Minimum Wage The Best 2014 Democratic Strategy?
It is ridiculously early to start talking about the 2014 midterm elections. I realize that, really I do. But we've got to start sometime, and it's always amusing, months later, to look back on my unfulfilled prophecies, so this column will be that sort of blue-sky speculation (just to warn everyone, up front).
The 2014 midterms are, right now, pretty much of an open book. Nobody (including me) can accurately predict what is going to happen in the election, and there is always the possibility of some catastrophe happening between then and now which will suck the political oxygen out of the race to the point where other issues pale in importance. A year is, after all, a long time in politics.
But having said all of that, and barring any unforeseen gigantic issues on the horizon, we can at least look at what both parties have to play around with in the campaign. One side in particular is already telegraphing what will occupy the center stage of their campaign platform. It's not even really "guesswork" to state now that Republicans will be placing Obamacare at the center of their efforts. Figuring out the Democratic strategy is a bit harder, though.
Republicans have been rather joyful for the past month or so. They were beaten and bedraggled after the government shutdown ended (precisely as everyone knew it would), and their outlook for 2014 was getting gloomier and gloomier. But then the shutdown disappeared as a news story, and was replaced with the epic failures of the Obamacare website launch. This story has only recently begun to fade into the background of the mainstream media, in fact, after enjoying about a four-week run as the go-to story on the evening news. And as the public's attention shifted, the shutdown faded into weak memory. Much to the Republicans' delight, as mentioned.
Democrats have been as nervous as long-tailed cats in a rocking chair showroom, throughout the entire experience. They comfort themselves with the thought that the website is bound to start working at some point, people will be signing up for health insurance they can afford, and eventually all those horror stories can be balanced by "I have cancer and now I can get treated" success stories. Democrats know that sooner or later it will become evident even to Republicans that "repealing Obamacare" is no longer going to be politically possible (not that it ever was), because it would involve throwing millions of people off their newly-acquired health insurance.
That's how it's supposed to go, in other words, according to optimistic Democrats. "The prescription drug program and even Romneycare had startup woes, and now everyone loves them," is another way to put this thought. By the time the 2014 elections roll around, the signup horror stories will have faded, and instead the good aspects of Obamacare will be evident to all.
But this ignores a basic political truth about what Republicans will be doing in the meantime. Republicans are already signaling that Obamacare will be the centerpiece of their campaign, and what Democrats miss is that this is likely going to be true no matter how the program does next year. The self-evidence of Obamacare's success is not going to be admitted to by Republicans, who will in fact be pushing a different interpretation: Obamacare is a train wreck and is a dismal failure all around, no matter what success stories you hear.
"But this denies reality -- it can't work politically!" Democrats will object. Ah, but to believe that, you've got to deny some reality as well -- the political fact that nowadays "reality" or "facts" are not agreed to by both sides of the aisle. The entire history of the Republican objection to Obamacare is proof of this, if any is required. Remember "death panels"? Republicans have put so much time and energy into "Obamacare cannot succeed, ever, in any way" that they are not going to suddenly see the light if Obamacare has some successes. They are going to deny such successes even exist and parade an endless stream of stories of failure. That is the Republican playbook for 2014 in a nutshell, in fact.
They really don't have much choice. Because all other efforts to come up with a unifying platform which will give more people a reason to vote for them have either floundered by the wayside or crashed into an ideological brick wall. About the only really noticeable difference in the way Republicans talk is that they are getting a lot more reluctant to bring up the subject of gay marriage these days (mostly because they know what a losing issue it's going to continue to be for them), at least not in the Puritan-thundering-in-the-pulpit way they used to enjoy. Other than that, all of the ideas people have come up with for "rebranding" the Republican Party, most notably their "autopsy" after the 2012 election, consist of: "Demographic X doesn't vote Republican, so we need to court their vote." Which is immediately followed by: "Our party platform states that making the lives of demographic X worse is actually good for America." Since changing the platform would be seen as sacrilege by the party base, any outreach efforts are pretty much doomed to fail. They're left with: "Let us just explain why giving you and yours the short end of the stick is a good thing," which really doesn't get them very far, in terms of voters convinced. So they've got nothing positive to run on apart from: "See -- we told you Obamacare was going to be bad!"
