Connecticut Minimum Wage Increase

So, as you may or may not have heard, the Connecticut House has overridden one of Governor Rell's vetoes, regarding a law to raise the Connecticut minimum wage from $7.65 an hour to $8.00 an hour, taking effect on January 1, 2009. The vote was razor-thin, as 102-39 voted to override, and 101 were needed.

Now I'm not claiming to know much about economics. I don't know if this minimum wage increase is going to help the economy rebound by helping employees, as its proponents claim, or if it will hurt small business owners, as Rell and others claimed. I won't take sides on the economic theory side of the issue.

On the human side of the issue, I am very glad that this law was passed. From a personal perspective, of course I would be, because I'm a teenager earning less than $8.00 an hour, so this will increase my income next year. But on a grander scale, I think that this increase will help a lot of people. And no, I don't mean the teenagers working summer jobs so that they can have fun during the school year. I'm talking about the working poor of Connecticut. According to some state sites, there are about 65,000 people in Connecticut who earn less than $7.65 an hour. Adding to this the amount of people who earn less than $8.00 an hour, and will be helped by the increase, there are a substantial number of people earning minimum wage to try and make ends meet. Imagine trying to support a family, or even yourself on $7.65 an hour. We did the math in my English class last year, and even supporting yourself is difficult.

Whether or not it will help the economy as a whole, I am glad that this law was overridden by the House, as it will help a lot of individuals. However, please not that this has not yet been passed, as it still must be overridden by the Senate. But the Courant predicts that it will be, and I trust that their knowledge of our state Senators' voting tendencies is sufficient to assume that this will be passed into law.

http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/2008/06/articles/legislative-issues/update-conn-house-overrides-veto-in-minimum-wage/
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0285.htm

Republicans Ready To Fight

I will be the first to admit that I have been one of Senator Obama's greatest supporters throughout his entire struggle with Senator Clinton and the ongoing war of words with Senator McCain. But with that being said, I will also be the first to acknowledge that a candidate has made a mistake. Lately, it appears Obama has been waffling on core liberal issues and values. Maybe I have just been watching too much CNN, but seeing as the Senator's blog has been littered with negative commentary the past few weeks, I do not believe I am the only one who sees it.

For example, the Iraq war. One of Obama's key principles has been that if elected, he will have all American soldiers pulled out within the first 16 months of his presidency. We have heard it thousands of times. But lately, all of this has been called into question. Senator John McCain said that Obama's remarks on Iraq "have left a significant question as to exactly what he intends." But, despite the growing concerns, Obama denied any suggestion that he was shying away from his proposed 16-month phased withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq, calling it "pure speculation" and adding that his "position has not changed."

We all know that whenever a Democratic nominee makes a seemingly innocuous comment on a key issue, the Republican hounds come out in full force. Instantly, the Republican National Committee sent out a chain email stating that Obama was attempting to back out of his own policy of withdrawing troops within 16 months. But ex-presidential nominee John Kerry, who himself know a little something about the Republican Machine (anyone remember Swiftboat?), was there to back up Senator Obama:

The Republicans, and John McCain specifically, are trying desperately to get away from the reality of John McCain's position, which is that he has a plan for staying in Iraq and Barack Obama has a plan for getting out of Iraq...[Obama's position] has not changed whatsoever in his fundamental determination to end the war.

In the end, I have come to the realization that I overreacted. At some point, Obama would have to change from the saint that he was once viewed as to a true politician, and this has been a difficult transformation for me. But even if Obama does add a few months to his 16 month withdrawal, anything is better than McCain's plan for 16 years or 16 decades or even 16 lifetimes. 

How Kennedy's Situation Affects the Senate

I'm sure most of you have heard by the time that you're reading this that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has been diagnosed with a malignant glioma (brain tumor) in his left parietal lobe. The prognosis for the condition that he has is anywhere from less than 1 year to live to five years to live (under the best circumstances). For a man of Kennedy's age, such a diagnosis seems to be fatal at some point.

Red & Blue's prayers go out to Sen. Kennedy and his family. Ted's oldest brother Joe died during World War II, and his two other brothers, John and Robert, were both assassinated in the 60's. This family has seen more tragedy than most, so we can only hope that they will be able to deal with this situation and stay strong at Teddy's side. Either way, it seems as though the Lion of the Left may be on his last legs.

Ted Kennedy has been serving in the Senate since 1962, which makes him the second longest serving member of the current Senate, behind President pro-tem Robert Byrd, who is 90 years old. Kennedy was re-elected to a new 6-year term in 2006 and won't be up for re-election again until 2012. So now we need to look at the question, what happens if he cannot complete that term?

