Romney: Let’s raise the minimum wage

posted at 2:01 pm on May 9, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Alternate headline: Romney not running for President in 2016. Mike Barnicle braced Mitt Romney on the GOP’s demographic issues and its “conservative bent” on popular initiatives like immigration reform and a minimum-wage hike. Romney talks about the big tent of Republicanism, but notes that he supports a minimum-wage hike:

“I think we ought to raise it, because frankly, our party is all about more jobs and better pay, and I think communicating that is important to us,” Romney said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

In recent days, two of Romney’s former opponents, Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty, have also urged their part to raise the minimum wage.

Republicans are correct to aim toward blue-collar economics, especially after the debacle of focusing on the so-called “47 percent.” The minimum-wage hike, especially as proposed by the Obama administration, is the wrong way to go about it. The US has repeatedly hiked the minimum wage, and yet has ended up in the same position in regard to the percentage living in poverty anyway. Why? Because raising the minimum wage only temporarily boosts buying power, as prices rise and jobs erode in response to the higher costs it imposes.

In fact, as the CBO pointed out, the majority of the costs end up being borne by the poor the minimum-wage hike is supposed to help:

Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers

The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.

Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices.

If minimum-wage hikes solves problems of poverty and inequality, then we would have solved both of those issues decades ago. We have yet to see any evidence that they actually produce anything but an extremely short-term benefit, and mostly to those who don’t need it. (Amity Shlaes presented an argument this week that it actually made the unemployment situation during the Depression substantially worse.) Unfortunately, the GOP hasn’t done a very good job of pointing out the pitfalls of this policy, while Democrats mainly demagogue the point on “fairness.”

What kind of economic message should Republicans have? We need to focus on policies that expand opportunity, especially in the entrepreneurial arena. The massive decline of business births over the last several decades has curtailed the kind of job creation and economic expansion that puts pressure on labor markets to increase compensation. As I argued in my column for The Fiscal Times this week, that decline is a result of a massively-expanded federal regulatory regime that stifles start-ups while giving advantage to rent-seeking large players in markets:

The problem, therefore, is national, and must relate to regulatory or tax policy or a combination of both. During this period, though, taxes didn’t increase sharply for businesses, at least not until recently.  With few and temporary exceptions, though, the federal regulatory regime has only increased.  The Phoenix Center pointed out this implacable escalation in its April 2011 policy bulletin on regulatory expenditures.

As a share of private sector GDP, the federal regulatory burden has increased over the same period as this study. The Phoenix Center recommended at the time that even a small decrease in federal regulatory burden – just 5 percent, roughly decreasing the regulatory budget by less than $3 billion – would generate an additional $75 billion in the economy and add 1.19 million new jobs to the private sector.

Instead, we passed Obamacare.

We have another indirect method to test this conclusion, too. Expanded regulation tends to favor larger and more established firms in a market, which have more resources and better economies of scale to deal with compliance issues. Sure enough, the Brookings Institution study found that kind of dynamism alive and well. “Whatever the reason,” the authors conclude, “older and larger businesses are doing better relative to younger and smaller ones.”

Instead of increasing costs on business and stifling even more jobs, the GOP should be aiming at cost and regulatory reductions, an expansion of energy production to lower costs even further, and streamlining the tax code to rid ourselves of the rent-seeking policies that offer unfair advantages to larger players. Republicans and conservatives should consider a more comprehensive and deliberate effort to rein in market consolidations on that basis, too. Anti-trust has always been more of a function of the other end of the political spectrum, but any effort to defeat crony capitalism has to aim at two targets: the reduction of centralized power in the public sector, and the reduction of centralized power in the private sector. Unless we’re serious about both, we’re not serious about ending crony capitalism, and we’re not serious about blue-collar economics.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

That’s why Rove and company are agitating for a Jeb Bush run – Presidental pedigree trumps all other NextInLine™ categories.

Not that they would be terribly disappointed with Santorum as the 2016 nominee – they will just do to him what they did to Angle and Mourdock.