Democrats will have to play defense on Obamacare, no matter how well the program is running in 2014. But you can't exactly run as a candidate for the future by just defending a law that was passed two election cycles ago. You've got to have a positive vision for the future as well. While Republicans will struggle with this part of the equation, the Democrats will have several issues they could choose to champion at the heart of their 2014 campaign.
Immigration is an obvious one. Democrats got a bipartisan bill through the Senate while the House Republicans have done precisely nothing (other than complain, which is what they're best at). This will lead to it being a central issue in many districts and states. But, as a national issue, it falls somewhat short. The budget fights aren't likely to generate a big national issue either, since the public is so weary of the subject and since it will likely be removed from the table altogether (the House Republicans are now calling for a two-year deal to be reached by January, which would conveniently put the next budget battle past the 2014 midterm elections, instead of having another showdown at the beginning of October).
But there is one issue that seems to be bubbling up which could indeed be "nationalized" for the 2014 election, and that is the subject of the minimum wage. Democrats have been winning local elections by championing a rise in the minimum wage, and an actual Socialist (gasp!) was just elected to Seattle's city council after campaigning on the issue. Bill de Blasio just used the issue effectively in his winning campaign to become mayor of New York City, as well.
Now, everywhere's not Seattle or New York. Granted. But the minimum wage is an issue that cuts across all kinds of demographic lines. There are a whole lot of people who either are working at minimum wage now or (importantly) have done so at some point in their lives. Most people miss that last part, which might also include "or know a friend or family member making minimum wage." And it doesn't matter what gender they are, what age they are, what color their skin is, who they sleep with, or what part of the country they live in.
Income level is really the only demographic data point which would split people on the issue. There are Republicans who are philosophically and ideologically against raising the minimum wage, of course, but the natural demographic of people against it really only consists of business owners. And this can pretty easily be summed up (by Democrats) as: "Republicans love Wall Street, Democrats love Main Street." The slogans are pretty easy to write, in fact: "Wall Street is at an all-time high, but hardworking Americans have yet to see any benefit from the stock market boom."
If the recovery slowly continues as it has for the last few years, then unemployment will be somewhere around 6.0 to 6.5 percent next November. That's still a little high, but not nearly as high as it has been (it hit 10.0 percent during the Great Recession). This will undermine the Republican argument against raising the minimum wage, which is always "it'll cost jobs!" With the employment picture steadily brightening, Democrats can push back with the concept of fairness, as well as stats showing that jobs don't actually disappear into a vacuum when minimum wages are raised.
Democrats can make a big push for a minimum wage bill in the Senate, and move the issue onto the national stage in a big way. They won't be able to go as far as some localities, such as the town of SeaTac (just south of Seattle) which just raised their minimum wage to fifteen bucks an hour. That's obviously too high to shoot for (it just barely passed, and appears headed for a recount). But something in the range of ten-to-twelve dollars per hour would be not just possible, but wildly popular. What could be even more important for the future (than whatever actual number they settle on) is the new concept that minimum wage should be tied to some sort of index (such as inflation), so that it rises automatically in the future. To put it another way, "cost of living adjustments" (COLAs) which are built in to the law. Several proposals along these lines are already being contemplated by congressional Democrats, it bears mentioning.
This could solve the problem for all time. Politically, it could be sold because this is precisely what Congress did to their own pay a few decades ago, after which congressional pay has all but disappeared as a political issue. Enterprising Democrats (especially those challenging sitting Republicans) could use this to their advantage, by telling people that if COLAs are good enough for Congress, then they are good enough for all working Americans.
In 2014, Republicans will be on offense on Obamacare. That's pretty much a given. They have so far shown no indication that they've got anything else to run on (other than the "tax cuts solve all problems" refrain, of course) in any sort of proactive manner. They may have to play a little defense on the government shutdown, but the main budgetary fights Republican candidates are likely going to face are all from within their own party, during primary season.