If Sen. Kennedy retires or dies in office, Massachusetts law requires that a special election be held to fill the seat somewhere between 145-160 days after he leaves office. That means for a minimum of 145 days, his seat will be vacant. Under the current composition of the Senate, the Democrats and Republicans both hold 49 seats. There are two Independent Senators, Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who both caucus with the Democrats. This gives the Democrats a VERY slim 51-49 majority within the senate, especially considering the fact that Dick Cheney, a Republican, would vote to break ties if there were a 50-50 split in the Senate.

So, should Ted leave the senate, for 145 days, the Senate would be 50-49 Democratic advantage. They would keep the majority, but barely. If in the special election, a Republican wins the seat, the Senate will suddenly be split 50-50, and the Republicans will have the majority as long as a Republican stays in the White House.

The composition of the Senate is already shaky for the Democrats, considering the fact that one of the Independents they NEED to retain majority is supporting John McCain in the upcoming election, and seems to be showing even more Republican tendencies as time goes by. I am talking of course about Joe Lieberman. If he were to change his mind and caucus with the Republicans, the Senate would be split 50-50. It is almost assured this won't happen, since it would be political suicide for Lieberman in Connecticut, but the possibility remains.

Either way, Kennedy's situation greatly affects the Senate, and you can be sure people will be watching what happens to him very closely, especially President Bush. But Kennedy is a fighter, and considering his loyalty to the Democratic party, and how much his seat means to the party, you can be certain he won't be resigning any time soon.

Kyle: You have to keep in mind, though, that Kennedy represents Massachusetts, one of the most consistently Democratic states in the nation. Currently, all 10 Congressmen are Democrats, as well as Kennedy and Junior Senator John Kerry, and it is well known as a liberal bastion. It seems unlikely that a Republican would be able to win a Senate seat in this political environment, so I think the more serious issue here will be the loss of Kennedy as a leader in the Senate and in the Democratic Party.

Bonehead of the Week: Representative Don Young (R-AK)

I don't know if you guys have seen the news lately, but apparently the Senate is launching a federal investigation into an earmark that was altered after it was passed by congress but before it was signed by the President. The earmark was originally part of a highway funding bill that was approved for one specific part of a Florida highway and was worth $10 million.

After the bill was approved by Congress, apparently Rep. Don Young (R-AK) changed the wording of the bill to send those $10 million to another part of Florida's interstate, "Coconut Road." His spokesperson said that "It was an error [in the bill]. It was originally supposed to say Coconut Road so he changed it."

Now, with all due respect to Rep. Young, and not even considering the fact that somehow he has enough money or even feels the need to hire his own representative spokesperson (hmm isn't he supposed to be a representative of the people) you can't just go around altering bills after they have been approved by Congress. You might be thinking that its harmless for a Representative to go in and fix an error within a bill, but its really not.

This isn't a matter of fixing a mistake, it's a matter of rules, customs, and what is fundamentally right and wrong. How can a congressman have enough independent authority to alter a bill before it reaches the President without anyone finding out. What if that representative had said "the bill was supposed to say $100 million, so I changed it." That congressman is then assuming that everyone would have voted the same with a $90 million increase, which is patently false. Who knows if this bill would have passed if those voting had known the money was going to "Coconut Road."

In essence this guy was acting as his own Congress. He took something that was passed, re-wrote it, then felt that he had the authority to then re-pass that legislation, all by himself. DUDE! YOU CAN'T DO THAT!

Sorry I had to speak in layman's terms there, but it's just so dumb that this guy could break the rules so blatently, and then not even feel as if he had broken the rules at all. What if someone did that and approved more money to fund the Iraq war, to fund a terrorist organization, to fund the KKK? He thinks he's "fixing" the bill, but I think he's the one that needs the fixing. Eh, whatever, we can't expect all of our representatives to have read the Constitution right?

righhhhttttt (sarcasm)

The Fight Goes On, and On, and On, and On....

We've had a little break in the primary action as of late, and its given me a chance to take a step back and think about what's really going on in the Democratic Party right now.

Two very unique candidates are battling it out for the right to run for President, not the right to BE president, but just to have the chance to run. They are spending millions upon millions of dollars, making 4-5 speeches per day, traveling all across the country, giving countless interviews, and having their entire lives recorded by the national media. Why are they doing all this? Why would they subject themselves to such sucky conditions? Why won't one of them just give up already?

We haven't seen a primary election cycle like this in decades. These two really couldn't be closer right now, whether it be in the public opinion (Hillary now holds a small lead in national polls) or delegate count (which Barack currently controls). They both think that they have the people on their side, like they are what is right for this country. What they don't realize is that they are slowly destroying their chances at a victory in November, when it really counts.

