Democrats Introduce Bill To Raise The Minimum Wage

House Democrats didn't waste any time. It's only a couple of weeks since they gained control of the House of Representatives, and they have introduced a bill to significantly raise the minimum wage. The bill (titled the "Raise the Wage Act of 2019) was introduced in the House by Reps. Bobby Scott (D-Virginia), Stephanie Murphy (D-Florida), and Mark Pocan (D-Wisconsin), and it has well over 100 co-sponsors in the House.

The bill would raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15.00 an hour by 2024. It would mandate yearly raises until it reaches $15 in 2024 (see chart above), and would then index minimum wage changes to match changes in the median national wage. The bill would also eliminate the "tipped wage" (currently $2.13 an hour).

Bernie Sanders, and 30 Democrats, have introduced a companion bill in the Senate. You can read the Senate version of the bill here.

I expect the bill will probably pass in the House of Representatives soon. It has the support of Speaker Pelosi, and she will shepherd it through to passage. The problem is with the GOP-controlled Senate. Republican senators are happy with the minimum wage staying at $7.25 an hour -- and some, like Mike Lee of Utah, would like to eliminate it altogether.

This is a smart move by Democrats. The minimum wage needs to be raised, and a significant majority of Americans know that. If the Republicans do kill the bill in the Senate, it will just be one more black mark against them when the 2020 election rolls around.

Over 6 Out Of 10 Workers Did NOT Get A Raise This Year

Donald Trump and congressional Republicans touted their tax cut as being for the "middle class", even though most of the cuts went to the rich and corporations. They justified it by saying the tax cut would produce a massive amount of new good-paying jobs, and workers would get a significant raise (an average of about $4,000).

That didn't happen. Job creation is about what it was before the tax cut, and far too many of the jobs being created are low-wage and low-benefit jobs. The raises didn't happen either.

As the chart above shows, about 62% of American workers say they got neither a raise or a better job.

What happened to all the money corporations saved with their huge tax cuts? They used most of it to buy back their own stock (which artificially raised the price of that stock -- benefitting owners and executives). Almost none of it went to help workers.

The chart above shows results of a Bankrate / SSRS Poll -- done between November 20th and 25th of a national sample of 1,000 adults, with a 3.61 point margin of error.

Only A Quarter Of Americans Have Seen More In Paychecks

When the new tax law was passed,  Trump and the congressional Republicans told Americans that it was a law that mainly benefitted the missile class -- and most Americans would see more money in their paychecks as a result of the new law. That has simply not happened.

The chart above shows the results of a new Politico / Morning Consult Poll -- done between February 15th and 19th of a random national sample of 1,989 registered voters, with a margin of error of only 2 points.

The poll shows that only about 25% of Americans have actually seen an increase in their paychecks due to less tax being deducted from it. The poll didn't ask how much more that 25% saw, but you can bet it was far less than the huge tax cuts the rich and corporations got out of the new law. I suspect for most it was just a pittance.

This was the law the Republicans were counting on to save them in the 2018 elections. I don't think it will do that -- especially since we are also not seeing the massive creation of new jobs that were also promised. I think the middle and working classes will understand that they were once again conned by the Republicans.

The Republicans made promises to the middle class, but delivered only to the rich and corporations. They should be punished for that in November.

Research Shows Raising Minimum Wage Does NOT Kill Jobs

(This photo of Nick Hanauer is from the Business Insider.)

Venture Capitalist Nick Hanauer explodes the old myth that raising the minimum wage kills jobs in this op-ed for Business Insider. Here is most of what he writes:

In a first-of-its-kind report, researchers at the National Employment Law Project pore over employment data from every federal increase since the minimum wage was first established, making "simple before-and-after comparisons of job-growth trends 12 months after each minimum-wage increase."

What did the researchers find? The paper's title says it all: "Raise Wages, Kill Jobs? Seven Decades of Historical Data Find No Correlation Between Minimum Wage Increases and Employment Levels."

The results were clear. Of the nearly two dozen federal minimum-wage hikes since 1938, total year-over-year employment actually increased 68% of the time.

