| Written by Maria Elena Salinas |
| Tuesday, March 15 2005 |
| |
| They say that no news is good news. But I seriously doubt that the "no news" that came out of the Senate floor on the evening of March 7 could be good news for more than 2 million Americans who earn the minimum wage.
Unless you follow congressional votes very closely or have a vested interest in the topic, you'd probably never find out that once again the Senate discussed the possibility of increasing the minimum wage, and once again it turned down not one, but two different proposals. Therefore, the minimum wage, which stands at $5.15 an hour, will continue at the same rate for the foreseeable future.
The issue of increasing the minimum wage did not even come up as a bill on its own, but rather as an amendment to legislation on overhauling the country's bankruptcy laws. The Democratic proposal would have increased the minimum wage by $2.10 over the next 26 months, in three steps of 70 cents each. The Republican proposal would have increased it $1.10 over 18 months, in two steps of 55 cents each.
There has not been an increase in the minimum wage since 1996, although since then members of Congress have had seven pay raises. The dueling proposals in the Senate did not get the 60 votes needed to pass, but fortunately for the senators, they don't have to worry about anyone voting for or against their own wage increase. They get automatic raises -- or "cost of living adjustments," as they prefer to call them. In January, their annual salary went up from $158,100 to $162,100, plus a bit more for congressional leaders.
One might argue, and many do, that members of Congress are underpaid. After all, they could make a lot more money in the private sector. And many of them do, when they decide to leave their positions of power as public servants for less visible but more lucrative careers, especially those who become lobbyists.
But that's neither here nor there. The issue at hand is that the minimum wage is a hot-button topic that has become a political tool for both parties. Democrats, on one side, want show how they are looking out for the interests of the working class. Republicans, on the other, try to display an image of fiscal responsibility. And while they are both positioning themselves for the 2006 midterm election, the poor stay poor, and some get even poorer.
Between 36 million and 39 million Americans live in poverty. A recent study shows that one in four Americans who live in poverty have either full-time or part-time jobs. More than 5 percent of the work force works two jobs to make ends meet and still lives in poverty. Contrary to the belief that most minimum-wage earners are teenagers who are entering the job market and will soon come out of it, statistics show that almost half of the minimum-wage earners are over 23 years of age; 26 percent are married heads of a family.
How poor is poor? Well, according to government guidelines, a family of four is considered poor if its annual income is $19,350. To make that much, a full-time worker would have to earn $9.30 an hour. For a family of two, the poverty line is set at $12,830 a year. That constitutes an hourly salary of $6.14 and a 40-hour workweek.
Therefore, those who earn the minimum wage live below the poverty level, and even the most generous proposal to increase it would still leave million of families living in poverty. But it would certainly help to put a little more food on the table.
Sen. Edward Kennedy was right when he said that "anyone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should not live in poverty in the richest country in the world." But his statement should not just be a slogan for political gain; it should be an ideal for which this country stands. Congressional leaders should be ashamed of themselves for turning their backs on our poorest workers. |
