Please stop pandering on the minimum wage, Mitt
No doubt fearing that he is to be depicted as an out-of-touch plutocrat, Governor Romney is tepidly entering the federal giveaway sweepstakes. He will lose that contest. “A marginally better minimum-wage job” is not going to beat “a chicken in every pot,” especially when the chicken is eligible for federally subsidized health care, day care, Head Start, and the rest of the Democrats’ menu of welfare largesse. Instead of focusing on minimum-wage jobs, Governor Romney would do well to focus on creating the economic conditions that will allow the growth of better jobs: $45,000 a year and your self-respect does beat a chicken in every pot. From energy to services to manufacturing, the United States has the capacity to achieve strong economic growth and the jobs that go with it — if the regulators, the taxers, the spenders, and the would-be central planners can be brought to heel. Governor Romney should be beating them, not joining them.
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
You expect him to not pander? Have they not met Mitt Romney before?
Nethicus on February 9, 2012 at 11:44 PM
Telling Mitt not to pander is like telling the Pope to not be Catholic.
Well, I guess Obama could tell the Pope that, but otherwise you might be thought of as unreasonable!
Stoic Patriot on February 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM
Mitt and Obama have so much in common.
You’d think a conservative pretender at least knows better what to say.
Schadenfreude on February 9, 2012 at 11:50 PM
The minimum wage controversy is what birthed this side of Romney into the world.
The Nerve on February 9, 2012 at 11:50 PM
Hard to argue with this. I’m a reluctant Romney supporter, and I think Krauthammer nailed it the other day when he said Romney doesn’t understand the language of conservatism. Mitch Daniels isn’t exactly an exciting guy, but he dismantled Obama’s SOTU speech in 10 minutes. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to find a dynamic speaker able to explain conservatism in a persuasive way to run for president (and hasn’t been married 3 times or wander onto the Occupy reservation half the time, Newt people).
The Count on February 9, 2012 at 11:53 PM
Romney’s picture is next to Barack’s in the pandering hall of fame.
SouthernGent on February 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM
Why? It gives a bunch on conservative pundits to express their disappoint or even outrage over the federal minimum wage. Something all these pundits or “editors” know will never be repealed.
lowandslow on February 10, 2012 at 12:20 AM
One thing we should do is eliminate the minimum wage requirement completely for workers under 25 years of age. Minimum wage laws do more to increase unemployment and poverty than any other policy the government has ever introduced. It is ironic that minimum wage laws make the very problem they are intended to solve even worse.
crosspatch on February 10, 2012 at 12:37 AM
That’s right because you already have Santorum and Gingrich acting on it. Santorum voted to increase it 6 times and raise the debt ceiling 5 times. Gingrich has voted to raise it 2 times and the debt ceiling many more times.
ROMNEY IS THE CONSERVATIVE ALTERNATIVE TO OBAMA, NOT THE OTHERS.
Top_Down on February 10, 2012 at 12:49 AM
Man, they pay by the post!
astonerii on February 10, 2012 at 12:51 AM
but mitt is a… pander bear =)
Sachiko on February 10, 2012 at 2:09 AM
News flash: They’re ALL PANDERERS!
Badger40 on February 10, 2012 at 8:24 AM
Well, if they’re willing to act like cheap crack whores, they ought to at least get paid cheap crack whore rates.
swinia sutki on February 10, 2012 at 8:25 AM
I seem to be the only conservative who feels this way, but I don’t think inflation-indexing the minimum wage is necessarily a pandering bad idea.
Conservative economists generally agree that the minimum wage is bad economic policy, so if anyone thinks we will ever get rid of it, Romney’s idea is a bad one.
But I don’t think that. So the question then becomes — how do you minimize the damage that it does. Right now it does a lot of recurring political damage because every 2 years lefties can scream about how it hasn’t kept up with the cost of living, and other politicians get browbeaten into doing an ad hoc increase in it, often at the worst economic moment.
What I think NR misses here is that if the minimum wage is inflation-indexed, it gradually becomes less relevant economically, because over time national per-capita wages grow faster than inflation, so an inflation-indexed minimum wage will gradually distort a lower percentage of total wage income.
If we could solve the recurring political problem of the minimum wage, give extra certainty to employers, while still putting it on a path to reduced distortive effects, I’m receptive to that. I can see the argument against it (as in, why agree to enshrine a stupid policy), but I can also see a good argument for it.
Chuckles3 on February 10, 2012 at 8:43 AM
Except, who determines the index rate? Now all the pandering and vote-buying moves from the legislative floor (where they are accountable) to a bureaucracy (who isn’t accountable, and can hide their machinations).
GWB on February 10, 2012 at 9:40 AM