In those industries most affected by the minimum wage, employment increases were even more common: 73% of the time in the retail sector, 82% in low-wage leisure and hospitality.

"These basic economic indicators show no correlation between federal minimum-wage increases and lower employment levels," the authors write.

In fact, if anything, the data suggest that increases in the federal minimum appeared to encourage job growth and hiring.

Perhaps even more striking, of the only eight times that total or industry-specific employment declined after a minimum-wage increase, the US economy was already in recession (five times), technically just emerging from recession (twice), or about to head into recession (once).

Clearly, this handful of employment downturns would be better explained by the normal business cycle than by the minimum wage.

"As those results mirror the findings of decades of more sophisticated academic research," the authors conclude, "they provide simple confirmation that opponents' perennial predictions of job losses are rooted in ideology, not evidence."

But while there is no evidence that raising the minimum wage is the "risky" "gamble" that doomsayers describe, the devastating economic costs of keeping wages too low are very well documented.

After decades of stagnant wages, 73 million Americans — nearly one quarter of our population — now live in households eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, a benefit exclusively available to the working poor.

And according to a 2014 report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, rising income inequality (and the reduced consumer demand that comes with it) knocked 6% to 9% off US economic growth over the previous two decades.

Wow. If the US economy were 9% bigger than it is today, it would have created about 11 million additional jobs. Imagine how great that would be for both American workers and businesses.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that there's no limit to how high we can raise the minimum wage. But minimum-wage opponents are not haggling over a number. They are not making a nuanced argument that the minimum wage might be bad for some people if it's too high or phased in too fast or if the economy is too weak to absorb the change.

No, their core claim is that the minimum wage always hurts the whole economy — that it will always reduce growth— that it is always a sure-fire "job-killer."

For decades, our minimum-wage debate has been dominated by ideology — the zero-sum claim that if wages go up, employment must inevitably go down — leading even many progressives to believe that the minimum wage is at best a necessary trade-off between fairness and growth.

But 78 years of evidence demonstrates that this old trickle-down model just isn't true. On the contrary: When workers have more money, businesses have more customers and hire more workers. That is the virtuous cycle that has always described the way market economies actually work.

So if you are genuinely worried about killing jobs, our current $7.25-an-hour minimum wage is arguably far riskier than $15.

In No State Can Min. Wage Worker Afford A 2-Bedroom Apt.

Shouldn't any person willing to work hard at a full-time job make a livable wage? Most Americans would say yes, but that is just not the case for millions of American workers. Those are the workers that are making at or near the federal minimum wage.

That wage is currently $7.25 an hour ($15,080 a year). But as the chart above shows, that wage would not let any minimum wage worker afford a decent 2-bedroom apartment (and have money left for other necessities) in any of the 50 states. The closest would be Arkansas, where a worker would need to make about $13.72 an hour to afford a decent 2-bedroom apartment. But that would still leave a minimum wage worker about $6.47 an hour short.

Here in Texas -- the state with the largest number of and largest percentage of minimum wage workers -- it would take $18.38 an hour. That means a couple, both working full-time for minimum wage, would still be short by $3.88 an hour. With both working, they would still have to sacrifice other necessities to rent a 2-bedroom apartment. That's inexcusable.

The Republicans will tell you that the minimum wage is high enough, because most are teenagers living at home and working part-time for spending money. That is an outrageous lie! As the chart below shows, 88% of minimum wage workers are adults over 20 years old, and the average age is 35 years old -- with 36% being over 40 years old. Most minimum wage workers are hard-working adults -- and they deserve to make a livable wage.

Republicans will also tell you that businesses couldn't afford to pay a higher wage. That's another lie. Viable businesses would actually see their sales and profits rise if minimum wage workers made a livable wage. Those workers (unlike the rich the Republicans want to give more to) would spend the extra money, boosting the economy.

Boosting the minimum wage to a livable wage would have another desirable effect. Currently, businesses are foisting part of the wage they should be paying onto the American taxpayer (because the workers need government help to live). Paying a livable wage would remove millions of workers from government rolls (welfare, food stamps, etc), and that would save taxpayers money because those programs could then be cut without hurting people who need them.

In other words,  raising the minimum wage to a livable wage would benefit everyone -- workers, businesses, and taxpayers.

