Something smells fishy here.
House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week."I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats."
On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.
One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.
...
Some Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn yesterday -- after their vote -- that the legislation did not include American Samoa."I was troubled to learn of this exemption," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. "My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn't permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate."
Comments (56)
It's much more than troubli... (Below threshold)1. Posted by A different Kevin | January 12, 2007 4:56 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It's much more than troubling. It's graft. What is also (though only slightly less) troubling is that some Republicans voted for the bill without even knowing this provision was in it. If they are too busy to read the laws they are passing, couldn't they pay an orderly to do it before they cast their vote?
1. Posted by A different Kevin | January 12, 2007 4:56 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 04:56
2. Posted by marc | January 12, 2007 5:12 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
OMFG.. I'm shocked!
Shocked that anyone would expect anything better from PorkMistress Pelosi!
OK all you "defenders" of the American way line-up.
The line starts here Lee, Nogo Postal, et al.
2. Posted by marc | January 12, 2007 5:12 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 05:12
3. Posted by Nicholas | January 12, 2007 5:52 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Isn't $5.15 to $7.25 too large a leap to make all in one go?
That's a 40% increase. Think of it this way. If an employer has a fixed amount of money to spend on employees, and that employer has mostly minimum-wage employees, they will be forced to lay off 40% of their workforce.
I think this could send a shockwave through the U.S. economy and cause all sorts of undesirable problems, that might not happen if it were to occur in stages. Doing it in stages would also give you an opportunity to cancel the later stages if the earlier ones have an undesired effect, before it's too late to reverse any problems observed.
This is the problem when you let politicians mess with fiscal policy. They usually don't understand what they're doing. This is the sort of thing the Reserve Bank should probably be responsible for, in my opinion.
3. Posted by Nicholas | January 12, 2007 5:52 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 05:52
4. Posted by andy | January 12, 2007 6:18 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I'd like to see pelosi defending herself or at least how she explains her actions, cause although her stocks are going up they might also go down http://www.trendio.com/word.php?wordid=106&language=en
4. Posted by andy | January 12, 2007 6:18 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 06:18
5. Posted by Stephen Macklin | January 12, 2007 6:19 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate."
No you putz. This is the problem with legislators voting for legislation they haven't read.
5. Posted by Stephen Macklin | January 12, 2007 6:19 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 06:19
6. Posted by marc | January 12, 2007 6:39 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
No you putz. This is the problem with legislators voting for legislation they haven't read.
:: by Stephen Macklin on January 12, 2007 6:19 AM ::
So I take it you feel Pelosi is justified in perpetrating this scam on the US taxpayers.
6. Posted by marc | January 12, 2007 6:39 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 06:39
7. Posted by meep | January 12, 2007 6:59 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Heck, the problem is legislation that's so long that nobody can read it. I bet the "Ham and Swiss Sandwich Day Proclamation Act" is at least 20 pages long.
I understand wanting to put in some exclusion clauses (such as allowing a lower minimum wage for certain classes of people, such as those under 18 without a high school diploma), but it still shouldn't require hundreds of pages.
But no matter the exclusions, it is patently unfair to single out particular companies for exemption, and particular territories over others.
7. Posted by meep | January 12, 2007 6:59 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 06:59
8. Posted by _Mike_ | January 12, 2007 7:12 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
And so the tyranny of the newly elected Congress begins....
from the article:
That's the crux of many of the problems we face as a nation. So many fail to see the difference between intent and actual result.
8. Posted by _Mike_ | January 12, 2007 7:12 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 07:12
9. Posted by wavemaker | January 12, 2007 7:15 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Nicholas -- it doesn't jump all at once.The bill passed in the House raises the current $5.15 minimum to $5.85 effective 60 days after it becomes law, goes to $6.55 a year later and $7.25 a year after that.
