« Home | Lost Cause: What the Democrats Don't Want You To Know » | The Universal Health Care Debate, Round 1000 » | Defense Department Hedges on Life-Saving Technolog... » | For a Smarter, Saner Democratic Party » | On Conscience » | Auld Lang Syne » | Melber Toast » | Wait Wait! » | Bayh Humbug! » | Sally: Hockey Stick! [In Lieu of Hark] »

Where's Morgan Spurlock When You Need Him?

The big Congressional news of the day is, of course, the minimum wage increase by the Democrats that passed the House. It must still win in the Senate, where Republican lawmakers are already taking aim at it.

Senator Grassley of Iowa had this to say:

"First, most minimum-wage earners are not trying to support a family," the Iowa lawmaker said. "Those who are can receive substantial government benefits to supplement their income. Thus, no one has to rely solely on the minimum wage to support a family."


I’m not sure how intellectually honest that is, from a party that constantly derides America’s very limited welfare state as subsidizing lazy individuals. Is this an admission by a top Republican that our welfare and Medicaid dollars may actually be supporting hard-working Americans who simply cannot make ends meet?

Grassley’s critique does invite the idea of two-tiered minimum wage – namely that all workers who cannot claim dependent status on an income tax form must be paid a reasonably high living wage, while teenagers, young adults, and other tax-dependents receive another, lower minimum wage. However, in the American context, this raises 14th Amendment problems of equality under the law. However, does it really pose any more of a problem than a graduated income tax?