured the essence of the Governor’s unexpected announcement in his Sunday column: “Because the governor had done what no Minnesota governor has done in recent history, or perhaps in all of history: He grabbed with both hands the third rail of state politics: agriculture and its desire to be left alone, as free as possible from oversight…For now, Dayton’s initiative is reason enough to celebrate, because in the never-ending battle to sustain wild places and wild critters, leadership is everything, as Teddy Roosevelt demonstrated more than a century ago. And among state conservationists, Dayton has earned that title. Leader.”

It has been said that states provide “laboratories” for democracy. There is little doubt that with Dayton’s leadership Minnesota is providing a great lab experiment to how raising taxes on the wealthy, committing to public education, and the commons provides a winning formula.

Leadership. Mark Dayton, reminds us that public service was— and can be again—a sign of leadership; reminding us that short-term profits are not the only thing that drives our lives, and reminding us that the commons is part of what a Democratic RePUBLIC is all about.

The best governor in the country? From the viewpoint in Minnesota, the answer is easy.

Let's Not Cut Anyone's Taxes

President Obama's State of the Union speech tonight is supposed to include some tax cuts along with some tax increase proposals.

I am not in favor of lowering taxes on anyone. Our tax burden today, on average, is lower than it has been since the 1920s. About 43% of the people don't pay income taxes - but they do pay into Social Security and Medicare. 

The government needs revenue. The right-wing's second purpose in cutting taxes - the first being to enrich themselves and their very wealthy supporters - is to starve government so that it can't do anything. They have said that repeatedly. 

Government needs to do things but really can't do a lot with deficit spending now because the Republicans succeeded in blowing the national debt sky-high. So more revenue is needed. It doesn't have to come from the middle class. There are many ways to raise revenues. 

In my book, Let's Do What Works and Call it Capitalism, I calculated that two changes in the corporate tax law and one in the inheritance law would yield billions in annual revenue. Closing the loophole on transfers of corporate assets to subsidiaries outside the country would yield about $2 billion a year. Eliminating the deferral of income taxes on profits made overseas would yield about $80 billion a year. However, there are many issues involved and such a change may have to be phased in, along with, possibly, a reduction in the corporate tax rate of 35% (which is not that big a deal since the average paid by corporations is about half that percentage).  Elimination of the step-up basis exception in the inheritance would yield somewhere between $20 and $64 billion a year, depending on whose calculations are used - the White House in the first case and the Congressional Budget Office in the second. Obama is going to propose that change in the inheritance tax law tonight along with some other proposals that supposedly include a tax cut for the middle class. 

Then we put a tax on Wall Street transactions. It could yield many, many billions per year.

Then we restore the progressive income tax, and start raising tax rates progressively on incomes above $250,000, with a top marginal rate somewhere around 60%. I haven't calculated the revenue from this, yet, but it is substantial.

Then lift the ceiling on Social Security withholding and increase the percentage of withholding on higher incomes both for Social Security and Medicare.

All of these changes right now would yield a surplus in the hundreds of billions of dollars. That's what we need to do the things that need to be done.