Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Joe Miller: 'There should not be' a federal minimum wage

By Matt DeLong

In an interview with ABC News and Politico, tea party-backed Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller stood by some of his most controversial positions and added a new one to the list -- he opposes the federal minimum wage that has existed in the United States since 1938.

"That is clearly up to the states," Miller said. "The state of Alaska has a minimum wage which is higher than the federal level because our state leaders have made that determination. The minimum level again should be the state's decision."
So there should not be a federal minimum wage?
"There should not be," Miller answered. "That is not within the scope of the powers that are given to the federal government."

Miller also defended his opposition to federal unemployment insurance.

"It still makes far more sense to have those kinds of decisions made at the level closest to the people, where there is more accountability, less inefficiency, where there is more understanding of where the people ought to be and what the state role of government is," Miller said. "If you like big government, move to Massachusetts."

Recent polling shows Miller is in a tight race with Sen. Lisa Murkowski -- whom he upset in the GOP primary and is now mounting a write-in bid -- and Democrat Scott McAdams. McAdams announced Saturday that he has raised $650,000 since the Aug. 24 primary, while Miller has taken in $450,000 online since Murkowski announced her write-in candidacy in September. In the new ABC/Politico interview, Miller confirmed that he plans to move his family to Washington if he wins.

Watch:

By Matt DeLong  | October 4, 2010; 11:07 AM ET
Categories:  2010 Election, 44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rand Paul: Social Security retirement age may increase
Next: Ad of the day: McMahon's Vietnam gamble

Comments

Poor guy. If he moves to D.C., he won't have ANY state government.

Aside from the commerce clause, minimum wage may fall under the penumbrum of the 13th Amendment: in the final analysis, if you pay zero (or not enough to live on), you're engaged in slavery.

He'd be happier in Mississippi.

Posted by: tmorgan2008 | October 5, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Here's the news: minimum wage laws do not make employers pay more money for a given unit of work. The value of that unit of work... whatever the job may be... is primarily established by the market.

If a job is worth $5 an hour to an employer, no government mandate will suddenly make that job... again, whatever the job is (let us say, sweeping floors in his store)... worth more. If sweeping floors every hour, instead of once a shift, will help bring in enough additional customers to justify a wage of $5 an hour, then that is what the job is worth....TO THE EMPLOYER. If government forbids him from employing anyone for a wage less than $6 per hour, then he simply won't hire a person for the job of sweeping: that job will not exist. Some other employee will simply sweep (less frequently, of course) as an additional part of his duties. The store will be a little dirtier, and whoever might have benefited from the job of sweeping it will continue to be unemployed.

Except for people with the sort of union contracts that peg wages to some multiple of the minimum wage, almost nobody makes any more money because of that minimum. And those kind of unions eventually strangle the industries they burden (anyone notice that manufacturing has pretty much left the United States?).

Minimum wage laws don't lift anyone to higher income. They just knock the lowest rungs off the economic ladder, and make things a little harder for those who have the least.

Posted by: Iconoblaster | October 5, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

While we're at it let's bring back the 12 hour day, 6 day workweek, child labor and jail all strike leaders.

Repealing the modest gains that have been made with healthcare isn't good enough. Let's get rid of Medicare, and Social Security while we're at it. Y'all can pay your doctors in chickens and truck from your gardens.

Come to think of it we're spending too much on public housing as well, dammit tear them down and make these bums learn to build their own houses; and anyway who needs to spend money on paved roads; Real Men have 4WD Hummers or at least a pickup that can handle cross-country terrain, all you sissies out there on the Interstate, stop whining. If you don't know how to fix a broken axle with just a rock and your tire iron you shun't even have a driver's license.

Now if that ain't Tea enuff fer yuh, mebbeh we don't need telephones either, let's go back to the telegraph and even that may involve tax money so screw that too, we only need mail; It was good enough for our forefathers to make this country with so why mess up the view with telegraph poles.

Posted by: glenglish | October 5, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

If you ever want to expose the logical fallacies of the left-wingers and their embrace of the minimum wage, simply ask them....if $8/hr is good, wouldn't $10/hr be better? And if $10/hr would be better, wouldn't it be more helpful if we increased the minimum wage to $20/hr?

And while we are at it, why stop there....let's just go all-out-progessive and establish a minimum wage at $50/hr! Everyone would make $100,000 a year, and we would finally narrow that nasty unfair wage gap between rich and poor!!! How exciting to be a progressive!!

And then, when the unemployment rate is 70% and we are all wards of the state, progessive idealogy and the fallacy of the minimum wage will finally be exposed, as well as the idiocy of those who embrace the minimum wage as some fix-all for the working poor.

Posted by: dbw1 | October 5, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

illogicbuster:
"Why are factual statements about the Constitution treated as "controversial" by WaPo?"

See, illogicbuster, when you are a progressive/liberal the single most controversial document on the planet is the U.S. Constitution, because it laid out a government based on principles of individualistic achievement and small government.

This is heretical to progressives, so obviously anytime a 'wacko' makes a statement so 'extreme' as to suggest we actually follow the guidelines of the Constitution, the progressive media is going to hound them out of the public arena.

Posted by: dbw1 | October 5, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

If the Supreme Court has ruled that Social Security and unemployment are constitutional, than how can minimum wage not be constitutional? Left on their own, too many businesses have demonstrated they are not honorable enough to pay a decent wage. Look at the corporations who pay the people at the bottom poor wages while at the same time paying the CEO's and other top management millions with benefits and golden parachutes. They don't care about the low on the totem pole workers - they fight to keep from giving them any more than they have too- including benefits.

The honorable businessman/woman that used to be loyal to their workers are pretty much extinct. Business America has demonstrated they care more about their pockets than their workers. Perhaps it is time to do away with the minimum wage and institute a maximum wage. A business wouldn't be able to pay their top executives more than say 25% of what the lowest paid worker gets. (25% is just for example, not as an actual figure.That would have to be determined) That way the businesses would take those whose backs the business is built on up with them.

