Temple University with the help of 1199C/AFSCME, 32BJ SEIU, AFSCME DC 47, Action United, Fight for Philly, PA Working Families, PASNAP, PCAPS, POWER, and SEIU Healthcare PA put together a Democratic Gubernatorial forum this week. Check out the recording/live-stream here.
While there is still a great amount of time ahead of the election now is the time to get acquainted with the candidate. In the new year the election will begin in earnest and it is not enough to sit by and watch the show. Without your vocal, energetic support your candidate, and your issues, stand less of a chance.
Candidates Jo Ellen Litz and Cumberland County Minister Max Myers and Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski were not in attendance.
Showing posts with label Kathleen McGinty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kathleen McGinty. Show all posts
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Raise That Wage Rep. Kim
State Rep. Patty Kim is making headlines advocating for a higher minimum wage.
While the odds of a first term Representative in a Republican controlled legislature are long Rep. Kim's efforts are commendable. She joins part of a larger state and nation-wide conversation about raising the minimum wage.
In Philadelphia State Senator Christine Tartaglione is pushing a bill to raise the minimum wage. Katie McGinty, the governor candidate who Rep. Kim supports, became the first candidate to advocate the measure as well.
It is no secret that there is a powerful opposition lobby to minimum wage increases. Not only companies who simply don't want to pay a higher rate for labor but serious economists, usually of the Chicago/Austrian schools and libertarian in their politics. These academics make an earnest argument that by raising the cost of labor, you will unemploy everyone who's skills the market determines are worth lower than the base rate of pay.
One institution you may find making such an argument in halls of the Pennsylvania State Capitol is the Commonwealth Foundation.
They are not wrong, there is no doubt that when the price of labor is too high consumption (employment) will drop, but there are many economists who would gladly debate that the minimum wage is not so high, or not going to be raised so much that it would truly slow demand for labor; Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs, Laura Tyson, Robert Reich and of course Paul Krugman.
In fact corporate profits and holdings are at an all time high, and wages have not kept pace with productivity for years.
Rep. Kim, Senator Tartaglione, Candidate McGinty, and many others, keep fighting to raise that wage!
At a news conference at the Harrisburg YWCA, the first-term Democrat said she is working on a bill to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour in two steps.
She held a press conference at the Harrisburg YWCA last Thursday.The first step would bump the rate to $9 an hour 60 days after enactment. The wage would reset to $10.10 an hour one year later.
While the odds of a first term Representative in a Republican controlled legislature are long Rep. Kim's efforts are commendable. She joins part of a larger state and nation-wide conversation about raising the minimum wage.
In Philadelphia State Senator Christine Tartaglione is pushing a bill to raise the minimum wage. Katie McGinty, the governor candidate who Rep. Kim supports, became the first candidate to advocate the measure as well.
“One of the best ways to get the economy moving is to put money into the pockets of people who work,” McGinty said. “Too many wage earners, working moms in particular, are holding down full-time, 40-hour-a-week jobs and still finding it too hard to make ends meet and support families. That’s because the minimum wage hasn’t kept pace with the rising cost of living today. That needs to change.”On the national stage, most recently New Jersey raised their minimum wage through a ballot referendum that passed with a 20 point margin. The win is commensurate with nation wide attitudes about it being raised.
It is no secret that there is a powerful opposition lobby to minimum wage increases. Not only companies who simply don't want to pay a higher rate for labor but serious economists, usually of the Chicago/Austrian schools and libertarian in their politics. These academics make an earnest argument that by raising the cost of labor, you will unemploy everyone who's skills the market determines are worth lower than the base rate of pay.
One institution you may find making such an argument in halls of the Pennsylvania State Capitol is the Commonwealth Foundation.
They are not wrong, there is no doubt that when the price of labor is too high consumption (employment) will drop, but there are many economists who would gladly debate that the minimum wage is not so high, or not going to be raised so much that it would truly slow demand for labor; Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs, Laura Tyson, Robert Reich and of course Paul Krugman.
In fact corporate profits and holdings are at an all time high, and wages have not kept pace with productivity for years.
These economists and many others argue that stagnating wages may be one of the biggest contributors to the current and future economic downturns. You may say," Wait! The housing market caused the economy to crash in 2008, Did it not?"
It did, but because wages stagnated and consumption continued to grow, the consumption could only be fueled by one thing; credit.
The point is not of course that credit is bad, and a discussion about whether a consumer based economy is a problem can be saved for another day. The point is that people do not have enough money to get by, let alone spend frivolously.
