http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070112-120720-2734r.htm On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour. The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws. One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.
While I won't excuse her behavior if this is the case, why on earth would she need the Tuna lobby? Her district is more safely Democrat than gold at Fort Knox.
Marek, I did a search for all the threads you started to complain about when Jack Abramoff was lobbying on behalf of the industries based in the Northern Mariana Islands to prevent the minimum wage from being implemented there. I didn't find any. So I'm thinking that you're not actually concerned about the good folks of American Samoa, and that maybe you have some partisan axe to grind here.
i know its business as usual on Capitol Hill i'm just so very worried about all those naive dems out there who actually believed that Pelosi and the new Dem Congress was gonna run the most honest Congress in history
Who cares about his motivation, it's a very good point. I think the exemption is disgraceful, but I certainly wouldn't want to risk losing such an important bill over American Samoa.
Perhaps you are correct. But then what is Ms. Pelosi's motivation to deny some Americans a minimum wage. I though all working families needed the lift. Now you all see why I say that the minimum wage law is legislated opression?
I assume they could make her life a bit difficult and arguably she's looking after her constituents, though it looks like more of the same cronyism to me.
so where are the people that complained about Jack and his evil ways? why are they so accepting of Pelosi if as you say she is doing what Abramoff did?
I agree that marek has a legit point. The duplicity is depressing. No, I don't. If it were applied universally, how would that be oppressive?
To be fair, American Samoa and NMI were exempt in past minimum wage bills. However, this bill was drafted to explicitly close the NMI loophole, while failing to address the American Samoa loophole. All in all, not even close to an earth-shattering scandal, but it sure doesn't look good in the first week or so in the majority. She's still having a better week than Harry Reid, though.
Bingo. This is something to be disappointed in, but given all that's going on in the world and within our government right now, I'd be surprised if anyone had much outrage left in the tank for this one.
From a house report that's on google, from 6 months ago: "Economically, the per capita income of the average wage earner in American Samoa is about $4,300 per annum." Just pointing that out. 7 bucks an hour is potentially three times that amount...
This is the first I've heard of it. I would otherwise consider the original post a public service, but its only an attempt to make the dems look bad. There's no way Marek posts this if the reeps were still in charge. In fact, I'll be Marek hates the concept of the minimum wage.
This exemption just highlights how much of a non-issue the minimum wage really was. 29 states already had minimum wages above the federal limit. The issue belongs at the state level, however it’s a safe, feel good issue for proponents.
except for the people it actually affects VFish, and there are millions of them. Very real for them I would think.
So I was wondering why American Samoa would be exempt and did a google search to find this: http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/011007/island.html It would seem that there are more considerations that must be thought out before American Samoa is included in the wage raise. My first thought is that the Washington Times is trying to find something to make Pelosi and the House Dems look bad.
But that doesn't make any sense. Why should American Samoa be allowed to consult with the federal government to negotiate their minimum wage while actual states cannot (or, perish the thought, be allowed to set their own minimum wages?)? Surely, a mandated federal minimum wage is going to affect the economies and industries of different states in different ways, right? So if the logic is that American Samoa gets to negotiate because a particular industry is affected, shouldn't it hold then for all 50 states and the several territories/commonwealth/district? Why can't, say, Arkansas negotiate with the federal government over its minimum wage? Why the deference to a particular federal territory?
http://www.dol.gov/esa/media/press/whd/whdpressVB2.asp?pressdoc=sanfrancisco/20051095.xml I guess that's why. If the Times didn't provide this info then I think its safe to say the article is a partisan hatchet job. How unlike the Times.