Steve Eggleston on May 9, 2014 at 2:39 PM

Yeah. I mean, really their only problem with Santorum is that he’s the crazy guy on social issues and doesn’t have a last name Bush.

chris0christies0donut on May 9, 2014 at 2:46 PM

How did Mitt make money, if he is really that stupid?

widget on May 9, 2014 at 2:46 PM

You crazy, extremist trucons were soooo wrong when you called Romney a liberal.. He is severely conservative…//

melle1228 on May 9, 2014 at 2:48 PM

How did Mitt make money, if he is really that stupid?

widget on May 9, 2014 at 2:46 PM

His Dad was rich. Apparently bought him a spot in the Ivy School. Introduced him to a bunch of actually smart people. He rode their brains to riches apparently. Only thing I can think of.

astonerii on May 9, 2014 at 2:49 PM

This was a Headline thread this morning…oh well, another
azz beating for Romney this afternoon…way to go Mitt,
talking to the Mollusk on MSSh*tmypantsD

Here’s what is missing (and has been for years now) from
most Republican politicians when it comes to the Economy.

Where in the hell are the ones who tout the private Sector, and
releasing the Economic engine that is America??

Or don’t they exist anymore??

(I can think of one or two, MAYBE)

ToddPA on May 9, 2014 at 2:49 PM

I would vote to raise it some(not sure what amount) then have it automatically adjusted for inflation. that makes sense to me.

gerrym51 on May 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Mitt Romney last held elective office in January 2007.
He held a single elective office, for a total of four years in office, more than seven years ago.
He’s lost twice in general election races where his name appeared on the top of the ballot.

Sarah Palin last held elective office in July 2009.
She held three different elective offices, for a total of 12.5 years in office, less than five years ago.
She’s never lost in a general election race where her name appeared on the top of the ballot.

If she should go away, so should Mitt.

steebo77 on May 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM

looks and sounds to me like MITT is running.

gerrym51 on May 9, 2014 at 2:55 PM

the most electable.

dmacleo on May 9, 2014 at 2:55 PM

looks and sounds to me like MITT is running.

gerrym51 on May 9, 2014 at 2:55 PM

How he could be spouting stuff like this and think he has any better chance than he did in ’12 is beyond me. But that’s why I’m not a politician, I guess.

the most electable.

dmacleo on May 9, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Somewhere a little lost sarc tag is looking for a home.

gryphon202 on May 9, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Yesterday, we were given here at hotair the grim report that Gallop polling showed a drop in tea party support. Today, Gallop reports that Obama is UP to 47%. Wow, how amazing! Such a huge change. I bet Gallop will be reporting tomorrow that 95% are begging for Obamacare.

mobydutch on May 9, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Serving the globalists.

Murphy9 on May 9, 2014 at 3:00 PM

This is why Mitt can’t win, ever, on the national scene.

tomshup on May 9, 2014 at 3:00 PM

How did I know Mitt (That’s the House I’m running for the Senate) Romney would be all for this?

I’m still trying to figure out how you Capitulate your way to Victory?

jaydee_007 on May 9, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Romney: Let’s raise the minimum wage
posted at 2:01 pm on May 9, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Alternate headline: Romney not running for President in 2016.

Ed –
All joking aside, why would this mainstream, logical, and very defend-able position do any harm to a prez campaign?
As we’ve seen with Rand Paul, there will be more of this bursting of the right’s fantasy of what is assumed to be Republican orthodoxy.
Which means maybe they’ll have an actual shot.

verbaluce on May 9, 2014 at 3:07 PM

This just doesnt make sense if you understand economics even a little. Guess Romney is either an idiot who inherited everything he has or a complete political phony who says whatever his current political puppet master is telling him to say.

If its the latter, you would think 2012 would have taught him not to listen to political “advisors” anymore……so i guess we are right back to the former.

Romney is a political tool and a back bencher.

His incompetence is glaring. Romneycare is a disaster. Leaving him with what as a political resume?

Go back to insider deals and daddys connections. We have enough losers blabbering around the GOP.

alecj on May 9, 2014 at 3:13 PM

This is why electing a Romney is a bad idea.

When you elect a Republican like Romney, you get leftward economic policies which only a handful of Republicans fight against and only very far left Democrats fight against.

When you elect a Democrat who wants to push for the same policies, at least you get most of the Republicans fighting against him.

Baggi on May 9, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Let’s raise the minimum wage to $250 / hour

FUNemployment for all

J_Crater on May 9, 2014 at 3:17 PM

“I think we ought to raise it, because frankly, our party is all about more jobs and better pay, and I think communicating that is important to us.”

A minimum wage hike will increase the number of jobs, Mitt? On what planet?