Unfortunately, raising the minimum wage will never happen under Republican leadership. Trump believes the wage is too high, and many Republicans in Congress would like to do away with the minimum wage (and allow employers to pay even less than $7.25 an hour).

It's just one more reason to vote the Republicans out of power in 2018 and 2020.

Most Americans Support Raising The Minimum Wage

The Republicans in Congress are opposed to raising the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour -- even though that is a poverty wage. And their presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has also gone on record as opposing it. In fact, Trump has said that workers in this country are paid too much.

Those Republicans are out-of-step with most Americans. Americans don't think anyone who is willing to work hard for 40 hours a week should not be paid a wage that leaves them in poverty. A whopping 78% of the general public supports raising the minimum wage to at least $10 an hour. And every demographic group shows majority support for that, including Republicans (61%). [see top chart]

Both Democratic candidates have come out in favor of raising the minimum wage. Bernie Sanders wants to raise it to $15 an hour. Hillary Clinton wants to leave it up to each state, but would impose a minimum wage floor of $12 an hour. Clinton's $12 an hour level has the support of only about half the population (49%), while Sanders' $15 an hour level only has the support of about a quarter of the public (26%).

It seems that most Americans would like to see the raise -- more than the Republican officials want, but less than the Democratic officials are asking for. While I would love to see the minimum wage raised to $15 an hour, I would happily settle for $10 an hour (which is supported by three-quarters of the public). But if it's raised to $10 an hour, it needs to be tied to the rate of inflation. Otherwise, it would immediately start losing its buying power, and in just a few years most minimum wage workers would again be making a poverty wage.

These charts were made from a recent Public Policy Polling survey -- done between May 6th and 9th of a random national sample of 1,222 registered voters, with a 3.2 point margin of error.

Warren Calls For A 3.9% COLA Increase For Social Security

By now you've probably heard that there will be no cost-of-living (COLA) increase in Social Security benefits for 2016. The COLA is based on inflation -- and the huge drop in the cost of gasoline has caused inflation figures to go way down.

The problem with this is that gasoline is a minor expense for most Social Security recipients -- especially those who live on a small fixed budget. They don't need to drive to work every day, or haul children around to their various activities.

But the things that these retirees need the most (food, clothing, rent, medical care, etc.) have not gone down. They all cost more now -- and having no COLA next year just means many retirees will fall further behind financially (as the buying power of their Social Security check goes down).

Senator Elizabeth Warren knows this, and she doesn't think it's fair. That's why she is introducing a bill in Congress to give Social Security recipients a 3.9% increase in their benefit for 2016. Here's how she explains it in her latest message to her supporters:

Three weeks ago, the Social Security Administration made a quiet announcement.

Next year, for just the third time since 1975, seniors who receive Social Security won’t be getting an annual cost of living increase. Neither will millions of other Americans whose veterans’ benefits, disability benefits, and other monthly payments are pegged to Social Security.

Two-thirds of retirees depend on Social Security to pay for the basics, to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads – but seniors who usually get a small boost on January 1st won’t see an extra dime next year. That’s why today, I’m introducing the Seniors and Veterans Emergency (SAVE) Benefits Act – a one-time payment equivalent to a Social Security benefits increase of 3.9%.

Why give seniors and veterans a 3.9% Social Security boost? Well, times are tough for America’s seniors – but they aren't tough for everyone. According to recent data, CEOs at the top 350 American companies received, on average, a 3.9% pay increase last year.

But here’s the kicker: taxpayers like you subsidize huge pay packages for CEOs through billions of dollars in giveaways, including a crazy loophole that allows corporations to write off obscene executive bonuses as a business expense for “performance pay.”

Our new SAVE Benefits Act would give seniors and veterans a benefits boost without adding a single penny to the deficit simply by closing that performance pay loophole. In fact, closing that tax loophole would create enough revenue to give seniors and vets this 3.9% emergency boost and still have money left over for the Social Security Trust Fund to help extend the life of Social Security.