Democrats will be defending Obamacare, and perhaps even offering up some fixes or solutions to certain unforeseen problems. At this point, that much is also a given. But Democrats have a wider range of positive issues they can campaign successfully on. I would argue that the best of these -- the most near-universal issue they could pick -- is to champion a raise in the minimum wage to at least ten bucks an hour. Forcing the Republicans to play defense on this just reinforces their ties to Big Business, after all. And it should be something that pretty much every Democrat can get behind.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
the employment picture steadily brightening
the website is bound to start working at some point, people will be signing up for health insurance they can afford, and eventually all those horror stories can be balanced by "I have cancer and now I can get treated" success stories
And if you're wrong?
If the employment picture gets worse instead of better??
If there is just a small trickle of "success" stories and a whole flood of new "epic fail" stories??
What happens then??
Considering that there will be another round of Insurance Cancellations leading up to the mid-term election, this time being tens of millions of employer-based insurance cancellations, it's likely that your success stories will never materialize or will be drowned out..
What happens then?
Michale
In that timeline, the Republicans win, but just because it's a quantum possibility doesn't mean that either you or Chris is right.
We don't know what's going to happen in the next year, but somethings are for sure. The republicans are going to have a nasty primary season, whether it will lead to "legitimate rape" scenarios or not remains to be seen, but it will be bruising for everyone involved. And it continues from March through September. So count on there being most of a year where "Republican Civil War" stories bounce around the media.
Anything Obamacare related at this point is conjecture. Will it be fixed? Is it a trainwreck forever? I'm soooooo tired of this debate. Everything that could be said, has been said, we're officially in wait and see mode people.
The Republicans though have put all their chips into Obamacare sucks. And it's not like they don't have a point. The website launch was a mess. But they still don't have a conservative alternative, or any real solution besides repeal and go back to the Rainmaker(either the book or movie is fine). So sure they can use their version of the bully pulpit to harangue, but unless they have some sort of contract with America hidden in their sleeve, I doubt we'll have any sort of coherent message, and that lack of a coherent message lets the Tea Party Candidates run around saying what they think, which is never all that good for the Republicans if those types of Candidates get the attention of the national media.
Democrats do have a platform of a sorts at the current moment. Immigration Reform, Non-discrimination Act, higher minimum wage, to name a few talking points. It remains to be seen whether any of these will stick, but as Chris said, the minimum wage is the most popular. One day strikes at Wal-mart and fast food chains speak to how dissatisfied minimum wage workers are at this time. Not mention that wonderful Wal-Mart here in Ohio that ran a can food drive so employees could give food to other employees. Plus tension between the 1% and 99% is just as corrosive as it's ever been. Or wall street vs. main street if you're on the conservative end ;-P.
However, we still have the 2nd midterm advantage that goes to the opposition party. How much of an advantage will this give the Republicans? It's really hard to say at this point. There's going to be a lot of "throw the bums out!" rhetoric bouncing around this election, especially since congress is about as popular as dog poop on your shoe. The question remains as to which party will better focus that ire onto their opposition. Not to mention the gerrymandering that leads to only a few swing seats and lots of safe ones.
Currently the Republicans hold the advantage here, but yes Democrats have benefited in the past, that doesn't mean gerrymandering is a good thing, half the reason there even is a republican civil war is that they've locked themselves into districts where tea partiers can win.
Conclusion? Null program. Too many unknowns. Democrats wan't Obamacare fixed, but it might not be. Republicans want it broken, but it might not be. Republicans in the house have a midterm advantage. Republicans in the house are about as popular as dog poop. Both sides are gerrymandered in, so the swing seats will be very few. Democrats might have a popular platform, Republicans might not need one if Obamacare doesn't turn itself around. And then we have the super long primary season coming up, and all the other nonsense that can happen in one year of politics. So currently I stand by original projection, seats might change hands but Republicans will still control the house and Democrats the Senate in December 2014.
Great idea. Of course creating jobs should be the number one thing they are campaigning on too, since Republicans long ago gave up on this - to create jobs would see Obama being a success and they'd rather the whole country failed than this happened...