Oh, wait, it’s about communicating that we think more jobs are important, as we ensure that there will be fewer jobs?

I still think Romney would have been a good President. But when I read nonsense like this….

Sigh.

ConservativeLA on May 9, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Let’s face it. The Fed needs some inflation to stop the recent deflationary trends.

J_Crater on May 9, 2014 at 3:18 PM

There’s a reason why we love Sarah Palin.

We never have to worry about her being an advocate for conservative values.

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM

But, but but . . . Republicans are completely different than Democrats!

(shakes head)

I’d go through Hell for a conservative candidate who wouldn’t pander. For the Repub nominee (who you just know is going to be a Romney-esque establishment type), I won’t even get up from the couch.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM

looks and sounds to me like MITT is running.

gerrym51 on May 9, 2014 at 2:55 PM

If Mitt runs again, and wins the primary. I am changing my voter affiliation to Democrat. There will be no hope for us ever having a two party system again anyways.

melle1228 on May 9, 2014 at 3:24 PM

There’s a reason why we love Sarah Palin.

We never have to worry about her being an advocate for conservative values.

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Or a serious candidate, either.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Ed –
All joking aside, why would this mainstream, logical, and very defend-able position do any harm to a prez campaign?
As we’ve seen with Rand Paul, there will be more of this bursting of the right’s fantasy of what is assumed to be Republican orthodoxy.
Which means maybe they’ll have an actual shot.

verbaluce on May 9, 2014 at 3:07 PM

A shot at what? A position in a Democrat’s cabinet? You cannot out left a leftist. Voters will vote for the shinier of the two turds.

melle1228 on May 9, 2014 at 3:25 PM

By the way, if any of y’all had read the post-mortem on Romney’s 2012 campaign, you’d know there was zero chance of him running again. At most, he’s angling for a job in the Republican administration — something like Jobs Czar or Economic Advisor.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:28 PM

If [Palin] should go away, so should Mitt.

steebo77 on May 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Deal.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:30 PM

At most, he’s angling for a job in the Republican DEMOCRATIC administration — something like Jobs Czar or Economic Advisor.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:28 PM

FIFY

melle1228 on May 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM

His Dad was rich. Apparently bought him a spot in the Ivy School. Introduced him to a bunch of actually smart people. He rode their brains to riches apparently. Only thing I can think of.

astonerii on May 9, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Don’t be asinine. Mitt’s not stupid. He’s just a pandering squish.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM

FIFY

melle1228 on May 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Heh. I gotta admit, you’re right about that one.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:32 PM

I would vote to raise it some(not sure what amount) then have it automatically adjusted for inflation. that makes sense to me.

gerrym51 on May 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM

I’m assuming you forgot the sarc tag. Either that, or you got lost on your way to DU.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Don’t be asinine. Mitt’s not stupid. He’s just a pandering squish.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM

ORCA and the badly mismanaged political campaign suggests he ain’t all that bright.

sharrukin on May 9, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Proof positive that big “Brains” in Washington have taken Mitt’s soul… I also thought maybe he was a smart business man. Boy, I thought WRONG! He just an ivestor that cares about returns.

Command economy works soooo well! (sarc) Screw the hourly pay, let’s go with an ANNUAL minimum Salary… that ‘ll fixer up!

One assumption of the classical model: Wages and prices are flexible. In essence, the prices, wages, interst rates are free to move to whatever the level supply and demand dictate (in the long run).

-west

mr_west on May 9, 2014 at 3:39 PM

If you offer me a certain amount of money for a certain amount of work, and I agree to provide that work for that much money, it’s nobody else’s business.

Abolish minimum wage.

Bat Chain Puller on May 9, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Yup.

And I’d like a unicorn for Christmas. With laser eyes and stealth hooves.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Shoot, as long as he’s going down that simplistic and misleading road he should have said raise the minimum wage to $45.00 an hour — then everybody will be doing well! Now that’s “better pay”!

otlset on May 9, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Romney has run a successful business before. He is more qualified at this than most people here.

weedisgood on May 9, 2014 at 3:42 PM

So now Republicans think a bad worker or newbie should make as much as someone who is finally making $15 an hour through hard work, dedication and 2o years of fifty cent annual raises?

Figures. More Republican attacks on their base.

It also means even less raises for the good proven workers ( aka Republicans ) in the future because the available money has to go to the slackers.

