Senate Republicans vote down raising minimum wage to keep up with inflation

Yesterday, Senate Republicans, by a vote of 54-42 (60 votes needed to avoid filibuster)  killed a bill that would have raised the minimum wage over two and a half years to $10.10.

Every Senate Republican except Bob Corker of Tennessee voted against the bill. Every Democrat (except Harry Reid in a procedural tactic allowing him to bring the bill back for another vote at a later time) voted for the bill.

The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation over the years. In 1968, the minimum wage was $1.60 - adjusted for inflation that would be $10.79 in today's dollars.

Today's federally mandated minimum wage is $7.25.  An employee who works 40 hours every week makes about $15,080 a year before taxes.  If you happen to be a single parent with one child, you are living under the poverty level

We constantly hear how CEO's pay and bonuses are skyrocketing and corporations profits are hitting record highs. Why can't those helping to create those profits share just a bit in the success? Why only CEOs and high up execs?

An individual working full-time at minimum wage lives under the poverty level in America.  Working FULL-TIME to be in poverty.

By the way - according to a recent Pew Poll, 73 percent of Americans support an increase to the minimum wage.

A recent Gallop poll put the support for an increase at 76 percent.

Word is the Democrats plan on bringing the legislation back for another vote closer to fall elections to remind the American people where the two political parties stand on the issue.

I say "good."  

Fox News asks if children should have to work for their meals at school

Fox News forwarded the notion that it might be appropriate for school children to be forced to work in exchange for free school meals, after a Republican lawmaker in West Virginia proposed such a requirement for a new law curbing child hunger.

From the Washington Post:

"I think it would be a good idea if perhaps we had the kids work for their lunches: trash to be taken out, hallways to be swept, lawns to be mowed, make them earn it," said Ray Canterbury, a Republican from Greenbrier and a member of the West Virginia House of Delegates, during debate over Senate Bill 663, also known as the Feed to Achieve Act.

Free meals are provided through the National School Lunch Program to students whose family's income is 130 percent or less of the federal poverty guidelines. For this past school year, that means a family of four with an annual income of $29,965 qualifies. Children with household incomes of 185 percent or less of the poverty guidelines can get reduced-price meals under the program, which -- I was surprised to learn -- was established in 1946 by the National School Lunch Act.

West Virginia's Feed to Achieve Act wants to go beyond that by making sure no child goes hungry at school, but Canterbury repeated the theme of "there is no such thing as a free lunch" during the delegates' discussion of the bill, which had passed the state Senate unanimously.

(via Media Matters)

Rick Santorum: US is obese so why do we need food stamps?

Speaking in Iowa, Rick Santorum promised to reduce federal funding for food stamps, saying the nation’s increasing obesity rates make the program unnecessary:

Santorum told the group he would cut the food stamp program, describing it as one of the fastest growing programs in Washington, D.C.

“If hunger is a problem in America, then why do we have an obesity problem among the people who we say have a hunger program?” Santorum asked.

The cost of the food stamp program has grown not because of overeating, but because more Americans are out of work and wages are down.

Recent data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that nearly “70 percent households that relied on food stamps last year had no earned income,” although many households did benefit from Social Security benefits and other government programs. But a whopping 20 percent of households had no cash income at all last year.

In addition,the food stamp program has been critical for reducing poverty and pumping money into local economies during the down economy, so cutting it now would not only take food out of peoples’ mouth but could slow down the economic recovery.