Posted by: alaskan2 | October 4, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

If the Supreme Court has ruled that Social Security and unemployment are constitutional, than how can minimum wage not be constitutional? Left on their own, too many businesses have demonstrated they are not honorable enough to pay a decent wage. Look at the corporations who pay the people at the bottom poor wages while at the same time paying the CEO's and other top management millions with benefits and golden parachutes. They don't care about the low on the totem pole workers - they fight to keep from giving them any more than they have too- including benefits.

The honorable businessman/woman that used to be loyal to their workers are pretty much extinct. Business America has demonstrated they care more about their pockets than their workers. Perhaps it is time to do away with the minimum wage and institute a maximum wage. A business wouldn't be able to pay their top executives more than say 25% of what the lowest paid worker gets. (25% is just for example, not as an actual figure.That would have to be determined) That way the businesses would take those whose backs the business is built on up with them.

Posted by: alaskan2 | October 4, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Now as far as the 'Tea Party' is concerned, they espouse going back to the Constitution. What they really mean is changing the Constitution from, '---Government of the people, by the people and for the people, to---------Government of the people, by Big-Business and for Big-Business.'

Posted by: kacameron | October 4, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

How does Miller keep his beard like that? he's always got a three-day-beard, like in Hollywood.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 4, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

-------------------------------------------In the old days it was called 5 0'clock shadow. The bums were too lazy to shave.
If you wanted a beard, you grew a beard.

Posted by: kacameron | October 4, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

How does Miller keep his beard like that? he's always got a three-day-beard, like in Hollywood.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 4, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

-------------------------------------------In the old days it was called 5 0'clock shadow. The bums were too lazy to shave.
If you wanted a beard, you grew a beard.

Posted by: kacameron | October 4, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

How does Miller keep his beard like that? he's always got a three-day-beard, like in Hollywood.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 4, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

-------------------------------------------In the old days it was called 5 0'clock shadow. The bums were too lazy to shave.

Posted by: kacameron | October 4, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: eestonikas | October 4, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: eestonikas | October 4, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, yes, the GOP and Tea Party extremists DO want to bring the sweatshops back and if such nonsense ever comes to pass then all of us can be treated with the same respect as the illegals get as they work in the back of restaurants, scrub toilets and labor day in and day out without any benefits. What a swell picture these loons have prepared for us as they seek to drag us back to the dark ages, like the Taliban did to Afghanistan in the 1990's.

Posted by: 809212876 | October 4, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Joe Miller is not a nut. He is an extreme politician, as in extremely wrong. Not about his position on the minimum wage itself. He is entitled to his view and to promoting it. His view of the Constitution is so narrow because it reflects his desire to return to, lets see, slavery; no women's suffrage; voting only for landholders; no Bill of Rights. So what else is new, Joe? Narrow views reflect narrow minds reflect prejudice over reasonable discussion. Just what Washington does not need more of right now.

Posted by: pdrmgardiner | October 4, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jcluma But paying someone less now than $8 per hour or $320 a wk (40 hrs), about $220 take home a wk, is laughable.

Unless you believe in slavery. And let's not forget -- slavery guarantees FULL EMPLOYMENT!

-----------------------------------------
Hmm, Obama must believe in slavery as this is EXACTLY what employers in CA do by hiring illegals and paying them crap.

The last state that tried to crack down on businesses doing this is being sued by the Obabble Admin as he says, only Feds can come after businesses for this. Except, it isn't happening.

So, Oblather = Support slavery.

Thanks, got it now.

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 4, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

REWARD THE RICH, PUNISH THE POOR - VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | October 4, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

"That is not within the scope of the powers that are given to the federal government,"

Why are factual statements about the Constitution treated as "controversial" by WaPo?

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 4, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Joe Miller... the "mindset" of a Tea Bagger.

And, then they wonder why they have the label, Tea Bagger.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | October 4, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

It would be an interesting experiment to drop the federal minimum wage. Would wages and standard of living drop in scab states? Would there be a population movement?

Posted by: billwald | October 4, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

In keeping with the Republican philosophy: 'I upped my income----------up yours!'

Posted by: kacameron | October 4, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

My son works as a bagboy at a grocery store. He earns $8/hr. He is lucky because he can put that money away for future college expenses or car payments. As a High School kid, he makes enough to buy an iPod and some video games. He mostly saves. Now, I cannot image an adult with a family actually living on $8/hr, pre-tax. That is about $12,000 take home. That's full-time employment, 2000 hrs a year, no benefits. Then, we have the grocery chain owners making about $400,000/yr. each, with full paid benefits and retirement accounts. The owner drives a new Mercedes S550 and his partner has a BMW 750i. The owner inherited the business from his parents and works hard, but is he working 25 times harder than the 40 yr-old stock guy or the single-mom cashier? The wage difference is staggering and immoral. We live in an immoral country.

Posted by: bruce19 | October 4, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

If the libs are screaming like a bunch of schoolyard babies then it must be a good idea. Now go take a nap.

Posted by: fishguts | October 4, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Just what we need, back to being enslaved in debt to the company store.

Posted by: HemiHead66 | October 4, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Amazing the teabaggers claim to be so upset about our declining standard of living and economic prospects vis a vis the rest of the world, and then they propose policies that would ensure poverty and inability to compete for increasing numbers of Americans. Teabaggers: "Anger," "rage," and frustration are not a program!

Posted by: mylesgordon | October 4, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Some of you posters seem to think that if the federal minimum wage law were eliminated the entire economy would collapse. Get a grip. What would happen is struggling businesses would be able to hire more people when the economy eventually kicks in. And when those workers become more valuable to the business owner, he or she will command a higher wage. That's the way things have actually worked for about 10,000 years in societies that prospered.Posted by: RossOdom----------------------------
And tell us Ross, how exactly would struggling businesses be able to hire more people? By paying them $0.10 per hour? As for your "hiring more employees"...sadly the companies would do exactly what they do now when they have a retirement eligible employee...they'll let him/her go just before retirement. I worked in my lifetime for $0.25 per hour as a kid in the South right beside adults making a big $1.00 per hour---no thank you to your "humanitarian ideas of business owners."
Where are those 10,000 year old societies you speak of-doesn't appear they're around any more. Evil/greed will never succeed and last. And a divided nation won't either.