Buddahpundit on May 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM

There’s a reason why we love Sarah Palin.

We never have to worry about her being an advocate for conservative values.

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Or a serious candidate, either.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Mr. Splashman, we’re WAY past desiring a “serious” Republican candidate that’s not really a Democrat like Dole, Bush, McCain and Romney.

I’ve been waiting for a serious candidate since Reagan.

Any person coming down the pike will also be Palinized.

So, I’ll take the housewife from Alaska.

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Rino IDIOT.

TX-96 on May 9, 2014 at 3:44 PM

ORCA and the badly mismanaged political campaign suggests he ain’t all that bright.

sharrukin on May 9, 2014 at 3:36 PM

You think he had anything to do with implementing ORCA? And a lot of very smart people have imploded in campaigns; Obama is an example of the converse.

It should be obvious I’m no Romney defender. But lack of sheer brainpower is not his problem.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Hey Mitt – go away.

alanstern on May 9, 2014 at 3:45 PM

verbaluce on May 9, 2014 at 3:07 PM

Propagandist!

tomshup on May 9, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Never voting for mediocre again. That’s for sure.

RDE2010 on May 9, 2014 at 3:48 PM

So, I’ll take the housewife from Alaska.

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM

You’re welcome to her.

By “serious candidate”, I mean someone actually suited for the job of President. Palin isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination. But hey, she does a darn good rant on occasion, I’ll give her that.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Once again confirming my decision to not vote for him.

GOP, please nominate a fiscal conservative candidate.

Over50 on May 9, 2014 at 3:48 PM

He is more qualified at this than most people here.

weedisgood on May 9, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Link proof of that.

Schadenfreude on May 9, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Ed –
All joking aside, why would this mainstream, logical, and very defend-able position do any harm to a prez campaign?
As we’ve seen with Rand Paul, there will be more of this bursting of the right’s fantasy of what is assumed to be Republican orthodoxy.
Which means maybe they’ll have an actual shot.

verbaluce on May 9, 2014 at 3:07 PM

I’m not Ed, but I’ll answer…

Anyone with even a smidgen of common sense knows that raising the minimum wage will cause every business that employs them to raise the price of their products. Within a few years, they will be calling for another minimum wage hike because they can no longer make a living on entry level wages and still buy the products whose prices were just raised. You see this after EVERY SINGLE MINIMUM WAGE HIKE.

What did Albert Einstein say? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing time after time and expecting different results.

So why do you consider your insanity a “defendable position”?

Talk about living in fantasies…

dominigan on May 9, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Make it $12 an hour. That will reduce illegal immigration, food stamps and ACA subsidies.

cimbri on May 9, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Romney has run a successful business before. He is more qualified at this than most people here.

weedisgood on May 9, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Yes, let’s pay people 10 dollars an hour to operate a heavy duty calculator and give crappy customer service.

RDE2010 on May 9, 2014 at 3:50 PM

You think he had anything to do with implementing ORCA?

Since he was counting on it to bring him victory he would have to be an idiot not to spend some time with his so-called “Death Star”. That was a very poor management decision and very poor quality of personnel in charge. That was claimed as one of Romney’s strengths.

And a lot of very smart people have imploded in campaigns; Obama is an example of the converse.

It should be obvious I’m no Romney defender. But lack of sheer brainpower is not his problem.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:44 PM

A lot of very smart people aren’t even close to being as clever as they imagine. The 2008 economic meltdown was brought to you by some of the same economic geniuses that Romney pals around with.

sharrukin on May 9, 2014 at 3:51 PM

Say hello to your replacement.

DFCtomm on May 9, 2014 at 3:51 PM

Don’t be asinine. Mitt’s not stupid. He’s just a pandering squish.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Did not say he is stupid. He is incompetent and requires other people to accomplish for him.
His entire 2012 campaign is evidence that he is not that good of a manager. His overseeing of the defrauding of American taxpayers does it as well. Like I said, he got a free ride into the ivy schools due to daddy buying him in. His daddies riches made him friends with people with real skills. Those friends and him worked together. My guess is that without Daddy getting him automatic influence, he would be a moderately rich multimillionaire today rather than a couple hundred million dollars rich. Based on the evidence, Romney is not that good at managing anything.

astonerii on May 9, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Thank you RINO’s.