Think about what this change would mean. A one-time 3.9% Social Security payment is worth about $581 a person next year – a little less than $50 a month. For someone barely scraping by on a $1,250 Social Security check each month, $581 would cover almost three months of groceries, or a year’s worth of out-of-pocket costs for a Medicare beneficiary’s prescription drugs. According to an analysis, that little boost could lift more than 1 million Americans out of poverty. That’s a big deal.

This is about choices. We have the money to do this – only right now that money goes to fund a loophole that benefits corporate CEOs. We could use exactly that same money to help out seniors and vets – and make the Social Security system more stable. For me, it’s pretty straightforward: Our spending should reflect our values. 

Thank you for being a part of this,

Elizabeth

P.S. I've got a strong, tough, determined group of fighters by my side for the SAVE Benefits Act: Ed Markey, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Chuck Schumer, Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Bob Casey, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Kirsten Gillibrand, Al Franken, Dick Blumenthal, Chris Murphy, Mazie Hirono, and Tammy Baldwin. Join us now to help give seniors and veterans the boost they need on January 1st.

Social Security COLA Raise Will Be 1.7% In January

There is both good news and bad news for Social Security recipients this year. The good news is that there will be a cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) in January of 2015 (unlike 2009 and 2010, when there was no COLA raise at all). The bad news is that it is only a tiny 1.7% increase -- one of the smallest increases in the last 15 years.

That means that a person receiving a check for $1000 a month right now will start getting $1017 a month in January. The average benefit is $1306 a month, which would result in a $22 raise per month.

But don't think most people get that average benefit. The median benefit (the amount where half of all recipients get less and half get more) is about $1192 a month. That means more than half of all recipients get less than the average benefit. Adding the 1.7% raise to the median benefit will put it at $1212 for 2015.

There is another small bit of good news. The Part B Medicare deduction will stay the same as it was in 2014 ($104.90 a month). That means Social Security recipients will get to keep all of the tiny raise they get in January.

-----------------------------------------------------------

And while I'm discussing Social Security, let me remind you that the Republicans are telling two big lies about that program.

They say Social Security is going bankrupt. It is not! Social Security can continue to pay full benefits for another 22 years (until 2036). And after that, even if nothing is done, the program can continue to pay 80% of benefits far into the future. The program needs to be adjusted to make that 80% a full 100% -- but the program is not going broke, and it will be around when today's young people need it years from now.

They say that to save Social Security, benefits must be cut and the retirement age must be raised to 70 years of age. These are not only unnecessary, but hard-hearted. Many people in tough physical labor jobs cannot delay retirement until age 70 -- and with the median benefit being only around $1200 a month, cutting benefits would sink millions of recipients into poverty.

The Social Security program can easily be fixed without either cutting benefits or raising the retirement age. All that needs to be done is to raise the cap on FICA payroll tax to $250,000 (or eliminate it altogether). Raising the cap would extend the full benefit pay-out at least another 47 years (and eliminating the cap would push that far into the future) -- and it would do it without requiring a single penny more from those who can't afford it (those making less than $160,000 a year). It would just require the rich to pay the same percentage as working-class and middle-class earners already pay.

Raising The Minimum Wage Does NOT Cost Jobs

(The cartoon above is by Nick Anderson in the Houston Chronicle.)

There is no doubt that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour  (about $15,000 a year) is a poverty wage, and amounts to nothing less than a theft of labor (which is the only  thing most people have to seek to make a living). And those who oppose raising that minimum wage to a livable level (at least $10,10 an hour) are simply willing to abuse their workers by stealing their labor (whether it is a giant corporation or a small business).

The most prevalent excuse used by those who want to continue stealing labor is that they would have to lay off workers if the minimum wage was raised. This is an outrageous lie (and is no more true than saying businesses will have to lay off workers if they have to pay their fair share of taxes). The truth is that businesses will hire (and keep) the number of workers needed to adequately deliver their product or service to their customers. They won't hire more than is needed (no matter how low the minimum wage is), and they won't keep less than necessary (because that would hurt the business by giving customers less than they expect, which would drive them to a competitor).