Aside from the ethical imperative, estimates show that increasing the minimum wage positively benefits the economy as a whole:
Low wage workers need the money to get by, and the American people need them to have the money so they can spend it, creating demand, markets, and jobs to fill it.A 2011 study by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank finds that minimum wage increases raise incomes and increase consumer spending, especially triggering car purchases. The authors examine 23 years of household spending data and find that for every dollar increase for a minimum wage worker results in $2,800 in new consumer spending by his or her household over the following year.A 2009 study by the Economic Policy Institute estimates that Obama’s campaign pledge to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011 would inject $60 billion in additional spending into the economy.
Rep. Kim, Senator Tartaglione, Candidate McGinty, and many others, keep fighting to raise that wage!
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Dem's Moratorium Vote Pushes The Conversation/Policy Left
At the PA Democratic Party's summer state committee meeting, a resolution passed calling for a moratorium on fracking until health risks are known. This week Robert Vickers writes in his Patriot-News column about the divisions that move has caused in the party.
Yes, Vickers is right that the move might make the energy industry uneasy about supporting candidates with a D next to their name after the resolution, but for the most part those party leaders are few and far between.
State Senator Jim Ferlo (D-Allegheny) has pushed for such a moratorium but it has minimal support in the legislature. None of the major Gubernatorial candidates support stopping of natural gas drilling. So what is the value of, as Vickers says a "toothless statements of intent"?
It serves to show that regular rank and file members of the party are not comfortable with the practice of fracking regardless of what their party leaders say and making that clear can have policy repercussions.
Governor Corbett has largely let frackers run wild and minimized state authority over them, de juris and de facto. A new Democratic governor with abundant industry funding available to them may have to think twice now before acting.
The moratorium resolution has merit if nothing else, by telling party leaders that they better be listening to their base. A moratorium coming to pass is a highly unlikely outcome but by demanding it at the party level, the conversation inside the ascendant power shifts further to the left.
This should not be understated. Even though the Schwartz campaign others have taken pains to make their positions on fracking clear, "frack safetly and responsibly," there will continue to be room to the left of that. Fracking that is more safe (greater state and federal oversight) and more responsible (a substantial severance tax to help cover the practice's true cost).
Some might argue that a push left may harm statewide prospects come election day, but given the actions of the candidates and the party's targets I am fairly skeptical. As I said before the Gubernatorial candidates have made their stance on fracking fairly clear and are already accepting donations. The Dem's wont take the house so then the focus is on the Senate. Arlen Platt in a comment to the the PA Independent told us what they see as in play.
It is important to remember that even Democratic politicians would not necessarily come to inhabit that space of the conversation on their own. Only a leftward push like this can take them there.
If fracking supporters do that [make the case that fracking is safe scientifically and openly]- possibly as soon as Sept. 27 when the state committee next meets - he says moratorium forces would be willing to change their position.
And that would make the 2014 election cycle much smoother for Democratic candidates wary of a natural gas industry knockout campaign contribution to their opponents.The post, draws the conclusion that the division may lead to negative outcomes for Dems in 14'. I think understates the value that the divisions have.
Yes, Vickers is right that the move might make the energy industry uneasy about supporting candidates with a D next to their name after the resolution, but for the most part those party leaders are few and far between.
State Senator Jim Ferlo (D-Allegheny) has pushed for such a moratorium but it has minimal support in the legislature. None of the major Gubernatorial candidates support stopping of natural gas drilling. So what is the value of, as Vickers says a "toothless statements of intent"?
It serves to show that regular rank and file members of the party are not comfortable with the practice of fracking regardless of what their party leaders say and making that clear can have policy repercussions.
Governor Corbett has largely let frackers run wild and minimized state authority over them, de juris and de facto. A new Democratic governor with abundant industry funding available to them may have to think twice now before acting.
The moratorium resolution has merit if nothing else, by telling party leaders that they better be listening to their base. A moratorium coming to pass is a highly unlikely outcome but by demanding it at the party level, the conversation inside the ascendant power shifts further to the left.
This should not be understated. Even though the Schwartz campaign others have taken pains to make their positions on fracking clear, "frack safetly and responsibly," there will continue to be room to the left of that. Fracking that is more safe (greater state and federal oversight) and more responsible (a substantial severance tax to help cover the practice's true cost).
Some might argue that a push left may harm statewide prospects come election day, but given the actions of the candidates and the party's targets I am fairly skeptical. As I said before the Gubernatorial candidates have made their stance on fracking fairly clear and are already accepting donations. The Dem's wont take the house so then the focus is on the Senate. Arlen Platt in a comment to the the PA Independent told us what they see as in play.
“The game is in the southeast,” said Aren Platt, executive director for the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee.
Even with a Republican-drawn redistricting plan working against Democrats, Platt said the demographic trends in the southeast — Montgomery County becoming steadily more Democratic, for example — were good signs for his candidates.I'm betting that in the Southeast fracking is not a live or die issue.
It is important to remember that even Democratic politicians would not necessarily come to inhabit that space of the conversation on their own. Only a leftward push like this can take them there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)