So….. who would you Squishes like to recommend for our next Presidential victory?

After all, that ‘Big-Tent’ ideology is a real proven winner isn’t it.

Augustinian on May 9, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Democrats and Republicans coming together to bring you a “jobs” program:

(1) Make employers buy expensive insurance policies for employees who work full time

(2) Increase minimum wage

Driving up the cost of labor is sure winner. What could go wrong?

gwelf on May 9, 2014 at 3:56 PM

This is why electing more republicans is a futile mission. We dodged a bullet with Romney. 4 more years of socialism is a lot better than 8

Brock Robamney on May 9, 2014 at 3:56 PM

It’s what I always suspected. A Romney presidency would not have stopped the bleeding, only slowed it down. The “grave digging” (money spending) would have continued to grow–only at a reduced RATE of increase.

I understand the RINO philosophy. To them, with a dumbed-down country, socialized by progressive education, progressive politicians, progressive church leaders and progressive court justices, the “Golden Rule” no longer applies. To use a wild west metaphor–the outlaws have already captured Dodge City and there’s no way to get back but if we “negotiate” and “make deals” with the outlaws maybe we can have “limited” law and order. Limited law and order, they reason, is better than no law and order at all. But, another way of putting it, anarchy delayed is still anarchy. And RINO socialism, albeit light weight compared the Democratic full version, is still socialism. And a slow death, vis-a-vis a fast death, is still death.

MaiDee on May 9, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Until the GOP gets serious about enforcing our immigration laws I’m just fine with raising the minimum wage.

The Chamber of Commerce wants to have its cake and eat it too. Allowing tens of millions of low-wage aliens to stay in this country legally distorts the value of labor, keeping it artificially low. Unless and until organic market forces are allowed to decide the value of labor, I’ve got no problem with upping the minimum wage.

As Republican and conservatives, we’ve got a knee-jerk reaction to the whims of Democrats, and for good reason too. But it’s not just Democrats who benefit by flooding the market with cheap labor and then keeping wages down. Amnesty-lovin’ Republicans are playing us for fools on this one, and until they get back to an honest game, they’re not getting support from me.

Murf76 on May 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Romney has run a successful business before. He is more qualified at this than most people here.

weedisgood on May 9, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Yeah, Bain. As I said before- my husband is a pilot for one of Bain’s lower companies, and that company has NO PROBLEM cutting costs.

Anybody who advocates for a raised minimum wage sucks as a business person, and no longer wants to be a serious one.

If the minimum wage, doesn’t effect the economy or job growth– why make it $10– Let’s make it $50 a hour.

melle1228 on May 9, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Make it $12 an hour. That will reduce illegal immigration, food stamps and ACA subsidies.

cimbri on May 9, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Yeah right, the Dems are going to cede the power they get over people in those programs.. BWWAAAAAHHHHHA

No, they will just raise the “poverty level” so $12.00 hour would just become the new threshold for those programs.

melle1228 on May 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM

So, I’ll take the housewife from Alaska.

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM

You’re welcome to her.

By “serious candidate”, I mean someone actually suited for the job of President. Palin isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination. But hey, she does a darn good rant on occasion, I’ll give her that.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:48 PM

So, who are your top two candidates for the GOP that have presidential gravitas?

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM

By “serious candidate”, I mean someone actually suited for the job of President. Palin isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination. But hey, she does a darn good rant on occasion, I’ll give her that.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Why is she not suited? What disqualifies her?

otlset on May 9, 2014 at 4:06 PM

Willard was completely comfortable with Leftist control in Massachusetts. He thrived on accomodating the Left. He only pushed back against the tiny group of powerless conservatives in MA. Wake up folks, business men in politics are not conservative. They are only concerned with a bottom line and statism can be used to further their business interests. Most business men do not believe in a free market economy. Willard is a weak at the knees plutocrat, nothing more.

vilebody on May 9, 2014 at 4:07 PM

business men in politics are not conservative. They are only concerned with a bottom line and statism can be used to further their business interests. Most business men do not believe in a free market economy. Willard is a weak at the knees plutocrat, nothing more.

vilebody on May 9, 2014 at 4:07 PM

I would qualify that somewhat. Small businesses tend to be what we know as traditional businessmen. Big business on the other hand is little different in outlook from big government. They buy influence and politicians so in some ways they are big government.

sharrukin on May 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Get rid of the 10′s of millions of illegal foreign invaders and minimum wage and employment will rise naturally, supply and demand actually works.