But the corporations (and their Republican lackeys) keep telling this lie. They do it in an effort to scare the public -- in the hope that a frightened electorate will allow them to keep stealing worker wages to pad their bank accounts. And they do it in spite of the fact that numerous studies have shown it is just not true. Now there is more evidence that raising the minimum wage would not cost jobs (but would probably have the opposite effect since that new money being spent would actually increase demand -- and therefore increase business profits and create jobs).

Consider this from The National Memo:

A Center for Economic Policy and Research (CEPR) report released last week shows that in the 13 states that increased their minimum wage at the beginning of 2014, job growth was higher than in states that did not. Four states — Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island — had passed legislation to raise the minimum wage, while nine – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington — automatically did so due to inflation. The CEPR used the average of employment levels from the last five months of 2013 and compared them to the data from the first five months of 2014 to determine the rate of employment growth.

All but one of those states (New Jersey) saw an increase in employment. The average change for these 13 states was +0.99 percent, while the states that did not raise their minimum wages only had an average change of +0.68 percent. Four (Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and Florida) were in the top 10 states that had seen job growth, and nine saw growth above the median rate. . .

. . .this report makes it pretty clear that not only does a minimum-wage increase not have a negative impact on job growth, but it might actually help workers and businesses. It’s going to be harder and harder for Republicans to come up with excuses not to do it.

Don't believe the Republican lies about the minimum wage. Raising it would not cost jobs, and would actually be good for the economy (both for business and workers).

Social Security Raise Only 1.5% Next Year

According to the Associated Press, the cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) for Social Security recipients will only be about 1.5% when it is raised next January. Since the average Social Security payment is about $1162.00 a month, the average raise seen by recipients will be only $17 a month. Historically, this is a very small COLA raise, and will no doubt be a disappointment for many receiving Social Security.

This will be only the seventh time since 1975 (about 38 years) that the raise will be less than 2%. The other raises of less than 2% were in 1986, 1998, 2002, and 2012 -- while no raises were granted in 2009 and 2010.

The 1.5% figure is not official yet, since the government shutdown has prevented the release of the official inflation figures for September by the Labor Department (on which the COLA is based). Official inflation for the year so far is around 1.4%, and most economists expected the September numbers to raise it to about 1.5%.

While the pitiful 1.5% raise is bad enough news for Social Security recipients, the congressional Republicans have once again raised their idea of changing the COLA to a "chained consumer price index" (which is lower than the official inflation rate). That would mean even lower raises for Social Security (and other government programs like veterans benefits). And unfortunately, President Obama has indicated his willingness to consider the change, which would amount to a cut in benefits for many of the most vulnerable Americans.

Here is what a change to the chained CPI would mean:

Enacting a chained CPI would cut Social Security benefits by over $120 billion over 10 years. The average Social Security recipient who retires at age 65 would get $658 less a year at age 75 and would get more than $1,000 less a year at age 85 than under current law.

A chained CPI also would make substantial cuts to benefits of more than 3 million disabled veterans.  The largest cuts would impact young, permanently disabled veterans who were seriously wounded in combat. It would also impact more than 350,000 survivors who receive service-connected death benefits.     Veterans who started receiving VA disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits reduced by $1,425 at age 45, $2,341 at age 55 and $3,231 at age 65.

Under a chained CPI, the average retired federal employee over the next 25 years would lose $48,000; the average Social Security recipient would lose $23,000; and, the military retiree would lose $42,000.

This is nothing more than a backdoor effort to cut Social Security benefits, and cutting those benefits is opposed by a clear majority of Americans. Democrats need to stand firm, and let the Republicans (and the president) know they will not allow any kind of benefit cut to Social Security (or to veterans benefits).

Women's Pay Reflects Their Lack Of Equality

Tuesday (April 9th) was "Equal Pay Day" -- the day that marks the date that the average woman has made as much as the average man made last year. In other words, it takes a woman about 15 months and 9 days to earn as much as a man makes in just 12 months. Frankly, I think that's appalling. Why should women make less for equal work in the Twenty-First Century?

Americans claim to believe in equal rights. We even have it written into our Constitution. Shouldn't equal pay for equal work be one of the most basic equal rights? Of course it should! But for all of this nation's history, one group or another has been denied this basic right to equal treatment and women have always been in that number.