Also the fact that raising the minimum wage is probably the best method available just now to cut back on food stamps and stop Government hand outs to Corporations should be front and centre.
Great idea. Of course creating jobs should be the number one thing they are campaigning on too
Yea, because they have done such a bang up job of it so far...
Raising the Min Wage will HURT job creation, not help it...
Even a totally economic knuckle-drager like me knows that...
Michale
Raising the Min Wage will HURT job creation, not help it...
You'd be right, if the biggest driver of job creation wasn't consumer spending. People make more, then they spend more, and then there's more demand. It's really very simple.
You'd be right, if the biggest driver of job creation wasn't consumer spending. People make more, then they spend more, and then there's more demand. It's really very simple.
Businesses have to SPEND more to LESS employees so, at BEST, one will cancel out the other and the status quo will be maintained.
At worst, higher min wage WON'T lead to more revenue for businesses and businesses will lose too much money and be forced to close, thereby creating MORE unemployment..
Again, this isn't rocket science, people. It's common sense..
You would think that after 5+ years of reckless spending, the Administration would realize that you can't just throw money at a problem and it will automagically be fixed..
obamacare is a perfect example..
Michale
Michale,
#6
"Again, this isn't rocket science, people. It's common sense.."
It's also statistically incorrect.
There has not been a major jump in unemployment in any of the previous minimum wage hikes.
Yes Michale, you can find numerous complaints on Fox "News" or Real Clear Politics (should have been named real Right Politics)so save yourself the energy, take it as a given, & bounce your new grandson on your knee instead.
Instead you see what is going on with Wal-Mart now. They've decided that they've cut too many employees, have too large an employee turnover, & their employees morale is too low. They're getting too much bad press & so have decided to raise wages & number of employees merely as a business decision.
Equally, you will never convince me that, "businesses will lose too much money and be forced to close" as long as their executives receive 7 & 8 figure pay packages. It's like Hostess going bankrupt immediately after giving the Executives millions.
"obamacare is a perfect example"
You're suggesting the Government should not have paid to set up the web site?
YoYo
#2
Without a Presidential Campaign in 2014 (sorta of), there won't be the national attention to the Republican Primaries, though what we do hear of will be choice (Sharon Angle's chickens). Equally we have a couple of times where the Republican Establishment can sell out to Obama/stand for bi-partisanship; in yet more budget & debt ceiling bills. Disagree if you choose; but I don't see the Tea Party paying attention to the stop sign.
There has not been a major jump in unemployment in any of the previous minimum wage hikes.
Was the economy in such bad shape during those minimum wage hikes??
No it was not..
Ergo, it is illogical to think that what applied then applies now...
Equally, you will never convince me that, "businesses will lose too much money and be forced to close" as long as their executives receive 7 & 8 figure pay packages. It's like Hostess going bankrupt immediately after giving the Executives millions.
I am not talking about large corps like Hostess or Wal Mart..
I am talking small businesses and mom and pop type shops and local small franchises..
If people want better pay, then let them work up into jobs that pay better.. Duuuhhhhhh
As I said, it's not rocket science. It's common sense..
Michale
If people want better pay, then let them work up into jobs that pay better.. Duuuhhhhhh
That's one way to look at it, but the real issue is how much is full time work worth? Because currently, if you work full time for minimum wage, you qualify for government assistance. Therefore ask yourself, is it right that their cost of living is being put on you, the taxpayer? Or maybe business could simply pay a living wage.
That's one way to look at it, but the real issue is how much is full time work worth?
Let me answer your question with a question.
What IS the work??
A person who spends 8 hours discovering the cure for cancer SHOULD be paid more than a person who spends 8 hours flipping burgers, no??
I am not denigrating the person flipping burgers. Honest work is honest work. And I am certain that, after that scientist spent 8 hours curing cancer, he (or she) is gonna love that juicy burger the other guy (or girl) is cooking up...
Take me, for example. You can bring me a totally dead, busted up laptop and I can, within hours, have it cleaned up and working perfectly.. That would likely set you back $100..