Posted by: Sherry91 | October 4, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for this age-old discussion, but...

But paying someone less now than $8 per hour or $320 a wk (40 hrs), about $220 take home a wk, is laughable.

Unless you believe in slavery. And let's not forget -- slavery guarantees FULL EMPLOYMENT!

I knew the conservatives had the answers to our economy!

Posted by: jcluma | October 4, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

The only reason we are dealing with wingnuts like this one is that there are many people who would rather the entire country fail... so long as the government's policies are racist against the poor and the non-White.

Posted by: peaceandprotest | October 4, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

The only reason we are dealing with wingnuts like this one is that there are many people who would rather the entire country fail... so long as the government's policies are racist against the poor and the non-White.

Posted by: peaceandprotest | October 4, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

So, what's the controversy here? All the minimum wage does is keep some other-wise employable people unemployed.

It's simple economics...every time the minimum wage is increased, there is a short-term spike in unemployment. Prices increase, and real-dollar values fall. In the long-run, everything settles back to where it was....except the people making minimum wage, who think they are better off because they are making more, are actually no better off at all because they are paying more for groceries, cars, and rent. Their incomes have gone up, but so has the cost-of-living.

And yes, I've worked for minimum wage before. It's a foolish belief to think that increases to the min wage help the working poor. What helps poor people most is more education and working harder. That makes them more valuable to their employers, and leads to non-government-mandated wage increases...i.e., 'real' raises.

If you disagree with anything above, I ask one....no, two questions:
1) who is the single largest political pusher of minimum wage increases? Unions, right?
2) how many union workers do you know making minimum wage?

The answers to those two questions will tell you all you need to know about the fallacies around the minimum wage. The minimum wage is simply a political tool to enslave poor people into voting for one political party over another. It provides no real long-term benefit...to anybody.

Posted by: dbw1 | October 4, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

One would think this would completely disqualify him as a serious candidate in this race. Who could possible vote for him knowing this? He is a wacko, a wingnut without any sane basis for his candidacy. Problem is, there seem to be more like him out there --- Angle, O'Donnell, Paul, Bachmann, Buck -- wingnuts all. Are voters really aware that they are saying such far out, dangerous things?
I bet they all still want their guns, though.

Posted by: mylesgordon | October 4, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

One would think this would completely disqualify him as a serious candidate in this race. Who could possible vote for him knowing this? He is a wacko, a wingnut without any sane basis for his candidacy. Problem is, there seem to be more like him out there --- Angle, O'Donnell, Paul, Bachmann, Buck -- wingnuts all. Are voters really aware that they are saying such far out, dangerous things?
I bet they all still want their guns, though.

Posted by: mylesgordon | October 4, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

What exactly is the purpose of the Federal minimum wage? Does it deter slave wages in some states were the unemployment rate is so high that it is a Corporate hiring market or is it a guide for Corporate types on just how far down they can get by with?

During the Bush years and before, the Conservative Congresses stooped over backwards to accommodate their Corporate benefactors by refusing to even consider raising the Federal Minimum Wage.

The Democrats like Chicken Little were hiding under the porch afraid that the sky would fall at the mention of raising the Federal Minimum Wage.

Brown's idea of a State only minimum wage is laughable. Can you imagine, Mississippi and Alabama would have a multi level Minimum Wage depending on you color and world origin and maybe even your party affiliation. God help us Independents.

Posted by: oren1956 | October 4, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Some of you posters seem to think that if the federal minimum wage law were eliminated the entire economy would collapse. Get a grip. What would happen is struggling businesses would be able to hire more people when the economy eventually kicks in. And when those workers become more valuable to the business owner, he or she will command a higher wage. That's the way things have actually worked for about 10,000 years in societies that prospered.

Posted by: RossOdom | October 4, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

wapocensorsbite has forgotten something about the increase in the federal minimum wage. It was signed by a Republican president and it was NOT during an economic slowdown but allegedly during one of the most outstanding economic periods of our country. Or the conservatives could have been fibbing all this time.

BTW, the reason Alaska increased its minimum wage is not because they wanted too: it's not a living wage in the Lower 48; with a much higher cost of living it sure as hell isn't living wage in Alaska.

Americans, save your states from embarrassment, especially where you have tea party candidates. Vote Democrat. If you're in Alaska, write in Lisa Murkowski.

Posted by: trannygirl | October 4, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

That's what they have effectively done the past 30 years as inflation eats away at wages...

Posted by: OneWhoSpeaksTruth | October 4, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

If you want 50 small countries in the United States instead of the United States of America(there was already a Civil War fougnt and lost by the states on this issue in case you forget) then the way to go have each one decide their own minimum wage, so they can race each other to the bottom in order to get business to come to their state. Get your own army and navy too while you are at it.

Posted by: logrick | October 4, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Wow, that headlines really distorts what he said. His point was that the states should be allowed to set the minimum wage and not the Federal government.

Posted by: wolfcastle | October 4, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

YO LIBS: Your high Priestess of liberalism, Miss Nancy, in 2007, in her infinite desire to "help" people, decided to raise the minimum wage from $5.25/hr in 2007 to $7.35/hr in 2009, a 40% increase in 2 years in the face of a stalled economy. I believe it to be one of the reasons that we have such high unemployment. When good jobs disappear, people usually take low paying jobs to get by till things pick up. The problem is that Miss Nancy in her infinite wisdom destroyed those jobs.

Joe Miller is right. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to set minimum wage. You libs may not like it, but he's right.

He's also correct that it would be better to let the states set the minimum wage that is appropriate for that state. In a low cost state like Mississippi, it might be something like $4-5/hr. In a high cost state like CA, it might be $10/hr. Other states might be something else. The point is that states could set the minimum wage that is appropriate for the local conditions.

Posted by: wapocensorsbite | October 4, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

YO LIBS: Your high Priestess of liberalism, Miss Nancy, in 2007, in her infinite desire to "help" people, decided to raise the minimum wage from $5.25/hr in 2007 to $7.35/hr in 2009, a 40% increase in 2 years in the face of a stalled economy. I believe it to be one of the reasons that we have such high unemployment. When good jobs disappear, people usually take low paying jobs to get by till things pick up. The problem is that Miss Nancy in her infinite wisdom destroyed those jobs.