The list above shows the 10 jobs in this country that have the biggest difference in pay between men and women (for doing the same job). Note that they all pay women even worse than the national average of 77 cents for every dollar a man makes -- with the most lucrative for women (educational administer) paying only about 69.3% of what a man would make who had the same job. That's ridiculous. Can anyone really believe that a man would do a better job and deserve more money than a woman in that job -- or any of the other jobs on that list? Of course not. Competence and talent know no gender (or race, ethnicity, age, or any other physical trait).

It is time that Congress passed the Paycheck Fairness Act. Frankly, I don't understand how any elected official could oppose it, since opposing it would be like a slap in the face to every working woman in this country. But the Republicans have a different view. They filibustered the bill in the Senate last year and killed it -- and if it came up again this year they would most likely do the same thing. They don't seem to have any problem with women being kept as second-class citizens in this country -- without the same pay (or rights) given a man.

It makes me wonder, how can any woman (or any man who loves the women in his life) ever vote for a Republican?

Minimum Wage Is Too Small To Live On

The chart above (which you can click on to get a larger and easier to read version) shows the complete inadequacy of the minimum wage ($7.25 an hour, or about $15,080 a year) in this country. It shows the number of hours that a minimum wage worker would have to work to pay for a two bedroom apartment (at the fair market rate in each state).

The awful truth is that a person who works 40 hours a week (a full-time job) for the minimum wage would not be able to pay for a two bedroom apartment in any state. And in more than half of the states, it would take working 71 hours or more at the minimum wage to pay for that apartment. This fact alone should make it clear that no one can support a family (which would require at least a two bedroom apartment) on a minimum wage salary -- and we haven't even considered items such as food, clothing, transportation, and assorted other expenses that it takes to raise a family.

Some might respond that the minimum wage was never meant to support a family, but was intended to be paid to single people (primarily young people entering the work force). But that argument just doesn't hold water. Wages are not paid according to a worker's age, but according to the job he/she is doing. And millions of people of all ages are working for minimum wage in America.

In fact, the minimum wage is not even adequate for single people of any age. After you include the cost of food, transportation and clothing, it would be extremely difficult (if not impossible in most states) for a person to even be able to afford an efficiency apartment.

The truth is that the minimum wage would need to be about $3.00 an hour higher than it is now to provide even a minimal decent level of living. At $10 an hour, the yearly wage would only be about $20,800. Could you maintain a decent level of living on less than that? Of course not.

And while most congressional Democrats don't have the political courage to support a truly decent minimum wage, the Republicans are far worse. Many, if not most, Republicans would like to eliminate the minimum wage altogether, and let businesses pay workers even less than $7.25 an hour (while supporting tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires). Doesn't that prove that they care only for the rich?

These same Republicans point to Texas as the example of how well their economic policies work, calling it an economic "miracle". But here in Texas, we have both the largest number of people and the largest percentage of the workforce that are working for minimum wage (or less). We also have the largest number and percentage of workers with no benefits, including health insurance. That's not an economic miracle -- it's an economic disaster.

The minimum wage needs to be raised significantly. It would not only be the decent thing to do, but also the moral thing. If we want people to work their way out of poverty, we must give them the tools with which to do it -- and the two best tools we have are a decent minimum wage and an opportunity for a decent education.

CEO Pay is Out Of Line

Back in 1980, before the Republicans started to ruin the U.S. economy with their failed trickle-down economic policy, a corporate CEO in this country earned about 42 times the average worker's pay. That was a lot of money, but it was pretty much in line with what CEO's were making in other countries. But back then unions were fairly strong and income from increased production was shared throughout the company.

But the Republicans decided that the way to a healthier economy was to make rich people even richer. To accomplish that, they cut taxes for the rich, severely weakened unions, and deregulated much of the financial industry (and other corporate entities). This did make the rich even richer and corporations more profitable, but it also encouraged a lot more greed at the top. The new money the rich had did not trickle down, and the new profits of corporations were no longer shared with workers throughout the company.

In fact, worker pay did not even increase enough to account for inflation (which means their actual buying power dropped). But the corporate fat cats reveled in the new money they were no longer sharing. By 2010, corporate CEOs were making a staggering 343 times the pay of an average worker. And it is still growing. In 2011, that ratio had climbed to 380 times the pay of an average worker.

