Redstate

The DeMin-Graham-Santorum bill is a camel's nose stategy to private accounts. It starts with only the highly supported notion to locking away the SS surplus in a lockbox, and it puts marketable govt bonds in those lockbockes, one for each person. There is no attempt to tie it so solvency, and that's a good thing. The solvency debate really sinks public support b/c pols use it as an excuse to raise taxes.

Ppl do support private accounts in abstract. It's just that the President has ben putting forth some boneheaded ideas that they rightfully reject.

If Bennett's bill raises taxes, I'll cry for the loss of the Republican party.

I don't know whether anyone has read this one yet about the goings-on over in the House, in particular the Ways and Means Committee:

Convinced the Senate has reached an impasse on Social Security, a coalition of liberal and labor groups is now trying to kill President Bush's Social Security proposals in the most unlikely of places: the House Ways and Means Committee.

Social Security Group Targets House Panel

Foes of Bush Plan See Chance to Kill It

I think I'm getting a better idea of how Bill Frist feels right about now, being yanked one direction and then another by the President.

Of course, if Frist doesn't like it, he could actually decide to run the Senate independently of the White House; you know, just pretend that it's a whole separate branch of government or something.

But private accounts are a hard sell, and they weren't sold well.  (Bush should've been talking ownership society and optimism; instead he provided fearmongering and mistatements.*)  If all that's possible now is an incremental approach, I'm for it.  Unhappy, displeased, annoyed; but for it.

Social Security is a long-term project; don't give up yet.

von

*So you don't think me a Monday morning QB on this, see here (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/12/security_social.html), here (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/01/social_security_1.htm
l), and here (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/02/social_security_1.htm
l) (among others).

. . . he might just be on my list of presidential possibilities.

If we're talking about Social Security reform without private accounts, here're four reforms that I've proposed in the past.  If we can add some drift toward privatization, so much the better.

1.  Means test.  There is no reason to offer multi-millionaires a small subsidy in their retirement.  Social Security functions like a welfare system; it's time to fund it like one.
   
2.  Radically up the limits on 401(k)'s and the like.  If you want to put $25k a year into the market, you're doing us all a favor -- and you should be able to do it tax-deferred.  
   
3.  Repeal the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  It's a total piece of crap.  (O.K., fine, that has nothing to do with Social Security reform -- I just tried to sneak it in.  Mea cupla.)  
   
4.  Finally, resist resist resist attempts to add programs that are government run -- a kind of "private accounts lite."  The result will be the worst of all worlds:  expanding Social Security payments, more government involvement in the markets, and larger deficits.  

Making 401(k)s tax-free altogether?

Making 401(k)s tax-free altogether

My goal is to get money into the market and increase the national savings rate.  Accordingly, since either proposal results in an effective tax cut, I'd prefer to "spend" the cut on something that will increase income and encourage investment (raise the caps), rather than just increase income (make the already capped amount completely tax free).

'Tho, fair warning:  I'm not an economist.  

I don't have a problem with raising the cap to $25K per year but much more I would have issues.

The real problem though, is the people at the other end of the income spectrum.  Poor people are saving little or not at all.  They are the ones who are going to NEED social security.  Providing opportunities to shelter more money from taxes at the upper end of the spectrum largely helps those who already do not need SS to save even more for retirement.

We really need to figure out a way to get lower income earners to save.  I'm not sure how to do it but I would start with mandatory Home Ec. classes in High School that teach people how to invest and mange money rather than how to bake a cake from scratch.  

Is to (1) increase their incomes by spurring economic growth; (2) increase the opportunities for education; and (3) allow them to invest a portion of their SS proceeds in the market.  My proposal gets more money into the market, which helps 1.  President Bush proposed a solution that allows 3.  If you've got a suggestion regarding 2 (vouchers might be a start ....), I'm all ears.

I suggest (1) Raising the minimum wage, (2) increasing funding (federal or otherwise) for the poorest schools, and (3) addressing the health care crisis.

Another PA Republican also opposes PRAs.

Southeast PA's Jim Gerlach.

"We really need to figure out a way to get lower income earners to save.  I'm not sure how to do it but I would start with mandatory Home Ec. classes in High School that teach people how to invest and mange money rather than how to bake a cake from scratch."

I concur with the Home Ec recommendation and I'd like to point out that personal accounts are explicitly set up to help low income earners get a higher return on their SS and to allow low income earners a chance to accumulate more wealth.  It's the essence of compassionate conservatism or put otherwise: using the market to help the poor.

raising the minimum wage hurts the poorest people, but darn if it don't feel good to claim that it helps.

