U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings wants a referendum on the ballot next year to increase Florida's minimum wage to $12.50 an hour.
Hastings,
a Democrat who represents parts of Broward and Palm Beach counties,
said the 55 percent increase from the current $8.05 an hour, is a
"starting point." He said he'd prefer $15 an hour, but wouldn't ask for
that much because opponents would "go bonkers."
Read more:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-minimum-wage-increase-hastings-20150215-story.html#page=1
Being lost in all of the increase the Minimum Wage proposals is the fact that whether it is $8.50, $10.10, $12.50 or $15.00 an hour, the only way the Minimum Wage will ever be anything other than a poverty wages providing employers with cheap labor is if the Minimum Wage is legislatively tied to the actual and real "cost-of-living" factors as monitored by the United States Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics and then linked to inflation.
Here in Minnesota, the Democratic Governor, Mark Dayton, who promised to make the Minimum Wage a living non-poverty wage in order to get elected, ended up giving his cabinet heads raises that were more than what most workers make in a year while legislating one more poverty Minimum Wage for workers.
Here is the kicker: Dayton and Minnesota Democrats claim they are looking out for tax-payers but giving his cabinet members these huge raises is a burden on tax-payers while raising the Minimum Wage to a real living non-poverty wage wouldn't have cost tax-payers one single penny.
While no one is dumb enough to turn down a raise of any amount, this struggle for a just Minimum Wage needs to get centered on wages and cost-of-living not just "raising the Minimum Wage" which lets these politicians, most of whom are multi-millionaires, off the hook.
Some of the commentary from the left on President's Obama's recent State of the Union address struck me as too negative, even cynical in a few instances. It's said that the speech was at once too little, too late, and too celebratory. Some left critics went further, claiming that it was nothing but idle, and even deceptive, chatter
since the president knew that any progressive initiatives in his speech
are dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled 93rd Congress.
This contrasts with the reaction of the larger movement. Labor's take on the speech
was very positive.
Much the same can be said about the African American community and other communities of color (for example, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and NAACP). The movements for women's and gay rights found stuff in the speech that they liked, as did many fighting for policing and sentencing reforms. Ditto the immigrant rights movement and the organizations and people fighting for livable wages and union rights. And progressives in Congress said they were buoyed by the president's speech. Photos showed them leading the cheers to the speech, while congressional Republicans, looking dour and sitting silent, inwardly burned with rage at Obama's every word and his mere presence at the podium.
Much the same can be said about the African American community and other communities of color (for example, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and NAACP). The movements for women's and gay rights found stuff in the speech that they liked, as did many fighting for policing and sentencing reforms. Ditto the immigrant rights movement and the organizations and people fighting for livable wages and union rights. And progressives in Congress said they were buoyed by the president's speech. Photos showed them leading the cheers to the speech, while congressional Republicans, looking dour and sitting silent, inwardly burned with rage at Obama's every word and his mere presence at the podium.
In other words, the major democratic forces and movements
got a lift from the speech, while understanding full well that the
terrain of struggle is still uphill. They saw openings and opportunities
in Obama's words, though not agreeing with his every word.
They liked how he framed many questions and the spirit and
oratorical power that he exhibited to spotlight the deeply reactionary
role of the Republican Party, even if they thought his counter-proposals
should have gone further.
And they were encouraged by the fact that the speech
signaled a refusal on the president's part to cede initiative and ground
to the Republicans and their reactionary agenda over the next two
years, despite enormous pressure on him to do so coming from many
directions.
How do we explain this contrast, this differing take on this State of the Union address?
Speaking generally, the leaders of the democratic movements
don't pigeonhole the president as simply an unreconstructed neoliberal.
They don't peg him as nothing more than a centrist in the mold of Bill
Clinton. Nor do they believe that he cynically "plays" the American
people with his "fancy" rhetoric and oratory, while paying obeisance to
his first and abiding focus group - Wall Street (and its deep pockets.)
They also don't subscribe to the notion that Obama's presidency is
summed up as "the triumph of identity as content" (Adolph Reed
writing in Harper's). Finally, they are particularly aware of the
toxic, crude, and unremitting racist invective directed at the
president.
