Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Yes, I believe it will be raised, but not today.
Even the outsource countries are beginning to ask for better wages and conditions.
So WHAT are the SPINELESS IDIOTS in Washington (AKA the Democrats) going to do about it??
NOTHING!!!
So why worry about it??
I'm voting straight Socialist this November...I've officially given up on the Democrats...
We will certainly create a living wage if we are going to experience the Great Turning rather than the Great Remorse. Lets remind our legislators of this fact.
This long-term vs. short-term argument about judicial review seems odd coming from Thom. One of the reasons argued for government regulation is that you can't wait for lawsuits to make companies clean up their act, because in the meantime people will die. And yet on the subject of judicial review, he wants people to have to wait while their basic rights are violated by the government itself.
No one relaxes thinking that the Supreme Court will protect their rights, because we all know that a case has to be brought to the court. The ACLU's existence is proof.
I think Thom's in motivated-cognition territory on this topic.
Pusillanimously ugly. I didn't even have to look that one up. "Pusillanimous" means "cowardly" or "timid".
Speaking of white racist organizations, a caller to Randi Rhodes mentioned one called The Order of the Camellia.
Fortuately, many states have higher minimum wage laws (such as here in CA), but the Federal minimum wage is something that has been fought over for years. And now that corporations are "people", they will be able to stomp on any attempts to raise it.
Minimum wage should be set by a consumer index formula. I haven't done the extensive math but I think one of two types of formulas would work: (1) a specific itemization formula or (2) a formula based on Consumer Price Index.
First example using current average prices:
(1 loaf of bread + 1 gallon of gas + 1 gallon of milk + 1 month rent + 1 pair of blue jeans + 1 pair of shoes) / 80 hours x = living minimum wage per hour.
Example, (3.00 + 4.00 + 2.50 + 1,200.00 + 45.00 + 75.00) / 80 = $16.62 per hour.
Second example usig CPI:
Using 1967 CPI = 100 as the base, in 1967 the minimum wage was $1.40 per hour. If we assume that it should have been at least double that to approach a living wage, then $2.80 per hour is the base for 1967.
Today, CPI is 653.198% compared to 1967, so today's living minimum wage should be $2.80 x 6.53198 = $18.29 per hour..
These are two approaches that have as their basis consumer expenses and rely on establishing a formula based on realities rather than politics and corporate conivance.
When I first started driving, and had a job (1970), my minimum wage job paid per hour enough to buy at least 4 gallons of gasoline for the car. If the minimum wage was somehow pegged to this now commodity, one should be able to afford 4 gallons of gas for each hour worked. Sounds fair to me.
And of course, if we established a ceiliing income then minimum wage could be set as a percentage of the ceiling.
How do we establish a ceiling wage? Like the tax codes of the 1950's we tax the upper bracket at 90% which makes the income curve flatten out to approach a practical ceiling and that number could be used as the ceiling with the living minimum wage being set as a realistic percentage of the top income.
As for protesting signs (and their limitations), I've been wondering why people don't just go buy some blank T-Shirts, iron transfer material that can be printed on by a typical PC connected printer and create T-Shirts with whatever they want on it. It would be interesting to see how they could demand that people don't wear shirts, or try to claim them as dangerous.
N
Its economical to test all unemployed people to knock a possible 2% off the unemployment rolls... until you factor in the cost of paying for the drug tests!
N
I read recently that if the minimum wage kept pace with corporate executive salaries from the early '90s to today minimum wage would be $23/hr. Hmmm.
~;^}>
If you want things the way they used to be- tax a millionaire, support a union and buy American.
HR347... the anti-occupy law. Was listening to Best of the Left yesterday, anyone else hear about this law that was nearly unanimously voted for by both parties? If not research it, be aware of what its doing to the right to assemble peacefully.
N
So what is the hourly rate for a Living Wage?
N
I agree that a Supreme Court justice should be removed from office for lying in the confirmation hearing. (Of course, the Senate should just go back to debating among themselves an dlooking at real evidnce, rather than doing a job interview, but that's another matter). In my hypothetical constitution, I have included fraudulent attainment of office in the list of reasons to impeach a member of the government.
In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, the court only said that strip searches were allowable, it didn't say they were mandatory. So there is the possibility of legislation forbidding it.
The reason the power to decide Constitutionality is given to unelected people is to avoid the Socrates thing, sentencing someone to death one day and erecting statues to them the next.
The UK's supreme court can't strike down laws because there's no higher law on which to base such a decision. The English Constitution is just laws that are considered important--meme-like, you might say. But that country does have judicial review on a lower level.
I agree that some restrictions should be put on that power here, though. E.g., the court should not be able to strike down laws of a type, only the specific laws that are brought before them. Stare decisis might take care of the others of that type later, but only when brought before the court, so that different circumstances can be taken into account.
But the Casino Economy requires more bubbles and bursting bubbles for the rich and powerful to skillfully play the game. They win...we lose. And even if they do lose...they can count on the bought off politicians to bail them out with tax-payer's money.
They have all the marked cards and we have only hope.... hope that Obama and the Democrats in Congress will stand up against the all the other cheating players and call them out. Maybe the best thing is just to walk out of the casino and don't play the crooked game in the first place. Then commandeer some bulldozers and destroy the casino..with the mob bosses still inside (all figuratively speaking, of course).