Bush's political speeches leading up to the election he was promoting Ownership society stuff, of which PRA's were a part.

I saw him twice when he was compaigning in NH, and both times the majority of his speeches were on ownership society issues and other domestic plans (probably only 20% of the speech was spent on WOT/Security stuff).  The problem was that the media didn't cover the domestic agenda soundbites very well, and when Bush was given the opportunity to make his case to a larger stage (either the debates or other interviews) he didn't promote this stuff very much or well.

But the ideas and vision were there, Bush just didn't sell it well enough on the large scale, when he had the opportunity.

aren't going to help any, they are feel good and that is about it.

The problem for poor people is that don't have a lot of descretionary income to put towards savings.  One benefit of a PRA is that it would actually allow the poor people to own some of their wealth, and unlike SS, the taxes they pay in doesn't go into the governments coffers, if you die before you get to collect.  The PRA money can be left to your heirs.  

And from one of the posts above:

Means test.  There is no reason to offer multi-millionaires a small subsidy in their retirement.  Social Security functions like a welfare system; it's time to fund it like one.

I agree this would be an option, but it would turn SS into a welfare program, so why not just ditch the SS tax and make the SS payments out of the general budget.

Of course that means that the title social security was sold under (insurance program) has always been a lie, and I don't know that this will go over well with the AARP crowd anyway.

a choice of either receiving Social Security when they retire or getting a tax excemption of X number of dollars on 401K withdrawals?

option-at least in the original plan.  

I would have no trouble taking the social security taxes I pay and putting it into a retirement account.  I would prefer to do it that way as a matter of fact.

The Yahoo and other versions of this story note at the end that Bush is still firmly committed to private accounts but is encouraging all Senators and Congressmen to put out their proposals.  Go see blogsforbush for one example.

You willing to incur the trillions of dollars in transitional costs that would we would endure by transferring from a pay as you go system to a personal account system?

Even if we completely eliminated social security taxes and that entire 14% was given to the worker it is unrealistic to believe that the poor would do any thing other than spend their extra cash.

We would have a lot more working poor who may have a  new DVD player but would have ZERO money at retirement.

Re: the surveys that portend to show a lack of public support for PRAs:

(1) They tend to phrase the question with assumed negatives, such as "would you support PRAs while also increasing the retirement age/increasing debt/decreasing payouts".

(2) Polls are terrible at gauging the support of the electorate on many things. Eg, polls show support for universal healthcare, but when it comes to a vote, like Oregon, it goes down 2-to-1. Ppl interpret these polls in different ways, ppl are more motivated to answer them untruthfully (such as the Dem that says he doesn't support PRAs to hand a loss to Bush, but then votes for them at the ballot box anyways b/c he decides to give them a try), they are susceptible to signaling, etc...

Re: Bush's actual failings in getting PRA support:

(1) This administration's solvency rhetoric has been received badly b/c it isn't very coherent or consistent.

(2) Bush keeps trying, in the name of solvency, to raise the retirement age, cut benefits, increase taxes, or many other ugly ideas that don't need to be done for 15 years when benefits start to exceeed payroll taxes. Doing any of those cost saving measures now will just give Congress more money to spend. If we could count on Congress to not increase spending, but that those savings and increased revenues would be used to decrease the deficit, the public might be more foregiving.

If you just go for private accounts and none of this other junk, they are a winner. As it stands now, it looks like the absolute worst of all possible worlds is coming after us. We will get a cut in benefits, an increased retirement age, higher taxes (either in rate or cap changes), no PRA component, and no change in the way the excess SS funds are handled. When public support of Congress drops into to negative percentages (don't ask me how), Congress will think they did the right thing even in the face of public opposition, "securing SS for our future blah blah" junk, as if the public was just too stupid to know the right way to fix SS. Morons in Washington, almost all of them.

was set aside to be put into savings.

Just like they can take out money for medical savings accounts etc, there is nothing to stop a person from setting up an account to have the money withdrawn directly into.  

Self employed people would be an issue, simply because they write their own checks, but just like the US gov collects social security from them every April, they could do something similar.

Forced contribution into private accounts?

honestly I have no problems with a "put it in savings or spend it, but sink or swim when you hit 70" system.  Not that I am an old meanie, but I figure personal responsibility and all that (not to mention my religious beliefs tell me that it is actually my job to make sure my parents are taken care of in their old age, not the governments).