It is certainly true that typical federal legislation is so dense that it is impossible for a member to have personally read every word of every bill he votes on -- but they have legislative staff that are assigned to particular subject areas, and then there are committee staff too. This sort of "red flag" exception is the sort of diabolism that someone on the minority staff should have caught before the bill went to the floor -- unless it was tucked into the bill between committee vote and floor action, which is an entirely different sort of diabolism.
9. Posted by wavemaker | January 12, 2007 7:15 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 07:15
10. Posted by Pagar | January 12, 2007 7:21 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
" I bet the "Ham and Swiss Sandwich Day Proclamation Act" is at least 20 pages long."
With the democrats in control of Congress no
proclamations referring to pork will be allowed.
It would upset their largest support group.
10. Posted by Pagar | January 12, 2007 7:21 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 07:21
11. Posted by Gianni | January 12, 2007 7:44 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The rules never apply to the dem leaders in Congress do they?
Look at how Drunken Ted avoided residency requirements when Rose died. Seems like he wanted to avoid the estate taxes he desperatey wants everyone else to pay, so he lied about his Mom living in Fl.
11. Posted by Gianni | January 12, 2007 7:44 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 07:44
12. Posted by Weegie | January 12, 2007 8:13 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Despite leftists' insistence that the federal government has the power to regulate the details of a private employment contract between a private employer and private employee, they are dead wrong.
Per the Commerce clause, and the Federalist Papers, "commerce" means only trade and exchange, not anything else. Just because a bunch of idiot legislators, an idiot president and learned idiots in black dresses decided to expand federal power and destroy the constitutional limits by distorting the commerce clause, it does not make it correct or constitutional.
12. Posted by Weegie | January 12, 2007 8:13 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 08:13
13. Posted by Charles Bannerman | January 12, 2007 8:44 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Did anyone expect anything different from the new majority? You ain't seen nouthing yet.
The problem is us, not the Democrats or Republicans. We keep re electing these a--holes and they start to see themselves as a class apart, devoid of any responsibility to represent anyone but themselves.
Until we, the electorate wake up things are only get worse.
Chuck
13. Posted by Charles Bannerman | January 12, 2007 8:44 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 08:44
14. Posted by jpm100 | January 12, 2007 9:39 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Same stink, different names.
With one exception, the new names campaigned on reform but won't be called on it by the media.
14. Posted by jpm100 | January 12, 2007 9:39 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 09:39
15. Posted by epador | January 12, 2007 9:58 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I suppose this kind of thing never went on in the Republican Congress?
Lets all face it: they're all crooks and they are elected by us. That makes us accomplices to the crimes. When we reform ourselves, we might have a fighting chance to reform them.
15. Posted by epador | January 12, 2007 9:58 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 09:58
16. Posted by John in CA | January 12, 2007 10:42 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Maybe these morons should read the legislation before voting on it. Don't have time to read it? Then don't have the vote until you've had time. If that means Congress doesn't have enough time to pass all the laws they want, well, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
To quote the tagline of a commenter at RedState, "If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con,' what is the opposite of 'progress'?"
16. Posted by John in CA | January 12, 2007 10:42 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 10:42
17. Posted by jp | January 12, 2007 11:09 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Why are the Democrats so HEARTLESS? ONLY $7.25 an hour!!! that is Heartless.
They obviously have the power to set wages and how much people make, so why only 7.25??? Why not $10, $20, $100 and hour??? The Democrats are our Messiah, yet refuse to raise up the poor and pay them a real wage. $7.25, spit!
/sarcastic truth off.
they want a recession going into 2008. Atleast the price of Tuna will not be going up. If only the founding fathers like Ben Franklin who wanted to set limits on who could vote, by those that paid taxes at the time and owned property had got what they wanted.
17. Posted by jp | January 12, 2007 11:09 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 11:09
18. Posted by jp | January 12, 2007 11:14 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
anyone pulled up Del Monte Corp. political contributions yet? along with top shareholders and Executives?
18. Posted by jp | January 12, 2007 11:14 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 11:14
19. Posted by Jo | January 12, 2007 11:50 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Where are Lee, Hugh, BryanD, Brian and the rest of the liberal moron trolls on this post???