Joe Miller is right. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to set minimum wage. You libs may not like it, but he's right.

He's also correct that it would be better to let the states set the minimum wage that is appropriate for that state. In a low cost state like Mississippi, it might be something like $4-5/hr. In a high cost state like CA, it might be $10/hr. Other states might be something else. The point is that states could set the minimum wage that is appropriate for the local conditions.

Posted by: wapocensorsbite | October 4, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

YO LIBS: Your high Priestess of liberalism, Miss Nancy, in 2007, in her infinite desire to "help" people, decided to raise the minimum wage from $5.25/hr in 2007 to $7.35/hr in 2009, a 40% increase in 2 years in the face of a stalled economy. I believe it to be one of the reasons that we have such high unemployment. When good jobs disappear, people usually take low paying jobs to get by till things pick up. The problem is that Miss Nancy in her infinite wisdom destroyed those jobs.

Joe Miller is right. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to set minimum wage. You libs may not like it, but he's right.

He's also correct that it would be better to let the states set the minimum wage that is appropriate for that state. In a low cost state like Mississippi, it might be something like $4-5/hr. In a high cost state like CA, it might be $10/hr. Other states might be something else. The point is that states could set the minimum wage that is appropriate for the local conditions.

Posted by: wapocensorsbite | October 4, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

The extremist Republican party is eventually going to pay a severe electoral price for their beloved Teabagger buffoons like Crazy Joe Miller and Nutty Sharron Angle etc.

After getting blown out of the water in the last two elections, the Wingnutters are finally favored to make a small comeback. Which is not all that surprising when you consider that these things are cyclical, which also means there's eventually going to be a severe backlash against any of these far right wing extremists who manage to get elected this year.

There's going to be alot of low hanging extremist Republican fruit for the Dems to knock off in the next few elections (after the one this fall).
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 4, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

vettesport wrote:
FormerDemocrat wrote:
Communism isn't the answer folks. Every Communist, Socialist, Marxist nation in the history of the planet collapsed.
=======================

You were never a Democrat

Because you are a LIAR...!!

None of those countries collapsed because they were communist of socialist.

The collapsed because they were lead by an inflexible Authoritarian government.

Just like the GOP is advertising for..
except
they will take Capitalism down if they get in power.

ISA
*********
*********
YO LIBS

Your high priestess of liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, increased the minimum wage from $5.25/hr in 2007 to $2.35/hr in 2009, a 40% increase in the face of a sinking economy. That big of an increase would have difficult to swallow in a booming economy.

In my estimation, the Dumbs, in their quest to "help" people, destroyed the "safe" jobs that people run to in bad times. I don't think that this is the only reason we have high unemployment, but it surely made it worse.

Joe Miller really does have a point. The Constitution doesn't give the Congress the power to set wage rates. A pure usurpation by FDR.

Posted by: wapocensorsbite | October 4, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

vettesport wrote:
FormerDemocrat wrote:
Communism isn't the answer folks. Every Communist, Socialist, Marxist nation in the history of the planet collapsed.
=======================

You were never a Democrat

Because you are a LIAR...!!

None of those countries collapsed because they were communist of socialist.

The collapsed because they were lead by an inflexible Authoritarian government.

Just like the GOP is advertising for..
except
they will take Capitalism down if they get in power.

ISA
*********
*********
YO LIBS

Your high priestess of liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, increased the minimum wage from $5.25/hr in 2007 to $2.35/hr in 2009, a 40% increase in the face of a sinking economy. That big of an increase would have difficult to swallow in a booming economy.

In my estimation, the Dumbs, in their quest to "help" people, destroyed the "safe" jobs that people run to in bad times. I don't think that this is the only reason we have high unemployment, but it surely made it worse.

Joe Miller really does have a point. The Constitution doesn't give the Congress the power to set wage rates. A pure usurpation by FDR.

Posted by: wapocensorsbite | October 4, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Repeal the minimum wage law? Bwahahaha. I haven't laughed like that in a long time, Joe. Do you have any more jokes like that?

Posted by: JoStalin | October 4, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The best way to increase your salary is to become more competitive and more skilled. We can't afford to eliminate more entry level jobs.
===
Done, there aren't any entry-level jobs. You have be employed three years or have equivalent experience to meet requirements. That's not entry level, but they'll pay you like it is.
--------
We're also not in normal conditions right now. McDonald's etc. have lots of entry level jobs without prior experience.

Making those jobs more expensive won't create more jobs. Having politicians determine wages is scary thought. Unions are always fighting for higher wages by creating labor cartels that not open to everyone - only for the connected.

The more economic freedom we have the more prosperity we have.

Posted by: tmorano | October 4, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

The best way to increase your salary is to become more competitive and more skilled. We can't afford to eliminate more entry level jobs.
===
Done, there aren't any entry-level jobs. You have be employed three years or have equivalent experience to meet requirements. That's not entry level, but they'll pay you like it is.

Posted by: RandomAnon | October 4, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Joe Miller's statement is an example of not understanding economics nor the history.
=================
Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to set prices on labor, or to ensure a basic income for citizens. You might disagree with his reading of the Constitution, but his view is far from lunatic.

Posted by: jasonaorr
--------
You failed your first test of the Constitution. The 10th Amendment was established at the insistence of several states before joining the Union.

You are focusing on the 10th Amendment to the exclusion to the rest of it. You left out two sections in Section 8- To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States and The Congress shall have Power -provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

Posted by: beeker25 | October 4, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Here in Alaska, Miller's been exposed as a carpetbagger and a phony. He's collected a government check his whole life, farm subsidies and free college. He even applied for a indigent hunting licence ($5) meant for welfare recipients. He's a financial version of Larry Craig.

Posted by: johnharris1 | October 4, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I hope he doesn't pack his bags for DC, cuz he's not gonna win! Even with all the wackos in Alaska, & Mama Grizzly supporting him, he is just too bonkers for even that right-wing electorate!