The minimum wage has been below the poverty line since its inception in 1938.
A living wage would allow a primary breadwinner to provide food, clothing, shelter, health care, education and a few modest frills for a family of 4.
Another interesting factoid: if minimum wage had grown at the same rate as CEO pay (starting in 1990 and going through present day), minimum wage would be over $24.00!
I suspect that President Obama knows full well what would happen if he tried to be like JFK and buck the criminal right-wing military industrial complex. They, and their useful idiot Republicans, are already seething with racist hatred and are looking for any excuse to take him out, I suspect. I suspect that he also very likely knows just how ruthless these people are after these powerful right-wing traitors orchestrated 911.
Some of you believe yourselves to be more informed than everyone else and believe that the dumbed down masses, not voting...or worse..voting for the Republicans...would be our downfall. Perhaps, it is those who still believe there is still hope that our system will turn around and save itself for our benefit who are not that informed and are just as gullible as those couch potato simpletons who watch Fox Snooze.
I believe that, since the ruling elite has rigged the game and own and control both parties..they keep the people distracted, and mellowed down with hope for change for the better when that elusive carrot just keeps out of reach.
They use right-wing propaganda to keep many Republican zombie voters fearful of not getting their hopeful and perceived "fair share" of those carrots that they believe they deserve more than others. Race, religion, sexual-orientations, etc are all used as wedges that they easily accept as their reasons why they deserve something better than all those other people. They are fearful that the "undeserving" will get something they "deserve" to have more and that the Democrats will work to take that all away.
The Democrats, on the other hand, have their own propaganda machine, most of it does "seem" to side with "the people" who have been used and abused and cheated out of their "fair share". And they, too, spread fear that the Republicans will make things even worse for them. And I believe this is quite true. But, the catch is that no matter which one of the parties is in power, the ruling elite, the main drivers of the system of exploitation and abuse of the majority of the people, still wins. We lose!
It is a win-win for the ruling elite even though for the Republican or Democrat politicians it is a win-lose. Politicians are the immoral, back-stabbers who will do or say anything, at any particular time, in order to win the vote. But, they will be owned by those monied powers who really control them. So, the less than honorable scum-bags who vie for our votes, most of whom are likely liars and lawyers by profession, keep us entertained and frightened that, unless we vote for their side, it will be the end of the world as we know it. This ruling elite's prestidigitation is the way this tiny few can maintain their power over us and keep screwing us till we die. And perhaps the relevant epitaph on millions of tomb stones should read..."and he voted".
You can vote for Obama, again, but that will not change things. It will tick off the Republicans...which would be fantastic...I hate Republicans and their useful idiots who vote for them.... and wouldn't mind a bit to see those cry-baby, foot-stomping, heartless, useful idiots of the ruling elite put down yet again.
But the ruling elite are loving how they can own both major parties and keep people from taking more active forms of rebellion that would hurt the ruling elite. And if Obama ever did get to be as brazen, bucking the real power elite, keeping them from making their blood money, I suspect he would end up just like JFK.
And, yes, I suspect that the Republicans will continue their unethical and illegal manipulation at the polls..along with the pull of the stacked Supreme Court in the event of a tight race in some state...like they did with Bush. And electronic voting, owned and operated by the right-wing corporations, will likely try to rig things in favor of Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney for President? Just too horrible to imagine! But even though I will likely vote for Obama again, I think why bother...but keeping Mitt Romney out would be an absolute necessity in order to tick off those cry-baby, sniveling, and sneering Republicans.
I have to thank either Thom or Sue for inclusion in the newsletter of a link to the Discover Magazine blog The Crux. I had no idea it was covering linguistics, which is a subject I obviously love.
On that subject, Santorum's anti-TelePrompTer rule keeps getting him in trouble not just because his lack of a prepared speech allows him to make the mistakes, but also because he can't release a written speech to the press to prove what he meant to say.
Simply put... it must be raised.
it seems President Obama has to overcome alot of entrenched power ; paying less taxs the richer you are appeals to many that are rich and with that power ; we need to use vote power tell congress we will vote them out if they vote for foolish tax code benifiting rich either corp . or irs tax code favoring rich ;go for Obama care vote in congress telling supreme court does not have constitional authority to strike down laws ,for me it is common sense to have regulations on wall str .they got our investment money retirement money and then let them have no regulations LOL ; the repeal of obama care will hurt and anger so many ppl and they will be yet another force as is 99%movement to regain control of congress ; the tea party was apathy at midterm ;99% is majority of americans things will set them self straight as long as we put on the pressure to congress and the President / after all Obama giving us health care we gave him the tea party what is he to think ??????
I think that if the Supreme court strikes a law down, it becomes null and void. As I understand it, the provision that forces people to buy insurance in the way Obamacare demands would never become law. Without that, the whole thing falls on its face.
Voters may be well-informed, but the privatized computer voting system is corrupt. You can vote religiously in every election, but if your vote is "switched" or "lost" by computer software, there doesn't seem to be a thing you can do about it.
Election fraud, not "voter fraud," is the enormous problem. I have heard Thom interviewing Brad Friedman -- election fraud watchdog -- several times. Keep an eye on election fraud at Brad Blog.com.
Votes should be counted by hand. If they can do it in Canada, we can do it here!