Exactly.
Bwahahahahaha.....
19. Posted by Jo | January 12, 2007 11:50 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 11:50
20. Posted by aRepukelican | January 12, 2007 12:10 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Jo
Unlike the Wizchoir and the rest of the right wingnut universe that is all out over every story w/ their Pavlovian talking points trying to turn reason on its head, those who'd you'd like to taunt are absent and silent because this IS NOT a justifiable incident, and, it does reflect hypocresy.
Nonetheless, it hardly invalidates the fact that, after 10 years, the minimum wage has been raised and
this time it includes The Marianas, ehich your former Leader, DeLay dutifully precluded from any labor legislation as he was on the take from Abramoff who had the businesses in The Marianas as clients.
So you manage to catch a note of hypocresy; well goodie for you.
20. Posted by aRepukelican | January 12, 2007 12:10 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 12:10
21. Posted by John | January 12, 2007 12:14 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So I guess Nancy Pelosi personaly wrote the minimum wage legislation... Wow, she's quite the lady. I assume Lori is leaving out some facts here?
For one, this article conviently ignores the fact that California has long been one of the states that exceeds the federal minimum wage with a higher state minimum wage.
It also ignores the fact that multinational corportations often do business in other parts of the world with different laws, political structures and standards of living. Boeing, Microsoft and Yahoo all have business in China. Epson and Toyota have facilities here... International business conform to LOCAL rules and mores, and interstate businesses confrom to local rules. For example the per person GDP in American Samoa is 5,800 USD. By comparison, the United States per person GDP is 42,000 USD. Even minimum wages state by state take into consideraton prevailing wages.
The article also completly ignores the Republican promoted Marinias Island sweatshop scandal, featuring Ralph Reed and Jack Abramof, which promoted a free trade paradise complete with sweatshops, no minimum wage, and prostitution. The suggestion that Republicans now after 50 years are all of a sudden in favor of labor and the rights of workers is unbelievable.
21. Posted by John | January 12, 2007 12:14 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 12:14
22. Posted by Jill | January 12, 2007 12:20 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
BUSTED!!!
Same stink, different names
With one exception, the new names campaigned on reform but won't be called on it by the media.
Bingo!
22. Posted by Jill | January 12, 2007 12:20 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 12:20
23. Posted by Scrapiron | January 12, 2007 12:23 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Is everyone suffering from memory failure? The Dhimmi's wrote these bills in secret, 'froze' the minority out, and stated the representatives of half of America would not be allowed to offer any amendments. It's only been a couple of weeks and i'm sure someone remembers these dhimmi statements. True the republicans were stupid for voting for it, but then we have a few a** kissers left over. Next cycle we get rid of them. We dumped some garbage in 06 and will dump the rest in 08. The republican party is self cleaning, the dhimmi's are garbage collectors.
The great dhimmi comedy of the century continues.
23. Posted by Scrapiron | January 12, 2007 12:23 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 12:23
24. Posted by Jo | January 12, 2007 12:44 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Brian, BryanD, Hugh, Lee? ??
Anyone? Anyone?
Bwahahahahahahahah.... exactly..
24. Posted by Jo | January 12, 2007 12:44 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 12:44
25. Posted by jp | January 12, 2007 12:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Didn't Pelosi claim she was going to run the most ethical congress ever, ever?
25. Posted by jp | January 12, 2007 12:46 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 12:46
26. Posted by John | January 12, 2007 12:48 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
ScrapIron,
Your delusions are amazing.
Perhaps you forgot that Dennis Hastert wouldn't allow ANY legislation or debate from the then minority party.
Oh, and the Republican party is not self cleaning, as we noticed over the last couple of years.
Oh, and your party didn't dump it's own garbage. It was dumped for you, to the great surprise of your pundits and political leaders.
26. Posted by John | January 12, 2007 12:48 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 12:48
27. Posted by John | January 12, 2007 12:55 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
JP asks an interesting question...