Posted by: NMguy1 | October 4, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to extremist Teabagger Republicans like carpetbagger Joe Miller here, momentum is ours (Democrats), and the GOP is screwed in more ways than one, and they know it.

Despite all the screaming YOU LIE, SOCIALIST, HITLER, RACIST WHO HATES WHITE PEOPLE and so on, President Obama enjoys a good popularity rating. (45-48) Their screeching IS NOT WORKING. The GOP has LOST it's moderate base. GONE. All that is left is the screeching lowest common denominator of leftover Bush voters and Beck and Palin fans. They are fired up, and have been since inauguration day. But they aren't enough to win, frankly, and the GOP strategists have to know this, because people in their tent are getting a little scared.

If Republicans fail to pick up a majority in either house of Congress they will be COMPLETELY demoralized, and it will be totally awesome, and I'm bringing beer. And it is happening, races are tightening that Republicans NEED to win if they are to claim a House majority. The math is against them too. If Dems pick up 4 or 5 seats (DE-AL, IL-10, and HI-01 look like they can be picked up, and we are likely to win at least 1 or 2 other House seats we didn't expect.) the GOP needs to pick up 39 House seats + the 4 or so the Dems win. I don't see that happening.

The strategy of "speaking through Fox alone" and hiding, running from and avoiding potentially embarrassing, not completely orchestrated media events is beginning to hurt Republicans, giving the public a chance to hear what Dems are saying at just the time when voters are starting to pay attention. The republicans have painted themselves into a corner on this because they have run a field of awful, idiotic, contradictory and unqualified bunch of cranks for office. If Republicans think they've lost the Senate because of Christine the Teenage Witch's rise to public derision and now they are unsure of their chances at control of the House two things are sure to happen, Republicans will be forced to amp up the dog whistles to rally their hard core base and voters who are on the whole (48%) okay with Obama will see him as the face of the Democratic party, as they should. And voters who don't HATE Obama already will choose between an out of touch, unqualified GOP and Obama and the Democrats.

But long term, with a population that is becoming more multi-cultural, the GOP is totally screwed. They can't use a 50 State southern strategery for the next 20 years, or even the next decade. They can't speak through Fox and their tv hosts forever, and they can't win votes from people they are alienating. It may not happen all at once, or this may be the beginning of the end in 2010 if the GOP can't win either house, but the GOP is SCREWED and they know it, and in the long term, with their current game plan, they are so screwed it isn't either funny.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/us/politics/03campaign.html?_r=2&hp
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 4, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse


We need to eliminate the minimum wage. Big corporations drive the wage up so that the mom and pop businesses can't compete with the labor pool. Wal-Mart does this.

Also - raising the minimum wage raises everyone's wage up the economic ladder. It is only a feel good measure and creates a false sense of helping people. The best way to increase your salary is to become more competitive and more skilled. We can't afford to eliminate more entry level jobs.

Posted by: tmorano | October 4, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Something looks like it's wrong with that guy.

I've never seen anyone talk with their whole set of bottom teeth sticking out.

He looks crazy, and he sounds crazy too.


Posted by: lindalovejones | October 4, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse


We need to eliminate the minimum wage. Big corporations drive the wage up so that the mom and pop businesses can't compete with the labor pool. Wal-Mart does this.

Also - raising the minimum wage raises everyone's wage up the economic ladder. It is only a feel good measure and creates a false sense of helping people. The best way to increase your salary is to become more competitive and more skilled. We can't afford to eliminate more entry level jobs.

Posted by: tmorano | October 4, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

The Bagheaded Campaign Promise: Vote for me. I'll lower Taxes and I'll make sure that america understands that the constitution must be interpreted to my standard. I will change all laws that do not conform to my unarguable interpretation of the constitution and bill of rights. And, as an added treat, I also promise to spend your dollars investigating everything!

Posted by: USA4ALL | October 4, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

His point about the State Minimum Wage is irrelevant as most states instituted them in response to the Federal Minimum Wage. If we get rid of the Federal one, how quickly will the State one dissolve?

Posted by: Fabrisse | October 4, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Unemployment insurance was created to dampen the effects of layoffs on the NATIONAL economy. Without UI the Great Recession would be much worse; the downward spiral was worse and faster in the 1930's, in part because there was no UI. And UI was created after the 1930's to moderate future recessions/depressions. The federal government clearly has a national interest in the economy/commerce and UI figures into long term economic health. Joe shows his complete lack of economic knowledge.

Posted by: joespenard | October 4, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Joe Miller get his taxpayer funded education at the West Point? After his military service did he get taxpayer funded help in his matriculation at Harvard? Why is he so adamant about preventing hard working low wage Americans from ever
gaining anything monetary from their labors?

Without hard working low wage Americans, everyone's life would be more difficult and less harmonious. Just look at those low wage workers and the kind of jobs they do to make Joe Miller's life more tolerable. From the garbage collector to the waitress to the hair dresser to the lawn keeper, from the department store clerk to the janitor in school, to the dishwasher and the taxi driver, from the kitchen helper in the hospital to the car washer, from the pizza delivery guy to dry cleaner presser, from the baby sitter to the parking lot attendant, from the skycap to the bellhop, from the teacher's aide to the mall janitress, from
the day laborers to the farm workers,etc.
Miller proves his great love for his fellow Americans every time he opens his slanted mouth. He wants to abolish Social Security or raise the age limits so we die before becoming eligible, he definitely intends to repeal our newly minted health care program so we can all die without mercy, he loaths anyone who dares to complain about minimum wage, but says NOTHING about us being raped by corporate greedy SOBs who stand ready to screw all of their workers.
Somewhere along the line, Joe Miller got his but is hellbent of preventing anyone else from gaining from their citizenship.
He and Palin are cut from the same cloth, she is a money grubbing, celebrity hound and a hypocritical phony, and he is ready to take on the poor and suffering to hasten their time on earth.
And don't tell me about his military service, because millions of us have served in the military and far longer than Miller, and we did not have the benefit of a free education. fritz

Posted by: papafritz571 | October 4, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Miller's view is both parochial and elitist. Corporations are legally mandated to make a profit for their shareholders and naturally have a vested interest in doing so, sometimes at the expense of workers and consumers. It baffles me that libertarians like Miller spend so much of their time attacking the rights of minorities and people on the economic fringes of society, as if the collective well being of all was somehow an infringement on individual rights, rather than a preferable environment for all. That concept might be difficult to grasp in the welfare state of Alaska, but here in the lower 48, most of us prefer that those who work for a living make at least enough money to afford to take care of themselves. Social darwinism is hardly the answer to what ails the country or the economy.