Stop importing legal foreigners by the millions as we do and the increases in wages and American citizens being employed will increase even faster. Once again, supply and demand works.

Too bad their are NO republican assumed candidates for president who advocate for American citizens over foreigners, illegal or legal, too much chamber of commerce bribe money in it for them.

NONE of the presumed republican field is against mass legalization of some sort and increasing legal immigration. Both positions are anti-American citizen, the biggest forms of corporate welfare and cronyism and renders ALL of them unworthy of our support.

Garyinaz66 on May 9, 2014 at 4:17 PM

I’m assuming you forgot the sarc tag. Either that, or you got lost on your way to DU.

I’m totally serious. what have we got now.the wage at one level then remains there for years and years until inflation has left it so far behind you get advocates for ridiculously high jumps.

I would NOT raise it to 10.10

maybe 8.50 then have auto adjusts for inflation.

this makes sense to me.

gerrym51 on May 9, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Heartache.

Louey on May 9, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Say, Mitt, how about touting some policies to increase the purchasing power of the dollar or bring down prices?

You know some sound and sane fiscal policy?

ajacksonian on May 9, 2014 at 4:21 PM

This is why electing more republicans is a futile mission. We dodged a bullet with Romney. 4 more years of socialism is a lot better than 8

Brock Robamney on May 9, 2014 at 3:56 PM

You are so right…electing more Republicans is a futile mission.

I finally warmed up to Romney by the time the Republican convention came around. The personal stories that came to light proved him to be a man of good of character…good enough to forgive Romneycare.

But today, Romney coming out with this wage hike and all other Republicans are silent about it.

I AM OFFICIALLY DONE WITH THE GOP.

Not sure what I’ll do other than voting on local issues.

Ted Cruz doesn’t have a chance against Washingtonians.

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Alternate headline: Romney not running for President in 2016.

Heh, so the folks here get told that Romney isn’t running and there’s still a melt down. Bunch of RINOs around here if you ask me.
:-)

V7_Sport on May 9, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Romney needs an ANAL transplant!

Obamatrix on May 9, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Romney: Let’s raise the minimum wage

Yeah, I remember him. His supporters here would verbally skewer you if you so much as mentioned the likes of Sarah Palin.

You own him.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 9, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Why can’t they just stop withholding income and social security? Take home pay is raised, and prices don’t have to rise.

Racistanyway on May 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM

This is why electing more republicans is a futile mission. We dodged a bullet with Romney. 4 more years of socialism is a lot better than 8

Brock Robamney on May 9, 2014 at 3:56 PM

You have mentioned that once or a million times. Thankfully, the rest of the population is getting fed up with the democrats so you making yourself irrelevant is becoming OK again. You ought to get a sandwich board and take your act on the road. Maybe ring a bell and yell “the end is nigh”!

I AM OFFICIALLY DONE WITH THE GOP.

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 4:22 PM

You need more caps to add Gravitas. Maybe a string of exclamation points.

V7_Sport on May 9, 2014 at 4:35 PM

You need more caps to add Gravitas. Maybe a string of exclamation points.

V7_Sport on May 9, 2014 at 4:35 PM

G R A V I T A S

G R A V I T A S

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, that’s better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are so smart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wish I had thought of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m so unworthy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That’s the smartest comment on this blog since joana.!!!!!!

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM

This is getting tiresome.

Why don’t we just cut to the chase and institute a “national wage”? Everyone will be paid the same amount regardless of what they do. Naturally, that amount will be fixed by the all singing all dancing Federal Government.

It’s the only “fair” solution.

Of course our Lords and Masters in DC, and their corporate cronies, will make more, much more, and have Dachas in all the best places; but that’s fair too since they’re better than us.

Can we be done with the Union already? It’s not working anymore.

wkh on May 9, 2014 at 4:48 PM

G R A V I T A S

G R A V I T A S

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, that’s better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are so smart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wish I had thought of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m so unworthy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That’s the smartest comment on this blog since joana.!!!!!!

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM

You sure showed me.

V7_Sport on May 9, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Not sure what I’ll do other than voting on local issues.

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 4:22 PM

May I suggest, work for the dissolution of the Union?

wkh on May 9, 2014 at 4:51 PM

May I suggest, work for the dissolution of the Union?

wkh on May 9, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Please expand on that idea. How?