I don't think this is going to happen, and I don't see how congress would pass any kind of bill including PRA's if there wasn't some mandatory requirement.

Honestly some proffessions (ie pastors) are permitted to opt out of social security, and I am not sure if the Amish are required to pay (but I know they do not collect), but I see nothing wrong with programs that permitt people to opt into them (opt in and pay the tax, and collect your bucks, when you get old) or opt out (put some money into your own savings/retirement account and draw on it, when you retire).  

But in reality, I figure if the government passes a PRA type account, it is going to come with a mandatory requirement for the savings-be it in a private account, or the standard social security plan that we have now.

I think the PRAs are a necessary part of long-term Social Security reform and should be instituted, if not under President Bush, then under the next GOP president (i.e., whoever beats Hillary in '08 :)

However, I think it's completely irresponsible to transition to this system by adding to the 7 trillion dollar debt.

Maybe I'm an old fashioned conservative, but I still believe in making the tough choices in life.

Raise the retirement age to 70 for young people.  We're gonna live 'till 90 anyway; we don't plan to retire at 65.

Index benefits to prices instead of wages.  At least do this for retirees that can afford it.

Then, provide PRAs with a few, SAFE choices that people can't screw up.

Save Social Security.  Prevent economy-crippling tax increases.  Send the Democrats even further into extinction.

pincer maneuver to me.

Frontal attack: Bolton nomination

Right Flank: Stand alone bill offering PSA's

Left Flank:  Stand alone bill without PSA's

While the dems are busy obstructing and forever moving the goal posts regarding the Bolton nomination, move the two distinct Social Security issues forward with the goal of merging the two bills; effectively triangulating the dems within three separate debates with nothing on the table and nothing to offer but opposition.

1.  Let's repeat - free markets, free people.  Once again, free markets, free people.  Once again...
   
2. on a lighter note.  Here is a hillarious satirical post about Sen. McCain on "Meet the Press."

The guy has no shame, does he?

http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/6/21/962930.html

Of course, paying poor people more money hurts them, but giving them tax cuts (on the taxes they aren't paying) helps them!

In summary: more money for poor people = bad for poor people, whereas, more money for other people = good for poor people!

Not giving a dime until the get tough with the border and the war on terror.

how high should the minimum wage be?

There is a lot of research showing the effects of minimum wage increases as opposed to the intention behind them.  They lead to higher unemployment, especially among young workers.  In most cases, it is not that someone is fired, but rather that firms start hiring fewer workers.

Most minimum wage earners are making a higher wage within a year.  If you raise the min. wage, some of these jobs disappear and the first stepping stone toward a higher wage is denied.

Yes cutting taxes on income helps people more than raising labor costs.  Don't be so dense as to only see the positive (those who keep their job make a bit more immediately) without seeing the negative: fewer jobs and increased costs to small businesses.

It's a perfect example of a program that sounds good and is well intentioned but has rather unhelpful consequences.  Thus it is popular and poor policy.

Personally, I think it should be high enough to keep people out of poverty; properly adjusting it for inflation since 1968 would be great. In some places, they actually have laws on the books that ensure people can make what's called a 'living wage'.

everytime I go to set someone up........

:)

If anyone saw that 30 days show on F/X (I only caught a little of it and read a review of the rest) The premise of this episode was to move to a new city and try to live on minimum wage, and they actually had trouble getting a minimum wage job. It wasn't that they couldn't find a job, they couldn't get anyone to actually pay them minimum wage, it was too high. The guy took a job for $7/hour and the woman negotiated her wage DOWN....

Why stop there, should we make sure that everyone can live how they want to live? What is a living wage to someone, is not to another, Should we have different minimum wages for people who are married? Who have kids?

go so far as to have a baseline wage for, say, Peoria, then adjust that depending on regional cost of living differences, rent adjustments, etc.  I'd suggest we create a Ministry of Wage Normalization to handle the particulars, Comrade Citizen, D.

Living wage ordinances seems to be what your are talking about ("In some places"). Those are only for city contracts and employees, not a general wage floor for private business. They effect a miniscule part of the workforce. For example, a road construction contract probably wouldn't be touched by it even. They however do have the tendency to push out low-cost providers of services like the Salvation Army who try to employ unskilled workers.