As the democrats have been fighting it out for months and months in the primaries, in the media, John McCain has been rallying the troops, securing the base. The democrats are attacking each other and convincing America that the other isn't right for the job, while John McCain is convincing everyone that he is right for the job. All I've seen lately covering the race is negative press regarding each of the democrats, press that the American people are reading and keeping in the back of their mind, information they will remember in November.

The Republicans have the right idea. They came together and selected a candidate early, and now all he has to do is secure all of those Republican votes, with no one within his own party trying to prove he's an idiot, or incompetant. Even worse for the democrats, no one in the Democratic party is focusing on McCain either. They are devoting so much time to the primary election that they have lost sight of their ultimate goal, to put a democrat in office. And this isn't necessarily a fault of Democratic America, they just can't make up their damn minds.

It is time to make a decision. This needs to come to an end. If the American people can not choose between the two, then Democratic leadership must. It is time to act, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore. It is time to pick which horse you're going to ride into the fall and kick the other one out. Only the Democratic Party leadership can (through private conversation) nudge one of these candidate out of the race, and they NEED to do it, if the Party has any chance of winning in November. If it doesn't happen directly after the Pennsylvania primaries in April, McCain will continue to gather support, and the democrats will continue to attack each other.

There's a saying I heard one time that "The Democratic party has a strange way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." Well, If the democrats can't make up their minds soon, this may be the case once again in 2008.

Heated FISA Debate Leads to Closed Session

The House of Representative has been debating proposed revisions to FISA and other Federal surveillance laws recently. After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush starting using the National Security Agency to track phone calls, emails, and all other types of communication of suspected terrorists outside the United States.

The problem is that the program allows this warrantless wiretapping to take place even if one of the communicating parties lies within the United States. Bush has argued that they aren't spying on the American people, just making sure that the government has intelligence of any suspected terrorist activity. Many are outraged, however, feeling that NSA overstepped its bounds and has violated the 4th Amendment and FISA, the federal surveillance legislation.

Anyways, the debate right now is whether to protect privately contracted communications companies who complied with Bush's wiretapping program from lawsuits by those who feel slighted. The Republicans feel as though the companies should be given "retroactive immunity" but many Democrats think the companies should be open to any type of lawsuit in order to protect the rights of the American people.

The debate has become so heated, that Republican Whip Roy Blunt asked for a closed session of congress to take place on Thursday, March 14th so that confidential information could be presented on the floor. Such a closed session has not taken place since 1983, and it means that the American people will not have any knowledge of what is going on inside the House chamber.

Call me crazy, but I think this might actually be a step in the right direction. How many citizens actually care about what House members are saying on the floor? What people care about is results, and if this closed session can lead to a resolution of the issue, I think people will be satisfied.

It's important that Congress remains connected with the people, but this is an isolated event, and since confidential information needs to be discussed, I really don't see any other option. A few Democrats are opposed to the idea of closing the House on Thursday (cough cough Kucinich) but for the most part, they agree that it needs to take place.

That being said, I'd really like to know what's being said in that historic session. Maybe I could call Bush and ask him to wiretap it for me. He'd probably go along with it. Who cares if it's illegal.

More on this to come as it develops.....

UPDATE!! The Democratic version of the bill passed in congress today. Those who were in the closed session last night are reporting that not much was accomplished in terms of moving towards a workable compromise. President Bush has already promised to veto the legislation, which follows the Democrats idea of not providing immunity to the communications compaines. Even in private, it seems like Washington can't get anything done these days....

Bush Vetoes Anti-Torture Bill

You couldn't make this up if you tried.

Today George Bush vetoed a bill that would prevent the CIA from using interrogation techniques many consider to be torture. One of the methods that the bill would have outlawed, waterboarding, includes strapping the prisoner to a board and pouring vast amounts of water into their breathing passages.

Bush said that the bill "would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror." Really, Mr. President? Torturing foreign suspects is a tool in your war on terror? To hell with the Constitution and morals of this country, right?

Both houses of Congress passed the bill, but as we all know, Bush knows best. We can only hope that Congress overrides the veto, but don't count on it.

John McCain-Superstar, or So He Thinks

John McCain kept President George W. Bush waiting at the White House Wednesday. Call me crazy, but that's just ridiculous. Granted McCain had won the Republican nomination for President the day before, but he kept the President of the United States waiting for him. Need I remind you John McCain that you are still just a Senator from Arizona. You are a war hero, an honorable guy I'm sure, but come on as a military man you should know all about respect. Show the Commander in Chief some. Sure, he's a lame duck. Sure, he's unpopular, but he's still the President. For once, I'm on your side George.