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Please expand on that idea. How?

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Like Tim McViegh?. He was done with representative politics as well.

V7_Sport on May 9, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Not much of a surprise really. Mitt during the third and final debate. “I agree with President Obama.” Not just once mind you, but several times. I’d say he in fact does agree with 0 most of the time.

Bmore on May 9, 2014 at 5:02 PM

This sort of stupidity is exactly why Romney lost.

He’s a RINO, he thinks you can compromise with liberals, if he has any conservative principles they are not evident, and he thinks raising the minimum wage will be good.

Earth to Romney; if you raise the minimum wage, you dramatically reduce the number of people who can enter the work force at the entry level. And simultaneously you encourage companies to reduce their work force in order to remain profitable. What part of that do you not understand??????????????????????????????

When I was a young Marine 2nd LT in Vietnam, I earned about $400 every two weeks or $800 a month. And while fighting for my country, I had to pay taxes on that amount even though I wasn’t using a single benefit those taxes were paying for in the US. On the other hand, the enlisted did not have to pay the taxes on their salary while in Vietnam.

True, they made less than me and they deserve a bigger break. But we were all on the same patrols, stepping on the same mines, in the same fire fights, and each one of us was wondering if we’d see the next sunset or sunrise every day for a year. How did that make us somehow unequal?

I’m not upset about paying taxes while in combat. I support every break the enlisted man gets. But equal risks (whether on the front lines or in support)should result in equal treatment. The Marines in the rear all deserved recognition as much as the Marine in the rice paddy–at least that’s my opinion. Without their support me and my Marines would all be dead.

Sorry for the rant.

There is a huge amount of hypocrisy here. Why should burger flippers get more per hour than the soldiers defending this country? Remember that all military are on duty 24×7 for 365 days a year and subject to the whims of the President and/or Congress to give their lives for their country. Even after you retire you are subject to being called up in time of war–regardless of how many wars you already fought.

BMF on May 9, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Melle, that’s a non-serious argument, one oft repeated here. You have to balance the increase vs any negative ramifications. Obviously you cannot increase the min wage to $50 an hour.

cimbri on May 9, 2014 at 5:22 PM

Please expand on that idea. How?

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Like Tim McViegh?. He was done with representative politics as well.

V7_Sport on May 9, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Blowing up random people is an abhorrent thought, so that’s out.

Here in Ft. Worth, husband and I go to the shooting range twice a month and own 17 shotguns and a shed full of other stuff.

Actually, I’m ready to go postal but imprisonment is a deterrent for me.

So, I’m back to square one.
It’s Jeb Bush or anarchy by an old lady in downtown Ft. Worth. UGH!

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 5:26 PM

Romney talks about the big tent of Republicanism, but notes that he supports a minimum-wage hike:

For once I agree with Romney.

shubalstearns on May 9, 2014 at 5:44 PM

And *this* is why he didn’t win. Because he never was conservative (except compared to the communists that normally run MA).

GWB on May 9, 2014 at 5:45 PM

I think this is a great idea, but it doesn’t go far enough. The minimum wage should be $50 per hour. At 35 hours a week (40 less five for lunch) and a 50-week year (two weeks of vacation), we could guarantee everyone $87,500 a year. That’s more than I make now. And to think, I can make it working the cash register at the local Piggly Wiggly.

/s

NY2SC on May 9, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Why do we need a national minimum wage at all.

States and Cities are adopting their own minimums.

I like that better.

Deafdog on May 9, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Mitt’s epitaph:”There is no there there”..

Watch the documentary of Mitt as he falls apart before your eyes during the 2012 campaign. His family desperately trys to shore up this wreck of a man. At least Boehner drinks to excess.

kingsmill on May 9, 2014 at 6:16 PM

By “serious candidate”, I mean someone actually suited for the job of President. Palin isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination. But hey, she does a darn good rant on occasion, I’ll give her that.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:48 PM

So, who are your top two candidates for the GOP that have presidential gravitas?

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM

By “serious candidate”, I mean someone actually suited for the job of President. Palin isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination. But hey, she does a darn good rant on occasion, I’ll give her that.