I might agree with you if the minimum wage were raised so high as to actually be onerous -- it has not been, not even close. People making minimum wage are making less in real terms now than they were 50 years ago. Even a cursory look at the data shows that there is little or no correlation between the federal minimum wage and the unemployment rate.

However, when the federal minimum wage was at its height in real terms (unless otherwise noted, I am talking about inflation-adjusted minimum wage), unemployment was also at a record low. Also, unemployment seems to peak when minimum wage is falling. That having been said, minimum wage is usually falling, and unemployment tends to fluctuate a lot more than minimum wage does.

As for actual studies on the subject, I found this study to be quite informative.

P.S. The minimum wage rose in 1996-1997; unemployment fell; the sky did not.

It would seem that raising the minimum wage wouldn't have much of an effect on most people's wages, if the market is already paying people more. So what's the problem, again?

It isn't all federal; some states and cities do set their own minimum wages. Some cities even mandate a living wage.

If the goal is to prevent poverty, then ideally you would want to make sure that a larger household can make enough to survive--because our definition of the poverty line is dependent on the number of people in a household. However, I don't see a fair way of doing this using the minimum wage. However, the government does already make some allowances for married couples and children.

They would stimulate the economy more than those who would lock their extra money into tax-sheltered investments, and they would pay more into social security (which would then be mandated to give them more money at retirement).

Benjamin Zycher has been vice president for research at the Milken Institute for Job and Capital Formation in Santa Monica, Professor of Economics, UCLA and RAND, worked with the Pacific Research Institute and Cato among other things. His article blasts the CK survey for its lousy & sloppy research. Sorry, you need to try to find something better than that.

The most frequently cited, and seemingly most convincing, new study takes advantage of a "natural experiment" created when New Jersey raised its minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5.05 in April 1992. David Card and Alan Krueger of Princeton reasoned that since economic conditions ought not vary greatly between southern New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania, which are essentially a single economy, looking at employment trends in the two states ought to reveal the effects of the minimum wage.

Card and Krueger conducted telephone surveys of about 400 fast-food restaurants in February-March 1992, and then again in November-December 1992. They asked questions about full- and part-time workers, wages, benefits, and prices. From their statistical analysis of those survey data, Card and Krueger not only "find no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state," but "find that the increase in the minimum wage increased employment." Indeed, the Card/Krueger statistical analysis suggests that the 18.8-percent increase in the New Jersey minimum wage yielded a 20.8-percent increase in employment relative to the Pennsylvania sample.

One immediate problem is that the authors looked only at major fast-food chains: Elementary economic analysis does not say that if you increase the minimum wage, employment will go down in every business--or in any particular business. The higher minimum wage might have differing impacts across firms. Indeed, it is possible that the major fast-food chains might emerge better off if the increased minimum wage raises costs at such smaller competitors as mom-and-pop fast-food stands.

Moreover, the Card/Krueger study turns out to have a major flaw: The survey data upon which it depends are lousy.

Suspicious of the Card/Krueger data and findings, the Employment Policies Institute gathered the actual payroll records from the Burger King franchises in the Card/Krueger zip codes and compared them to franchises surveyed in those zip codes. The survey data were wildly inconsistent with the payroll records. (The payroll sample also includes some restaurants that Card and Krueger missed.)

Independently, David Neumark of Michigan State and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve noticed that the variation in employment changes across the surveyed restaurants in the Card/Krueger sample seemed implausibly large--some restaurants had supposedly added huge numbers of employees while others had supposedly cut large numbers. In relatively small businesses, this sort of fluctuation seemed odd.

So Neumark and Wascher reviewed the payroll employment data gathered by EPI. When they applied the payroll data to the same econometric model used by Card and Krueger, they got completely different results. The variation in employment changes declined markedly, and analysis of the new data yields an estimated 4.8-percent decline in New Jersey employment relative to the Pennsylvania sample as a result of the higher minimum wage. Where payroll data could be compared with survey data for specific restaurants, Neumark and Wascher also found numerous errors in the Card/ Krueger data.