Posted by: Koko3 | October 4, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

The interstate commerce clause has been high-jacked by the progressives to use as an excuse to extend the Federal power over the states.

The progressives have misused this clause which makes what the Fed gov't does by over-reaching unconstitutional.

I have researched this clause and can show why, if I find the time to look up my findings.

Posted by: janet8 | October 4, 2010 3:05 PM
___________________________
Please do show us your "research" on the Commerce Clause. Please inform us how the minimum wage, applicable to employers engaged in or affecting interstate commerce, does not fall smack dab in the middle of Congress' authority thereunder. I'm sure it will be very amusing, if not terribly accurate.

Posted by: luridone | October 4, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

coffic:
"When minimum wages are raised, consumer costs go up, people are laid off, benefits are decreased, etc."

[citation needed]

"Alaska is a great state to live and work in, and it is because of, in no small part, the fact that most there have common sense."

It might also have something to do with the fact that Alaska gets more federal money per capita than any other state in the union. I sure Joe Miller will lead the effort to correct that.

Posted by: presto668 | October 4, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

agrossman1:

The progressives of the 1930s interpreted it as CONTROL of interstate commerce instead of "regulate" commerce between the states, which was the original intention of our founders to have a standard tariff for international trade. Before the Constitution was ratified each state had different tariffs for international commerce.

Also, I had read this somewhere, which is a good explanation of how the clause was "broadened:"

There is another way of reading "commerce among the states," of course. Instead of being interpreted as referring to transactions between buyers and sellers across state lines, the clause might be read as referring to "any activity with an economic effect in more than one state." There are two problems with the second interpretation. The first is structural, that it undercuts the entire idea and point of enumerated powers: if Congress is free to regulate any activity that may have an economic effect in more than one state, then Congress is free to regulate just about any activity. The second problem with the more sweeping interpretation is historical: it was adopted by the Court only recently, without benefit of any change to the Constitution itself that would warrant such a switch.

And I see agrossman1 you stoop to calling those who oppose your views morons.

Most on the Left can't have a civil debate without calling others degrading names.

There's a saying "People who call others names have run out of ideas."

Posted by: janet8 | October 4, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

As a small business owner, I expect certain skills and abilities when I hire someone to work. If they do not have the skills and ability to make me money on day one, I really have no need to hire them just to have a body sitting in a chair costing me money and time. With the current minimum wage, I am not able or willing to take on a project and hope that they may become a productive member of my team.

Posted by: sales7 | October 4, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

How does Miller keep his beard like that? he's always got a three-day-beard, like in Hollywood.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 4, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse


All you folks who are commenting about Alaska and the money they get are nothing but whine's. You folks in D.C have more people in D.C then we have in the entire state. How much did you folks get in federal funding.

Posted by: rralls | October 4, 2010 12:36 PM
_____________________________
Compared to the amounts paid in BY DC residents, a whole lot less. Face it, Alaska gets a WHOLE lot more than it pays.

Posted by: luridone | October 4, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

How does Miller keep his beard like that? he's always got a three-day-beard, like in Hollywood.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 4, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

How does Miller keep his beard like that? he's always got a three-day-beard, like in Hollywood.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 4, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Maybe it should also be up to each state whether or not its female residents can vote. And each state should decide to regulate meat and other food, or let "the strong survive."

Posted by: brian_away | October 4, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Businesses are in business to make money, so they want the best employees, and will pay for them. It really is quite simple.

Posted by: coffic
===
This is precisely the sentiment that's driving our jobs overseas.

The executives get paid 111 (one hundred and eleven) times the average worker, which is many times higher than the rest of the world. Any increase in productivity or profits will be delivered to executives and primarily the shareholders instead of the people actually responsible for the work, and yet somehow this is viewed as fair.

Posted by: RandomAnon | October 4, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Minimum wage: If a company could legally pay you less, thry would.

Posted by: BigDaddy7 | October 4, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Is there ANYTHING this administration will not justify by dragging out the 16th Amendment? Minimum wage should be set (sure, leave it where it is now) and never, ever address the issue again. When minimum wages are raised, consumer costs go up, people are laid off, benefits are decreased, etc. It is ridiculous! Alaska is a great state to live and work in, and it is because of, in no small part, the fact that most there have common sense. Those who make minimum wage want to make more, and, if they work hard and get experience, they can command more from their present employer or another. Businesses are in business to make money, so they want the best employees, and will pay for them. It really is quite simple.

Posted by: coffic | October 4, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Yes Joe, and let's get rid of those pesky child labor laws!!!

Posted by: whirlwind81 | October 4, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I wonder janet8 if you have read the interstate commerce clause, or any clause of the constitution. First of all, the Congress has the power to lay all taxes, imposts, and duties. It also has the power to regulate commerce between the states (interstate commerce, you moron!).

Interstate commerce has nothing at all to do with paying a pittance to keep people out of work from starving. If you had any kind of excuse for a heart you greedy selfish witch you would understand that.

Posted by: agrossman1 | October 4, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

It seems that a vote for the constitution (and freedom) is a vote against the majority of us who are middle and working class and the poor. These are the same people that are against women's rights to chose as well as who may marry whom. The editing of our appropriate rights is laughable. Conversely, it is okay for we regular people to not have protection from monopolistic corporate cartels like oil, banks and insurance.

I really hope that stupid does not prevail this November.

Posted by: vandahl1 | October 4, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

It seems that a vote for the constitution (and freedom) is a vote against the majority of us who are middle and working class and the poor. These are the same people that are against women's rights to chose as well as who may marry whom. The editing of our appropriate rights is laughable. Conversely, it is okay for we regular people to not have protection from monopolistic corporate cartels like oil, banks and insurance.

