Will Gordon Smith defend Oregon's minimum wage?
[UPDATE: No, he won't. Senator Smith voted to override and gut Oregon's minimum wage law, though the amendment failed. Discuss your reaction in the comments. -Editor.]
As you may know, the U.S. Senate is discussing bankruptcy reform. In the midst of it, Senator Ted Kennedy has proposed bumping the minimum wage to $7.25 by 2007. Why? Because as he puts it, minimum wage workers are just "one pink slip or one medical emergency away from bankruptcy."
Meanwhile, everyone's favorite right-wing reptile, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), has offered his own minimum-wage proposal. Sure, it includes a raise to $6.25 (below Oregon's state minimum), but here's the disingenous part: It would override state and local laws on tip credit.
That's right. Rick Santorum's amendment would wipe out a key element of Oregon's progressive minimum wage law without any corresponding benefit to Oregonians.
Now, we can argue all day long about whether Oregon's law is a good or a bad thing. (My take? It's a very good thing.) But, this much should be crystal clear: In the laboratories of democracy that are the fifty states, Oregon's law is a meaningful and important contribution.
The federal government should not override this state law, passed by Oregon voters overwhelmingly. Here's the question: What will Oregon's own Gordon Smith do? Will Senator Smith stand with Oregon voters - and defend Oregon's minimum wage?
The vote is today.
Write to Gordon Smith and tell him what you think.
|
March 7, 2005 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (12 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Aaron | Mar 8, 2005 12:07:38 AM
What is interesting that Lott, Chafee, Chambliss and Cornyn all voted no?
What is Gordon Smith gunning for a senior leadership position(the chair of the RPC???) since Frist is retiring and KBH might run for Gov of Texas?
This vote could be the start of good news for D's in 2008 here in Oregon!!!
Posted by: LT | Mar 8, 2005 1:10:04 AM
Chambliss and Cornyn voted NO?
I already admired Chafee, and Lott may well believe in states rights after all.
But I never had anything nice to say about Chambliss and Cornyn.
Gee, what a nice way to make a point about Gordon!
"If Chambliss and Cornyn voted to protect state's rights, what was your problem?"
Posted by: ron ledbury | Mar 8, 2005 1:32:49 AM
If the efforts of labor give Congress the “authority” to mandate minimum wages then it necessarily gives Congress the “authority” to set limits on the states. The difference in the arguments, and purposes, are only marginal compared to the greater scope of whether or not to have any federal minimum wages. The difference then becomes one of merely counting votes. This becomes a perpetual political battle year after year.
If labor focused instead upon gaining greater rights to organize then, theoretically, it could be a more durable protection. The only match to a corporate collective is a labor bargaining unit of the size and scope of the jurisdiction and class of persons being identified in economic regulation.
The nuclear option, noted by Tim, has many parallels in other contexts.
Ask yourself why I oppose Ted's health care plan for Oregon teachers? As contrasted to negotiated benefits, it can be used as a future weapon in like manner to that of the Santorum amendment. (There are other non-labor related factors too.)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 8, 2005 5:15:52 AM
Ron, you write, "If labor focused instead upon gaining greater rights to organize then"...
Are you suggesting that they're not? If so, are you kidding?
Of course labor is working on gaining greater rights to organize - or put another way, working to stop the massive right-wing project to limit the right to organize.
And don't forget the value of a highly popular campaign around an easily understood issue (like minimum wage) to demonstrate the viability of organizing and to motivate the troops.
Posted by: Evan | Mar 8, 2005 9:29:15 AM
Wayne Allard (R-Co) also seems running scared for reelection in 2006, having voted against this. Udall seems to be a real threat, with Salazar having just beaten Coors...
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 8, 2005 9:47:38 PM
The answer to the question in this post's title is: No. So says the Democratic Party of Oregon:
"Smith Votes ‘No' On Wage Increase, ‘Yes' on Proposal that Preempts Oregon Laws"
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 8, 2005 11:49:18 PM
Evan, Allard is up in 2008. He also pledged in 2002 not to run again. Udall has announced. Lots more info over at WesternDemocrat.com
Posted by: John | Mar 11, 2005 8:23:57 AM
This is so disgusting!
I heartily recommend calling Smith's office and letting him know how disappointed you are, but instead of giving him the usual liberal perspective, tell him you're against the ovvereaching power of the federal government interferring with what people in their own states want.
Offices:
Portland: 503-326-3386
Washington, D.C.: 202-224-3753
Eugene: 541-465-6750
The key is making Oregon conservatives disillusioned with their own guy. All it takes is a few thousand Repbs staying home on election day 2008. We can use Smith's desire for power against him with the conservative ideologues in Oregon. I am rooting for Rep. Peter DeFazio to run against him in 2008, but let's all think about it--starting now!
Posted by: jonathan rundy | Oct 11, 2005 8:09:37 AM
Who the hell cares what he does? Those felons in office have been burning Oregonians for quite some time. Let's go back to 1976, when the legislature could not balance the budget because they were short on funds. But they damned well voted themselves raises. Then they kicked mentally ill people into the streets. Sounds like Civil Rights violations to me. So who really gives a damn what Smith votes on this lame issue?
Posted by: Trish Sandoval | Jan 25, 2007 10:20:27 AM
* In March of 2005, Gordon Smith voted to override the will of Oregon voters and abolish Oregon's minimum wage law - replacing it with a federal minimum wage of $6.25.
* In October of 2005, Gordon Smith cast the deciding 51st vote against the economic interests of Oregon by opposing a raise in the federal minimum wage, and making Oregon businesses more competitive.
In defense of Gordo (who I, as an independent, have never voted for, and probably never would), his positions outlined in the above two bullets make more sense than Kari's attempt to make him look bad on this issue. There's an obvious contradiction in, on the one hand, boasting that Oregon has a "progressive minimum wage law," and then on the other complaining that Sen. Smith is voting "against the economic interests of Oregon" by refusing to mandate a wage increase in other states, thereby undermining efforts to "make Oregon business more competitive." Sorry, but that's trying to have it both ways. Kari's bullets could just as easily be read to mean Oregon voters cast ballots themselves in contradiction to the state's economic competitiveness interests by voting to raise the minimum wage in the first place far above the federal minimum. That was, incidentally, one of the biggest arguments against raising Oregon's minimum back in 2002, especially in rural parts of the state. It was also, then, a position scoffed at by supporters of the increase. Are Democrats now suggesting Oregon's high minimum wage hurts the state economically? And speaking of the urban-rural divide and "the will of the voters," when Measure 25 appeared on the ballot it failed in more counties (19) than it passed (17). (And, of course, if you throw out Multnomah County, it would have failed altogether.)
The bottom line is as much as leftists love the idea of forcing perpetual raises in the minimum wage, Oregonians as a whole, just like economists, are pretty divided on whether it's such a good idea. Smith's positions on the matter hardly place him in some sort of schizoid fairyland, completely oblivious to and detached from political reality. For that you have to look to his shifting stances on the war.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: brad | Mar 6, 2005 12:25:04 AM
Yeah, he'll probably defend Oregon's minimum wage law just like he's been out front defending Oregon's Death With Dignity Act. After all, the GOP is all about state's rights.
Right?