Looking just at Burger King restaurants, for instance, the Card/Krueger survey data show employment declines in two of three Pennsylvania zip codes, while the payroll data show employment increases in all three zip codes. Neumark and Wascher conclude that the questions used by Card and Krueger were too vague to generate precise information. For example, the survey asked how many "full-time" and "part-time" employees a restaurant had. But it didn't define either those terms (40 hours a week? 30?) or the relevant time period (within the last week? month? year?), leaving different restaurant managers to define the question differently. In short, using the actual payroll data instead of the survey "guesstimates" effectively refutes the Card/Krueger findings yielded by the New Jersey/Pennsylvania "natural experiment."

to PRAs (among the public not the politicians) is coming from people in the middle age range. The concern (which at 38 I share) is that they would be unable to save enough in their remaining working life to make up for a cut in SS benefits. I would therefore suggest a much longer phase-in period. For people under 30 PRAs and reduced SS benefits would become the rule. Those over 30 should be given an irrevokable choice: either a PRA (with cut SS benefits) or full Social Security with its current structure. In addition rules on IRAs need to be liberalized. A higher limit (maybe 5K/yr not 2K) and elimination of the rule that limits them to persons not covered by a workplace retirement plan.

I am strongly in support of states handling their own min. wages.  If they decide that lower employment with higher wages for those who are employed at min. wage is a good deal, so be it.  But please stop forcing OK to follow NY and CA and DC in their effort to compete with European unemployment levels.

the people making the minimum wage would still be in poverty and still be poor, because the cost of goods and services will increase.

Minimum wage increases are a feel good method of thinking you are doing something.

Not to mention-who actually lives off minimum wage?  

My husband managed a grocery store for several years, none of the stores he managed started even the brand new 16 year old off at minimum wage-they couldn't hire anyone for minimum wage.

Wages should be dictated by the market, not propped up in some feel good measure.

dictated by the market, not some artificial number handed down from on high by the federal government.

on who makes min. wage:

Over half (53 percent) are teenagers or young adults under the age of 23. More than half (54 percent) of these young workers live in families with incomes two or more times the official poverty level for their family size and 18 percent live in poor families. The average family income of these young workers is almost $50,500 per year. The average income for single young workers is $11,200. Over 63 percent are enrolled in either high school or college....

Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers move above the minimum wage within one year, and the median raise for those workers is over 10 percent. For full-time minimum wage workers, the median first-year raise is almost 14 percent. Entry-level jobs are not lifelong dead-end jobs. These jobs allow Americans to establish a track record of work that creates opportunities for better paying jobs....

Just 1.9 percent, or 404,000, of the 20.8 million poor Americans over the age of 15 would be affected by an increase in the minimum wage to $6.65 per hour....

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the potential job losses associated with an increase in the minimum wage to $6.65 at roughly 200,000 to 600,000 jobs...

Read the whole article, it is all based on census survey data.  This is feel good legislation that mainly helps teenagers earn more while destroying 100,000s of jobs.  It hurts small businesses most and knocks out the first step in the employment ladder.  If you want to fight poverty, help enact school vouchers and other programs that help improve the education of lower income individuals.  Raising the min. wage is good politics and bad policy.

"either a PRA (with cut SS benefits) or full Social Security with its current structure."

That is the choice right now in all PRA proposals I've seen.  They are voluntary personal retirement accounts.  Much of the elderly opposition goes away when one includes the word voluntary.

Rasmussen:

When we ask about a plan for personal accounts that would give workers a choice and fully protect those over 55, the numbers shift dramatically--51% in favor and just 27% opposed. That represents a net change of 32 percentage points (from minus 8 to plus 24).

Although it is likely that the retirement age is going to be raised again with any plan, so you will probably still have a good 30 years of savings, in an opt in for PRA's.

I'm not surprised that a conservative think-tank would decide that it'd be in our (their) best interests to pay poor people less whenever possible; fine, let the think-tanks fight it out.

The data is from the census.  If you want to raise the min. wage, fine.  But at least own up to the fact that most people don't live on a min. wage, that it is mainly teenagers getting their first step on the job ladder, and that small business owners do have to change their hiring when they are forced to pay more for labor.  There is no such thing as a free lunch.  Acknowledge the negatives and then one can weigh them against the positives.  If there were no negatives, why don't we raise the min. wage to $100/hour?

that minimum wage laws are largely ineffectual because they don't apply to many people but they destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs?

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  If 2/3 of the people see a 10% increase within a year of working at the job then raising the minimum wage 10% is not going to have much impact postiviely or negatively.

I would like to know what type of business is severely hurt by minimum wage laws.  The claim by the Right is small business,  which is always a crowd favorite.  

The snippet you provided doesn't make any sense.

If there are only 400,000 jobs that would be affected by a minimum wage hike how it is possible that 600,000 jobs would be lost?   I also think it is a little disingenous to use a 30% hike in minimum wage as your example when it is unlikely that such a hike would occur, at least in one shot.