I'm looking for that now. So far I've found that Marvin Bush, brother of Dubya was on the board of Fresh Del Monte, a spin-off until a few years ago. He was elected to two terms, and sat on the powerful compensation committee. These are the folks that decide how much the executives get paid. It's probably the most important committee on the board, and a great position of power.
I'm not implying anything other than that JP poses an interesting question... Oh, and the truth is probably a bit more complicated that Lorie makes it out to be.
27. Posted by John | January 12, 2007 12:55 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 12:55
28. Posted by aRepukelican | January 12, 2007 12:58 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Scrapiron
per your post in reference to lost GOP Congresspeople, "We dumped some garbage in 06 and will dump the rest in 08"
Thanks and here's hoping you succeed. It will be wonderful to have a Republican-less Congress.
BTW don't spoil your '08 ballot by dropping your droolcup on it.
28. Posted by aRepukelican | January 12, 2007 12:58 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 12:58
29. Posted by dan | January 12, 2007 1:03 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Do some of your own research, please.
The article refers to a company based in California that has processing plants in American Samoa. She isn't giving some special rate to some company running a sweatshop in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco. Also, the plants in American Samoa would be subject to their local laws.
While I would be in favor of including American Samoa into the minimum wage law, it is not how that territory determines it minimum wage. It is actually determined by a multi-industry committee. Each industry has its own minimum wage set through the committee.
Here is the law relevant to the process which American Samoa uses: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode29/usc_sec_29_00000208----000-.html
To save you the work, Puerto Rico sets their minimum wage equal to the federal rate, and the US Virgin Islands has a minimum wage that is higher than the federal rate.
Furthermore, the increase federal rate wouldn't even apply to companies in California. Why? Because California's minimum wage is already higher than the House approved $7.25. California's current min wage is $7.50 and will be moving to $8.00 in 2008.
Hope this helps clarify the point. Next time be what a blogger should be, skeptical of the mainstream media, and do your own research.
29. Posted by dan | January 12, 2007 1:03 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 13:03
30. Posted by Jill | January 12, 2007 1:14 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Welcome to the way in which the dhimmicrats "clean house."
30. Posted by Jill | January 12, 2007 1:14 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 13:14
31. Posted by Jill | January 12, 2007 1:15 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ooops, Nancy, you missed a spot.
31. Posted by Jill | January 12, 2007 1:15 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 13:15
32. Posted by Lee | January 12, 2007 1:20 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Has anyone looked at the cost of living in Samoa, to see if the minimum wage needs to be raised or not for people living and working there?
32. Posted by Lee | January 12, 2007 1:20 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 13:20
33. Posted by jp | January 12, 2007 1:37 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
check out Powerline's update on this, apparently these workers are making around $3.30 an hour now, but what is more interesting is the Delay angle the Dems tried on something similar couple years back. They have apparently forced this law on the Northern Marnina island to completely ruin it.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016478.php
33. Posted by jp | January 12, 2007 1:37 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 13:37
34. Posted by jp | January 12, 2007 1:39 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Dan
how about the Northern Marinas that they are making this apply to? Do your research dan!
34. Posted by jp | January 12, 2007 1:39 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 13:39
35. Posted by Mike | January 12, 2007 1:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Lee, are you saying that the minimum wage should be indexed to the local cost of living?
35. Posted by Mike | January 12, 2007 1:43 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 13:43
36. Posted by John | January 12, 2007 1:56 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Mike,
The mimimum wage is for practical purposes indexed to the cost of living, which is why some states choose to have a higher mimimum wage over and above the federal level. Wages in general do reflect the cost of living in a given area.
36. Posted by John | January 12, 2007 1:56 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 13:56
37. Posted by Lee | January 12, 2007 2:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Lee, are you saying that the minimum wage should be indexed to the local cost of living?"
I'm saying if the cost of living in Samoa is ridiculously low that could explain why they were exempted from this increase. I haven't checked, so I'm asking if anyone else has checked.
37. Posted by Lee | January 12, 2007 2:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 12, 2007 14:11