I really hope that stupid does not prevail this November.

Posted by: vandahl1 | October 4, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe the good people of Alaska actually voted for this man. Why is it most Tea party people who are running for elected office have the same points of views as Communists? Communists do not want the government helping its people either. The next thing we will hear is that they will support labor camps just to take Unemployment Insurance away even though its an insurance both Employers and Employees pay for. UnBelieveable!

Posted by: sumo1 | October 4, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse


The interstate commerce clause has been high-jacked by the progressives to use as an excuse to extend the Federal power over the states.

The progressives have misused this clause which makes what the Fed gov't does by over-reaching unconstitutional.

I have researched this clause and can show why, if I find the time to look up my findings.

Posted by: janet8 | October 4, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

this guy is a fu7ling clown. interstate commerce, joe.

was your degree honorary?

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | October 4, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Just the same as my Dad used to say when I was a kid - The Republican mantra is that "It is not enough that I should have mine, I need also prevent you from having yours." So true.

Posted by: indy474 | October 4, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Miller, and the commenters here who think the 10th Amendment supports his position have either forgotten or are ignorant of the Commerce Clause, which has been the legal support for the minimum wage since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. Those employers who are not engaged in or affect interstate commerce are exempt, but all other employers are covered, and the Commerce Clause justifies it. Since the Commerce Clause grants this power to the Federal Govt., the 10th Amendment is irrelevant.

The tea baggers are so ignorant of the Constitution that their claim to be defending the Constitution is hogwash.

Posted by: luridone | October 4, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Dear lord, does Joe Miller not realize that wages are directly relevant to interstate commerce? A previous poster unintentionally pointed out exactly why the minimum wage has to be set at the federal level: Every state would prefer to have its minimum wage fractionally lower than its neighbors in order to attract business, which sets off a race to the bottom, and we end up with every state selecting a minimum wage well below what everybody thinks is appropriate.

With beliefs like that, you'd think Miller went to law school in the 1920s.

Posted by: jeffwacker | October 4, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Sweet Jesus, repeal minimum wage? Are you serious? The corporations would without a doubt, absolutely crush what little they do give the workers and continue to bloat the executive's pay.

If anything, we should be proposing regulations to tether executive pay in proportion to lowest level workers, so that success is shared among those who ACTUALLY implement it and not just those that dictate it.

All corporation's balance sheets thrive on how little they can pay and still get the work done. What average worker would actually be in favor of this nuttiness?

Eh, shouldn't speak now, there's probably some poor deluded shill speaking on their behalf, digging their own economic grave.

Only in America can we wax poetic on freedom and then run our industries like tyrants. All the while hiding behind the guise of "free-market" when everyone knows that the invisible hand will be the first in line to take food out of your mouth if you're not working.

Posted by: RandomAnon | October 4, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Joe Miller lies and lies! I've worked with all three levels of government and can categorically state without fear of factual contradiction, that it's a close battle between local and state government for the most incompetent and most inefficient level of government. The federal government stands head and shoulder above local and state government in terms of competence and efficiency -- as well as being the least corrupt level of government. Unfortunately, the feds are an easy target. But just about every study of government competence, efficiency, and corruption shows that local and state governments are the most incompetent and corrupt, and the least efficient.

Now the private sector tends to be even more incompetent and inefficient --and corrupt -- than any level of government. Remember, it was the private sector run wild with little government regulation that destroyed the economy.

Posted by: dl49 | October 4, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: BeavisfromMontana
"I would like Mr. Miller to explain how a state is going to generate the revenue needed to fund an unemployment system without the involvement of the federal government."

The same way that Virginia does, through an unemployment tax that employers pay. If the Federal unemployment tax that employers pay was removed, states, like VA, may have to increase their, but the vehicle for receiving the tax already exists.

Posted by: ahashburn | October 4, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Republicans. Always trying to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.


Posted by: lindalovejones | October 4, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

What an idiot.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld1 | October 4, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

When you folks start voting in Alaska then maybe you can comment about our politics. Until then take care of your own elections and leave your opinions about Alaska in D.C

Posted by: rralls | October 4, 2010 12:42 PM
***********************************
If Miller is going to be on the US senate floor, voting for something FEDERAL, then we DO have a right to know what kind of person Alaska may be sending.

If he's so great, just have him run for state senate, or governor. Keep him in Alaska.

As far as minimum wage goes, it's still not enough. With the way the economy has been, wages have been driven down. I challenge anyone out there to live decently on minimum wage. A person working 40 hrs a week on minimum wage makes $15,080 GROSS. Who can live on that?

Posted by: MichelleKinPA | October 4, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Seems like Miller favors legalizing drugs. you gotta be on drugs to believe his delusional view of the Constitution.

Posted by: Garak | October 4, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

This is the core problem with Tea Partiers - profound ignorance of the Constitution and its interpretation.

Article I, Section 8 clearly gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce (the Interstate Commerce Clause), and hence the power to set minimum wages (or regulate something that affects 1/6 of the U.S. economy - health care).

As for the 10th Amendment, it reserves powers "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" to the states or people - but the Interstate Commerce Clause delegates those powers to Congress.

The only thing that worries me more than the profound ignorance and hypocrisy (where were they when GWB was exploding the federal budget deficit?) of the Tea Party movement is that so many people seem willing and eager to drink their Kool-Aid.

Posted by: sagami | October 4, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Why is Miller running for the Senate? Why is not a Constitutional lawyer practicing in front of the Supreme Court? If he is so correct on the Constitution, he should have no trouble getting this declared unconstitutional. But wait, it seems this ruling has long been in the books and the Fair Labor Standards Act is not unconstitutional. Does Miller believe we should abolish the Supreme Court? He seems to disagree with 200 years of rulings.

Posted by: chucko2 | October 4, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I would like Mr. Miller to explain how a state is going to generate the revenue needed to fund an unemployment system without the involvement of the federal government.