The 30% raise is what is being pushed on Capital Hill.  Please read the whole thing before posting questions.  This time, I'll do the research for you.

"If there are only 400,000 jobs that would be affected by a minimum wage hike how it is possible that 600,000 jobs would be lost?"

No one said only 400,000 jobs would be affected.  Only 400,000 poor people would be affected.  One of the problems with raising the min. wage is that you help a few poor people (1.9% of people under the poverty line) while raising the wage of a bunch of teenagers, part-time workers, and others in households that are not in poverty.  It's amazingly inefficient in helping the poor in that respect.

Then when you destroy 600,000 jobs in the process, it becomes a little suspect whether it was worth giving a bunch of 16-year-old middle class kids a raise in their starter job.

"That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  If 2/3 of the people see a 10% increase within a year of working at the job then raising the minimum wage 10% is not going to have much impact postiviely or negatively"

It makes no sense because of the way you are looking at it.  Most people on min. wage get a promotion, a raise, or switch jobs within a year.  Then other new workers start at the same place at the minimum wage and move on within a year.  Take a normal fast food place.  (Note: I'm making up these numbers)  Say half the workers are teenager who are on their first job.  Most don't stay a full year.  Those who do generally get a raise and the shining star becomes an assistant manager with a big raise.  Now a year later, a new crop of new young workers start at the min. wage.  Repeat.

The biggest misconception with the min. wage is that most of its recipients are full-time, life-long min. wage earners.  This is the misconception that "Nickle and Dimed" is promoting.  The writer doesn't stay anywhere long enough to get a raise and when she changes jobs she pointedly tries to get a min. wage job.  Yeah, if we act irrationally, we're going to be poor forever.  Most people (and almost all hardworking people) would stay at a job long enough to move up or would switch jobs if a new one came along that paid more.  That's how the market signals where one's skills will best be used and are most needed: where wages are higher.

Finally, "that minimum wage laws are largely ineffectual because they don't apply to many people but they destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs?"

I'm saying they don't mainly affect poor people so raising them sounds good but doesn't help dent poverty (which I presume is the goal).  Other means have a greater effect on poverty, especially school vouchers, PRAs for social security, low taxes, and other educational opportunities.  Min. wage is good politics and bad policy.

I don't want to get into a debate about the minimum wage because I actually think it is minor point that gets far too much political coverage.

But I will respond to this....

Other means have a greater effect on poverty, especially school vouchers, PRAs for social security, low taxes, and other educational opportunities.  

This is pure dogma.  School vouchers MIGHT be beneficial to the poor but they could be terrible if implemented improperly and the risks of improper implementation are significant.  I'm not against them but to claim that they would noticeably effect poverty requires a faith not based in reality.

PRAs for Social Security will, in themselves, do absolutely nothing to help the impoverished.   It is questionable what PRAs would gain over the current system given the almost certain risk limiters that would be put into place.

Campaign slogans aside, Republicans have a long way to go before they are credible advocates for the poor. As it stands, people with income under $30,000 largely favor Democratic candidates. Why would Republican politicians champion the issues of strongly Democratic voters? Its clear from the 2004 election, that the richer you are, the more likely you are to be Republican, and while 'Compassionate conservativism' may be soothing to the middle-class evangelical voters, in practice, Republican proposals to combat poverty depend on making sure that the upper classes benefit.

"If there were no negatives, why don't we raise the min. wage to $100/hour?" I never said that there were no negatives... go up three posts and try to read what I actually do say for once.

Anyhow, FWIW, it's similar to the situation with the Laffer curve; for example: obviously 0% and 100% taxation don't work, and the optimum point lies somewhere in between, so--the proper retort to "we should raise taxation to optimize revenues" is not "If raising taxation is so good, then why not raise it to 100%? You must be a Communist!", it is "at this point in the curve, you would have to lower taxation to optimize revenues".

just not making sense anymore. You originally had a point, it was wrong, you couldn't find any credible data to back it up, and when shown data that contradicts you ignore it. You should just stop while you are behind. (you would do well to learn the old adage that it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool, instead you have opened your mouth and removed all doubt)

Then we'll have to disagree on the substance, both of the data, and of my comments. Of course, I probably would have been a fool if I thought that you'd be persuaded; am I a fool for hoping some people here can keep an open mind about things, can study the data for themselves, have a basic level of reading comprehension, etc.? Well, if so, so be it.