The Center for American Progress

Almas Sayeed, Research Fellow, and John Burton, Research Associate for Economic Policy
Yesterday Senator Ted Kennedy proposed a minimum wage amendment to the Department of Defense appropriations bill. The amendment calls for a $2.10 increase to the minimum wage over two years. As it stands, the debate has focused on the impact of raising the minimum wage on [employers and low-wage earners]. Less attention has been focused on the [recent explosion of the payday loan industry] and its impact on low-wage families. The high fee and exorbitant interest rates of the industry continue to trap many low-wage earners and their families. Raising the minimum wage could increase families’ ability to save—and put a dent in their debt.

It is inexcusable for Congress to continue raising its own wages while ignoring America’s minimum-wage workers. Since President Bush took office, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million. The minimum wage is currently at its lowest level in 50 years, adjusting for inflation. To give some perspective, it now takes more than a full day of work for a minimum-wage worker to earn enough money to [fill up a tank of gas.]

Employers and low-wage earners link:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1648601

Recent explosion of the payday loan industry link:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1804545

Fill up a tank of gas link: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/s/custom.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1706375

I feel really good about the Line Item Veto.  When I was in the Georgia Assembly, I saw it used efficiently by a Democratic Governor.  I believe that we have pretty much resolved the opposition's concern by reducing the number of rescissions that the President can back send to Congress to five.

I know that there is some concern from appropriations members, but I think that the American people would perceive this as an act of fiscal restraint.

It is a little scary to see how close we were to losing this environmental framework. It appears that the new members of the Supreme Court have such a narrow philosophical vision that we almost lost control of major waterwarys. There are major rivers that dry-up, but based on their interpretation the federal government could not deal with them.

My bill, H.R. 5595, is to ensure that homeland security allocations are based on vulnerabilities. The UASI process has been abused, leading to misallocations at the expense of places like New York City and Washington, DC.

We have tried to target things that do not belong in a defense bill. This is a bill meant to fund defense operations, and I feel to see what they have to do with each other.

For example, there is an appropriation for the Mystic Aquariam, which is in Connecticut, but the money is going to Ohio. Why should we be funding this with defense money?

There is a technology transfer center in Illinois. This may be a good thing, but why are we funding this with the defense bill.

President Bush's address on Iran yesterday was forceful. The President has made a clear choice for Iran.

I would prefer a harsher approach in which we would already impose sanctions. Iran has been buying time, using diplomacy to build-up its nuclear facilities.

But I have faith in the President, whose heart is in the right place. The President has laid-out a lear path for Iran - now it is up to the Iranian leaders, and I hope that they choose wisely.

I truly believe that nuclear energy is a viable energy source that has been neglected for too long.  We need to have a responsible debate about it.  We are just frozen in time on this issue.

The Outer Continental Shelf agreement compromises legislative points without compomising principles. The states retain control up to 100 miles offshore. The agreement moves us toward energy independence in a manner that respects the environment and honors the right of the states to permit or prohibit drilling along their coasts.

We owe it to the American taxpayers to be careful stewards of their money. There are serious questions about how the reconstruction and other funds have been managed in Iraq, and to address these concerns it makes sense to set up a special bipartisan Senate committee to examine the spending, uncover any possible fraud, waste, or abuse, and put an end to it.

As part of the original appropriation for Iraq's reconstruction, I proposed making part of the appropriation a loan to be repaid to the taxpayers of America. That provision won Senate support but was stripped during conference negotiations. We are now approaching the $400 billion mark for costs associated with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Having some of that repaid by the Iraqi government would have reduced the burden on American taxpayers.