New Direction Congress Prioritizes Needs of Minority CommunitiesBy James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) NNPA Special Commentary
“In the 2006 elections, the American people cried out for change. They were tired and frustrated with the stagnant economic policies and the record budget deficits created by the President and Republican Congress. Many had grown weary of the myopic war strategies in Iraq that failed to curtail U.S. war causalities and bring stability to a country decimated by civil strife.
>>And you kept funding it. But I digress…
Some were equally disenchanted by the federal government’s tardy response to those individuals displaced by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.
Since new leadership took charge in the 110th Congress, our country has been progressively moving in a New Direction. A New Direction that has sought to remedy the economic ills our country needlessly suffered thru the previous six years. A New Direction that promotes pro-worker policies and pro-family values. A New Direction that bolsters our national security.”
The following is what he touts as “A New Direction”
We began by raising the minimum wage for the first time in nearly ten years. This increase in the minimum wage will benefit more than two million hardworking African-Americans over the next several years.
This pay raise comes at a critical time for African-American families as household incomes continue to drop and the number of minorities living below the poverty line continues to grow.
There are many links and studies that I can provide for you right now. But for now, I will point you to a study conducted by the Employment Policies Institute (EPI) entitled “Raising the Minimum Wage: Another Empty Promise to the Working Poor”
Wages vs. Income
While wages and income are certainly related, the connection between the two has always been tenuous. In 1946, Nobel prize-winning economist George Stigler commented, “the connection between hourly wages and the standard of living of a family is remote and fuzzy.” As this study shows, the fuzzy connection in 1946 has become blurrier over time.
Examining Census Bureau data since 1939, the authors found that fewer low-wage employees live in poor households today than in years past. Specifically, in 1939, 85 percent of low-wage employees1 were living in poor households. By 2003, only 17 percent of low-wage employees were living in poor households. Consequently, attempting to target poor families by manipulating wages is an inefficient means of addressing the problem.
Even more important than the number of low-wage employees living in poor households is the number of low-wage employees who are the heads of poor households. This stereotypical beneficiary of an increase in the wage floor is the one supporters of minimum wage increases claim represents the typical minimum wage employee. In reality, a small fraction of low-wage employees are the head of a poor household, and this number has decreased significantly over time. In 1939, nearly one-third (31%) of all low-wage employees were the heads of a poor household. By 2003, only 9 percent of low-wage employees were heading a poor household.
These statistics all reveal an underlying point—modern families have multiple workers whose collective earnings make up the family income. Federal anti-poverty policy should adjust accordingly. As more women and teenagers have entered the workforce as second and third earners, the ranks of low-wage employees contain fewer individuals singlehandedly supporting a family.
[snip]
The authors calculate that, absent any employment loss, the cost to employers of the proposed increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour will be $18.26 billion. Only 12.7 percent ($2.3 billion) of this cost will actually go to poor families, with only 3.7 percent going to poor African-American families. The ability of the minimum wage to target poor families is weaker and decreasing over time. Contrary to the statements of its advocates, fewer and fewer low-wage employees are supporting a family on the minimum wage, with only 9 percent of low-wage employees actually supporting a poor family.
Therefore, effective anti-poverty programs must concentrate on family income and not wages. While most working poor families will not receive any benefit from an increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, the vast majority would receive a benefit from increases in the generosity of federal and state EITC programs. These programs provide targeted assistance to the low-income working families so often cited in support of minimum wage increases—the same families that receive a minority of the benefits from a wage increase. (more with .pdf file of full report)
Earlier this year, we passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, legislation that provides the single largest investment in college aid programs since the Montgomery G.I. Bill.
More specifically, this landmark bill increases the Pell Grant by more than $1,000 over the next five years and cuts the interest rates on subsidized student loans in half.
While this was some welcoming news to many folks out there who are locked into mountains of school loan debt, I believe that in a few years we could see a backlash from lenders due to the fact that their profit margin has been cut. Hopefully there was some provision in this bill that recognized that potential. If not, we will be having this same conversation in the near future.
We have also worked to aid those families who have had their lives devastated by death and displacement due to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. This past summer we passed a bill that provides $6.4 billion for Gulf Coast recovery efforts.
This relief initiative includes $1.35 billion in Community Disaster loan forgiveness, extends Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and allocates $60 million to pay teachers and operate schools.
Until Clyburn and the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus begin to fully address the wasteful spending that has been taking place under the leadership of his own party in Louisiana, all this amounts to is pouring water in a colander. New Orleans’ biggest problem isn’t a lack of money, it is how poorly they have managed the downpour of money they have received since Katrina. And as I pointed out a while back, this roots of this problem goes back further than Katrina.
Recently, Congress has been engaged in a heated confrontation with the White House over expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Congress, on numerous occasions, has passed SCHIP legislation that will provide health coverage to 10 million needy children.
Every time Congress has passed this bill, the President has rejected our good will by vetoing the legislation. SCHIP is a vital program that seeks to curtail health disparities in communities of color. This Congress will continue fighting for this important healthcare initiative.
Here were a couple of the problems I had with this bill:
*It included giving healthcare to illegals.
This is one of the very reasons why California’s attempt to create a universal healthcare-type system has all but failed. the effects of illegal immigration still matters to folks–just look at the recent few states who have shot down giving driver’s licenses to illegals. This type of assistance must go to American citizens only. Let other nations take care of their own citizens.
*SCHIP and the Crowd-Out Effect
*I am curious to know how much pork was in this bill. Here is one piece of pork:
Select Hospitals Reap a Windfall Under Child Bill
I am still laughing at his ‘New Direction Congress’.
Sphere: Related Content