In other words, these mass movement leaders don't hollow
Obama out to the point where he is nothing but an abstract and frozen
political category with absolutely no progressive instincts, potential,
or record of achievement. In fact, they note that the president has a
genuine democratic sensibility and a list of political and legislative
successes that have made a difference, large and small, in the lives of
millions of working class people.
Moreover, in sharp contrast to some on the left, leaders of
the main mass organizations want him on their side. Victories, they
know from experience, are much more difficult to secure with a president
opposing them or assuming a position of neutrality. They have no truck
with a one-sided Howard Zinn view of historical progress and radical
social change, in which political compromises, unreliable allies,
tactical and strategic retreats, stages of struggle, participation in
electoral politics, and so on are to be studiously avoided. Based on
their real movement experience, they conclude that such a hopelessly
uncomplicated reading of the past and what it will take to make a more
livable future for the vast majority is politically wrong-headed and
counterproductive.
Finally - and maybe above all - the leaders of the broader
democratic movement are aware that the president governs in a concrete
political context in which the singular mission of the opposition party,
dominated by right-wing extremists, isn't simply to wreck the Obama
presidency. It extends far beyond the occupant of the White House to
every political, economic, and social right and gain secured over the
past century - not to mention the institutional bases of the broad
democratic movements, labor in the first place. The wholesale decimation
of democratic rights, organizations, and institutions may seem an
unlikely possibility to some, but leaders as well as activists of the
broader movement are keenly aware that right-wing extremists, who are in
the driver's seat in half the states and show no hesitation to use
power in ruthless ways when given the opportunity, are only one election
away from gaining control of the one remaining branch of the federal
government not now in their reckless, authoritarian hands.
None of this makes the president above criticism in the
view of progressive movement leaders, but when they offer criticism it
is contextualized and carefully calibrated. Its purpose isn't to show up
the president or bring him down. Or simply to be right without a
thought as to how words and the way they are expressed educate or
miseducate and mobilize or demobilize people. Its intent is to nudge,
prod, and move President Obama, inch by inch if necessary, in a
progressive direction. And we should never forget, as an astute trade
union leader once reminded me, that a lot of people live on those
inches.
Perhaps there is something that the left can learn from here.
Shouldn't our political categories and analysis - not only
as it applies to the president, but to political phenomena generally -
be more open-ended and elastic to allow for contradictions,
inconsistencies, indeterminacy,new experience, and, not least, human
agency?
Shouldn't we complicate our understanding of the process of
social change and bid farewell to cut and dried schemes, pure forms,
and pat answers?
Shouldn't we - much like the broader democratic movement
does - make the actual balance of class and social forces, the depth of
political understanding and unity of millions, and what people (not just
the left) are "ready to do" an indispensable frame for our politics and
practice?
Shouldn't we attach as much significance to the electoral
and legislative arena as a major locus of power and necessary gateway to
social change as the broader democratic movement (and perhaps even more
so the right wing) does, even at this stage of struggle and level of
political independence?
The point of this isn't to water down the
critical-analytical, organizing, or visionary-programmatic role of the
left, but to develop a politics - strategy, tactics, demands, message,
language, etc. - that can break the current political impasse (now more
than 30 years long), unite broad cross-sections of people, and lift the
country to higher ground where freedom and justice penetrate every
aspect of life - probably not all at once, but in the course of a
protracted mass, nonviolent struggle that draws strength from the
formerly passive and backward sections of the American people.
Without such a reset, I suspect that too many on the left
will continue to spend too much time bellyaching, talking only to each
other, living in their own cocoon of struggle, and missing opportunities
to join with others in broader campaigns for justice, equality, and
freedom.
The politics of "opposition and outrage," which too large a
section of the left has turned into a refined art form over the past
half century, is like a drug. It brings a momentary high, but later on
leaves its practitioner feeling washed out and utterly frustrated. It
may register some victories here and there, but it has no transforming
potential.
What is to be done, someone, once asked long ago and then
answered: Put an end to the past period. The left would do well to do
the same, but that will only happen if we get rid of narrow, simplistic,
schematic, and small-universe ideas - some of which have become nearly
second nature to too many of us. And that can be easily done without
sacrificing a morsel of our anti-capitalist perspective and goals - our
freedom dreams.
Photo: President Obama delivers the State of the Union
address in the House chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Jan. 20,
2015. White House photo/Pete Souza