Isn't THAT worth more than the guy who digs a hole for you in your front yard??
Again, I am not denigrating the hole digger. Honest work is honest work and it's ALL good..
But we have to face reality.. Some work is worth more than other work..
That's the problem with the entire Leftist/Progressive/Democrat ideology..
It wants to give people something for nothing.. It wants to give ditch-diggers and burger-flippers exorbitant pay that is not earned, not deserved. Pay on the level of someone who has strived and worked hard for years...
The entire Black Friday madness and violence is a symptom of this entitlement mentality.
It's a "It's all mine and screw you" mentality...
Or maybe business could simply pay a living wage.
Unfortunately, in the here and now, with the last 5+ years behind us, a "living wage" means ya gotta have a nice sports car or SUV, a 60-inch LED TV and an IPAD...
Reminds me of recently, the DC city council was harrassing WalMart because they were not paying a "living wage".. Turned out WalMart was paying their people MORE than some city workers..
If people want a better paying job, then THAT is an incentive to work HARDER and EARN it..
By taking away that incentive and giving people great pay up front, there is no incentive to better one's self...
Where is the logic in that??
By the by, did you ever catch that STAR TREK CONTINUES episode? :D
Michale
Therefore ask yourself, is it right that their cost of living is being put on you, the taxpayer? Or maybe business could simply pay a living wage.
I understand what you are saying and there is a certain logic to it.
However, as with most (if not ALL) of the Leftist/Progressive/Democrat ideals, it fails to take into account human nature..
What YOU call a "living wage" is, when one takes into account human nature, is simply "paying people NOT to work"..
Or, more accurately, "paying people NOT to strive, NOT to improve, NOT to better themselves."
People will ask themselves, "Why should I spend all that time in school and take all those MANAGER tests and all that crap when I can get the same pay just digging holes or flipping burgers??"
THAT, sad to say, is the American Reality in the here and now....
It's an entitlement mentality..
Michale
Therefore ask yourself, is it right that their cost of living is being put on you, the taxpayer? Or maybe business could simply pay a living wage.
But I think you hit on a great idea, YoYo..
We'll raise the minimum wage..
And eliminate ALL entitlements...
GREAT solution!! :D
Michale
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be differences in pay scales, but what I am saying is there should be a bottom line. If you work full time minimum wage, you should not be forced to use food stamps and other government assistance simply to survive. It's basically the government subsidizing the incredibly high profits of McDonalds or Wal-Mart.
As far as raising the minimum wage so as to decrease the need for government assistance, isn't that the whole point? We're having spending battles constantly in Washington, if government can't afford to guarantee a minimum standard, then someone else has to, these people aren't going to work and work and work, and then starve simply because the Waldon family want another mansion.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be differences in pay scales, but what I am saying is there should be a bottom line.
I completely agree..
There SHOULD be a bottom line..
But that bottom line should NOT be determined by the wants for the employee...
It should be determined by the needs of the business..
Wouldn't you agree??
Michale
Nope. Unregulated business that is allowed to pay what it "wants" leads to sweatshops and abuses. If we could trust business not to be sociopaths toward their employees, I'd say your idea would be fine. But has been proven time and time again, businesses will cut corners, shrink wages, and generally screw over and exploit their employees in a search for another dime. So while business should be considered, ultimately its about the needs of the workers, not the wants of business.
Really we're getting down to a fundamental economic debate. Who's more important labor or capital? It's a question who's answer has changed quite a lot throughout history. And not in any sort of progressive linear fashion, imagine a pendulum or a cycle.
In any event, politically I value worker protection more than I value the concerns of business. Economic inequality is a serious issue, and as long as the minimum wage is less in real dollars than it was in the late 60s, I know that this disruptor of consumer spending will continue to have negative effects on the US economy.
If we could trust business not to be sociopaths toward their employees, I'd say your idea would be fine.
And if we could trust the employees not to be sociopaths toward their employers, I'd say your idea would be fine..
A balance must be struck...
But it's like in the military..
The needs of the service come first...
Or, if you prefer the Trek version..
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... Or the one."
Michale