Posted by: BeavisfromMontana | October 4, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

This man continues to surprise me with his ignorance...I urge all Alaskans to get out and vote for Miss Liss M

Posted by: fairness3 | October 4, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I refuse to call these Conservatives Tea Party Activists or Libertarians. At the end of the day, they're just Conservatives. Only now, it's so blatantly obvious that Bush 43 was the worst president since Warren Harding, the Conservatives have to call themselves something different. The Tea Party and Libertarians is just the GOP with a bag over it's head. I'm not going to engage it as if its a new movement. I refuse to talk to and engage the dummy on the ventriloquists lap as if it actually has a real viewpoint.
Say what you will about Democrats, but at least I support a party that doensn't need to walk around in disguise, having started 2 wars and wrecked our economy.

Posted by: poboyz1973 | October 4, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

The right wants to lower the deficit on the backs of the middle class by eliminating funding for the social safety net and infrastructure. Then they will start yet another war to siphon funds to the military industrial complex (oil, weapons, contractors,) and presto, another huge deficit! We are fast becoming a third world country with republicans aiming the ship of state from the bully pulpit.

Posted by: rjbunny | October 4, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

What is wrong with the right? I can not think of ONE policy of theirs that is good for America. We will be a theocracy with bad science education for the few who can pay for it. The rest will slave away and live in tenements. Brain drain has begun - smart people started emigrating under Bush and will continue to do so as these morons take center stage.

Posted by: rjbunny | October 4, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Am I the only one who sees nothing wrong with any of the above statements? He wasn't even saying "get rid of minimum wage," though that would be a perfectly sensible position on the basis of economic studies on the effects minimum wage has on employment. He is just consistently defending the Constitution as he reads it. The 10th amendment says all powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to set prices on labor, or to ensure a basic income for citizens. You might disagree with his reading of the Constitution, but his view is far from lunatic.

Posted by: jasonaorr | October 4, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK JOE! Your early 20th Century views may get most Alaskans to vote against your take over of the Republican Party. Most americans use to look at Mississippi as the worst state but you are making Alaska take that honor. Maybe next Joe will want Alaska to reject the American Flag since it represents a federal union of states.

Posted by: CharlieDrew | October 4, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

When you folks start voting in Alaska then maybe you can comment about our politics. Until then take care of your own elections and leave your opinions about Alaska in D.C

Posted by: rralls | October 4, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK JOE! Your early 20th Century views may get most Alaskans to vote against your take over of the Republican Party. Most americans use to look at Mississippi as the worst state but you are making Alaska take that honor. Maybe next Joe will want Alaska to reject the American Flag since it represents a federal union of states.

Posted by: CharlieDrew | October 4, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I don't see what many of you are upset about. In truth, this actually works well for big-D democrats.

Think about it. Minimum wage rates would be relegated to the states to set. States with progressive leadership would then be able to set "living wages," unfettered by federal mandates and that would be able to account for the costs of health care, unemployment, and all the other expenses that would be required from payment. Massachusetts, used by Miller in a negative light, could be the first state in the Union to authorize a living wage of $20/hour for all employees, not just union and for all businesses. Teen hires could also be given an educational wage. College student could have a deal struck whereby a portion of their wage goes to supporting their education.

The impact on business would likely be disastrous causing them to flee to red states, but that's rarely the concern of the progressive government. There's far more power in the 10th amendment than federalists and other big-gov't types realize!

Posted by: dgw1091 | October 4, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Sure it makes sense leaving to the states but the problem is most states would have no minimum wage and people would be back working almost as slaves.
If Americans sit this one out and let these crazies get elected they will only have themselves to blame for their falling wages and standard of living.
The GOP wants to go back to the oligarchy we had in the late 1800's.

Posted by: jtemple1 | October 4, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

All you folks who are commenting about Alaska and the money they get are nothing but whine's. You folks in D.C have more people in D.C then we have in the entire state. How much did you folks get in federal funding.

Posted by: rralls | October 4, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Tea Bagger Angle says we should (to paraphrase) Threaten our lawmakers with "Second Ammendment" threats.... So maybe we just need to threated to shoot this moron if he's elected?
Thanks, Sharon. See you in Tea.

Posted by: TOMHERE | October 4, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Well there's this thing called the Tenth Amendment.

WaPo and its reader hope if they ignore it long enough, it will go away . . .

Posted by: fgoodwin | October 4, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

It's ok for Alaskans to get $1.65 back for every dollar they send the Feds and they have the gall to whine about unemployment and the minimum wage?

I suppose it could work when the red states are only left with the immobile poor and anyone with an ounce of common sense moves to states with worker protections spurring their economies. See who's left to run businesses in MS, GA, and AL then.

Posted by: theobserver4 | October 4, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Does Joe also oppose the federal funding subsidies of which his state is, by far, the single largest per-capita beneficiary? Of course not.

Joe wants federal largess, but without all those pesky standards and regulations. It's just so much easier to steal that way.

Posted by: lonquest | October 4, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Wow. These people are frightening. I wonder if this hack would be willing to end these programs if it affected one of his family members, or if he himself was affected. What happens if you relegate unemployment insurance to the states? As I see it, you get one of two outcomes: 1)in recessions like the current one, those who get laid off in states without insurance move to other states to search for work in the hopes of setting up residency there, and ultimately being eligible for a benefit, and/or 2)crime rises as people become more desperate to keep a roof over their heads and food in their mouths.

The "Founding Fathers" nutjobs can't understand that those men couldn't have imagined a global economy as complex as ours in a time when most people lived off the land. Is Miller willing to give everyone their acre and a mule and help them get set up as a subsistence farm? What an absolute moron, not to mention a gutless coward. If Alaska elects this guy, I suggest the U.S. consider selling the state back to Russia.

Posted by: rhalter3633 | October 4, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad he's not from my state.

Republicans sure know how to pick um.

Posted by: lindalovejones | October 4, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

That's right, Joe. With the problems the country faces in 2010, what we really need to do is revisit the federal minimum wage law passed in 1938.

Please, Alaskans, you've already given us the Palin Show. Take your pens to the polls and write in Murkowski.

Posted by: exco | October 4, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

End the minimum wage? For real?

What a NUT!

What's next from the Republican Tea Party? Here's their next campaign slogan:

GOP: We're Bringin' Sweatshops Back!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 4, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company