Splashman on May 9, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Why is she not suited? What disqualifies her?

otlset on May 9, 2014 at 4:06 PM

I’d love to hear this as well and what makes said candidates more qualified, but it appears that your questions chased him/her away.

kim roy on May 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Of course we should raise the minimum wage. How much? We should get into a bidding war with them. Drive it on up, way up. The Democrats must win the bidding, so they’ll really get it up into stupid territory, like $20-25.

Automation is good. Unemployed Democrats is good. Minimum wage earners not getting food stamps and a plethora of other federally funded goodies for the ‘poor,’ including Obamacare subsidies, is good.

The higher the minimum wage, the more automation in America. In short order our economy will be functioning more efficiently than any other in the world.

Sure, there will be millions more unemployed Democrats, but since the Democrats will win the bidding war, we can still blame it on them.

Just to sweeten the pot for libertarians and those who love federalism, let’s say the States have to either go along with the federal minimum or they can’t have a minimum wage at all!

That’ll teach ‘em good.

fadetogray on May 9, 2014 at 6:29 PM

I’d love to hear this as well and what makes said candidates more qualified, but it appears that your questions chased him/her away.

kim roy on May 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Splashman might be over on the other depressing Rand Paul thread.

It’s about the same as this one…we’re skrood by the Republicans and it won’t be fixed legislatively…ever.

With McConnell, Boehner, Romney, Rand Paul, etc. coming out so brazenly with immigration, no Obamacare fix, hourly wage increase, means they know they are invincible.

Typicalwhitewoman on May 9, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Ed –
All joking aside, why would this mainstream, logical, and very defend-able position do any harm to a prez campaign?

verbaluce on May 9, 2014 at 3:07 PM

It’s not really defensible except from a left-populist standpoint. A minimum wage is a price floor on labor; price floors cause supply (labor) to exceed demand. Thus, unemployment.

ddrintn on May 9, 2014 at 6:55 PM

I think this is a great idea, but it doesn’t go far enough. The minimum wage should be $50 per hour. At 35 hours a week (40 less five for lunch) and a 50-week year (two weeks of vacation), we could guarantee everyone $87,500 a year. That’s more than I make now. And to think, I can make it working the cash register at the local Piggly Wiggly.

/s

NY2SC on May 9, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Exactly.

ddrintn on May 9, 2014 at 6:57 PM

I could live with the “pragmatic” establishment GOP if they were not stupid. This is so stupid it is no different than some of the dumb stuff Todd Akin said. That is what annoys me most about the establishment picks, fine you sound pragmatic, but that does not overcome being stupid.

William Eaton on May 9, 2014 at 7:13 PM

May I suggest, work for the dissolution of the Union?

wkh on May 9, 2014 at 4:51 PM

What? They’ve won, and if they can govern then we’ll thrive, but if they can’t then it will collapse. You don’t have to work at anything. Let the winners institute their agenda, and if it doesn’t work then that part of the problem will take care of itself.

DFCtomm on May 9, 2014 at 7:14 PM

Also Mitt…what is the point of voting GOP…might as well go whole hog and vote Dem. Maybe conservatives can influence the Dems from the inside more than we can the country club GOP….

William Eaton on May 9, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Strike 1: I was for abortion, before I was against it.

Strike 2: I can do Socialized HealthCare. You can do it too!

Strike 3: Let’s raise minimum wage like the Dems say we should.

Go find a nice quiet spot and retire Mitt. You’re ridiculous and you add nothing to the discussion. Let the adults handle this.

portlandon on May 9, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Sit down and shut up, Romney, you repeat loser!

Remember what your son said about you.

Sherman1864 on May 9, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Frankly, my biggest problem with a minimum wage is how inflexible and glacial it is. Basically, I think that they really ought to find a wage that everyone can live with, then index it to the rate of inflation.

Also, there should be an emergency panic button in cases of rapid deflation.

Also also, there should be more exemptions for minimum wage.

Also also also, yes I realize that in an ideal world we shouldn’t need crap like this, and in certain ways it probably does more harm then good. However, for now we’re stuck with it, so I don’t see any problem with searching for ways to marginalize the issues with a minimum wage.

Also also also also, Kudos to anybody that can think up a way to get the minimum wage out of the hands of congress. It’s frequent use as a political football is likely it’s single biggest flaw.

WolvenOne on May 9, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Pathetic … Economic Genius according to the RINOs.

GFY, Mitt.

ShainS on May 9, 2014 at 8:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3