That is way out of whack, and something needs to be done to bring it back down. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka hits the nail right on the head when he says, "Astronomical CEO pay is based on the false idea that the success of a corporation is due to one CEO genius. In reality, all employees create value, and CEO pay levels should be more in line with the rest of their company's employee pay structure. CEOs should be paid as a member of a team, not as a superstar."

They Give With One Hand (And Take With The Other)

For the millions of elderly Americans who are trying to live on nothing more than what they receive each month in their Social Security check, there is some good news -- and some bad news. The good news is that for the first time in three years they will be getting a small raise. The government announced Social Security checks would be raised by the amount of inflation -- about 3.6%. Since the average check is about $1,082 a month (or $12,984 a year), that would mean there will be an average raise of about $39 a month.

That may not seem like much of a raise to you, but when you are trying to live on $1082 a month (or less as many of the elderly do) every dollar helps. And anyone who would begrudge Social Security recipients this tiny raise is obviously not having to live on $1082 a month (which is less than minimum wage).

But the elderly should not count their chickens before they have hatched, because what the government gives with one hand it often wants to take back with the other. In this case, the other hand is the payment for Medicare that is deducted automatically from a Social Security check each month. Currently about $115 a month is deducted as payment for Medicare (Part B premiums). However, the Medicare trustees are going to announce next week what the Part B Medicare premium will be for next year, and it is expected that they will raise the amount deducted from SS checks.

Inflation has been killing Social Security recipients for a couple of years now. The price of food shelter, and other things have been going up, but Social Security checks have not (because gas prices fell so far they made it look like there was no inflation). The elderly really need the pittance of a cost of living adjustment they are scheduled to receive, and they really can't afford for it to be given right back to the government in the form of a Medicare premium raise.

Maybe a premium raise can be justified for those making more than the average Social Security amount, but for those making the average or less the premium payment should stay the same. It's just not fair that our government won't tax the rich sufficiently, but they don't mind taking more money from the elderly.

The Rich Get Even Richer

Amazingly, here in the middle of this recession, some people still believe in the Republican "trickle-down" economic theory. They obviously aren't living in the real world -- or they're among the super-rich. In case there was any doubt in your mind as to who that failed theory really benefits, consider the following facts found at Think Progress:

* Median CEO pay climbed by 27% in 2010.

* Median CEO salary in 2010 was $9 million.

* Median CEO bonus in 2010 was $2.2 million.

Meanwhile, in the rest of America, there are about 16 million people who are out of work and another 8.4 million who are working part-time because full-time work is not available. Poverty rates are climbing and the number of those needing food stamp assistance grows each month. And housing prices are once again tumbling while foreclosures remain at record highs.

Then you have the numbers for family wealth and worker pay. Family wealth is currently down about $12.8 trillion from its high point in early 2007. Workers didn't quite match the huge rise in CEO pay. Private industry workers saw their pay climb a measly 2.1% in 2010.

Isn't it time to dump the Republican economic policies?

Congress To Get Another Pay Raise

In 1989, the congressional salary was $89,500. Most Americans would be thrilled to make that much today. But that was also the year that Congress pulled a fast one on the American people. They passed a law that automatically gives them a "cost of living" raise each year.

They don't even have to vote on the raise. After all, that could cost them some votes. The raise just comes and they just accept it. Because of this, congressional salaries have risen to $165,200. And they are fixing to get another $4,400. That would raise their annual salary to nearly $170,000. Now that's a sweet deal!

Some congressmen think they deserve the raise because they just raised the minimum wage (it'll be a whole $7.25 a couple of years from now). How's that for bone-headed thinking? They give poor people a salary that no human can live on, and think that entitles themselves to a big raise.

I wish I could blame this one on the Republican party, but the truth is that both parties are guilty in this matter. There are a few members of both parties that are trying to stop the raise, but not many, and I suspect that their efforts will be futile. Most members of both parties will eagerly pocket the raise and act like they deserve it.

At times like this, it is easy to see why Americans have such a low opinion of Congress.