Why Massachusetts Should Not Raise the Minimum Wage

Featured

Posted on June 13, 2013 by Christine Morabito

Below are 2 Testimonials sent to the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development on June 11, 2013

Testimony 1: From Peter D. Laird Sr.

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed bill to increase the minimum wage. I come before the Committee as a citizen and particularly as a grandfather of eight grandchildren all living in Massachusetts. It’s my hope that as I grow older all my grand kids will be living in Massachusetts, available for me to interact personally with them and that I will not have to resort to Skype or iPad transmissions from some distant state because that’s where the jobs are. As much as we all love Massachusetts and view it as a wonderful place to live, much of the rest of the country is growing relatively faster than the Commonwealth. Proof of this was in the last census and our losing a Congressional seat in the 2012 election.

Massachusetts is a high cost state to do business for a myriad of reasons. I don’t believe we should add to those costs – and to the PERCEPTION of those high costs – by increasing our minimum wage to the highest state rate in the country -20% higher than the next highest rate in the State of Washington.

Nationally, just 1 1/2% of the population earn only the minimum wage. More than half of that small percentage are teenagers or students – not primary breadwinners. The average family income of those students and teenagers is $65,000 a year. When a teenager and student myself I earned $1.25 per hour as a stock boy in summer jobs at an electrical devices assembly plant and $.90 as a dishwasher in my college’s dining halls. Clearly, I couldn’t maintain a household on those wages nor pay for the totality of my college expenses, but I could and did buy books and help defray my parent’s, a teamster and a school teacher, expenses helping me through school.

In 1999 Massachusetts ranked 10th in teenage employment at 54%. In 2012 the Commonwealth ranked 31st at 26.5%. This proposed legislative increase in the minimum wage will worsen this situation.

Numerous studies have been done on the impact of raising minimum wages. Professor David Neumark of the University of California/ Irvine and William Wascher, a researcher for the Federal Reserve in Washington, DC in 2008 did a thorough study of 102 studies that had been done in the previous three decades. Two thirds of the studies showed a consistent indication of a negative employment effect. Only eight per cent showed a positive impact. Of the 33 studies the two researchers felt were the most credible due to more stringent methodology, 28 of 33 (85%) found a negative impact on employment; none found a positive impact.

And the greatest negative effect was on the less skilled, in particular teenagers especially black and Hispanic teenagers.

Since an increase in the mandatory minimum wage has a negative effect on the most vulnerable – teenagers and black and Hispanics trying to gain entry into the job market to learn job skills to benefit them longer term, I’d encourage legislators to leave the Massachusetts’ minimum wage unchanged.

Thank you for the opportunity to make my comments.

Pete Laird Sr.

Testimony 2: From Paul D. Craney, Executive Director, Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance

Good afternoon members of this committee, I will try to be concise and brief since there are so many that want to offer their opinion today. My name is Paul D. Craney and I am the Executive Director of Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a right of center economic, fiscal and good government non-profit group.

Thank you for letting me have this opportunity to speak to you today on the minimum wage and if we as a state should increase it. Before I begin my testimony, let me put the minimum wage in a context that everyone here can easily identify with, and that’s elections.

As a successful candidate for public office, you had to earn more votes than your opponent. As a candidate, you knew what the rules were for winning and for most it was developing a campaign plan to get 50% plus 1 vote. It’s the same for employers. They develop a campaign plan that addresses their largest two concerns: making payroll and knowing where their income is going to come from. As a candidate, you develop your campaign plan for the first Tuesday in November and the rules don’t change. As an employer, the same is also true. The end of every payroll period is their first Tuesday in November. With the economy being so slow, especially outside of the Boston beltway, by increasing the minimum wage rate, you are making it almost impossible for many to win; the rules are being changed for them.

Let me now examine the facts on the minimum wage hike. Massachusetts is one of 18 states that has a higher state minimum wage rate ($8 per hour), than the Federal law of $7.25 per hour. 23 states have a minimum wage rate the same as the Federal rate. The border states of New York and New Hampshire have lower rates than Massachusetts.

The debate over raising the rates for the minimum wage continues to draw emotion and proponents see the issues as a matter of fairness. In contrast to some perceptions, a majority of minimum wage workers are teenagers entering the workforce, and not adults trying to raise a family. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS,) 21% of hourly employed teenagers earn minimum wage or less compared with about 3% of workers age 25 and over. Of this small percentage of adults earning minimum wage or less, 94% also have a spouse that works as well.

In 8 out of 10 families supporting children, the minimum wage job accounts for less than 20% of the total household income. 4 A majority of studies also show that increasing the minimum wage actually cuts jobs and does not reduce poverty levels. Additionally, nearly two-thirds of minimum wage earners receive a raise in their first year of employment.

Since the majority of minimum wage workers are young adults, the effect of increasing the minimum wage would actually hurt them as businesses can no longer afford to hire them. The unemployment rate for teens in Massachusetts has been increasing over the last several years.

The MassBudget website states, “In 2011, 13.8 percent or close to one in seven young adults (ages 16-24) in Massachusetts are unemployed. This is a dramatic increase—more than doubling—of the youth unemployment rate in 2000, which was 6.7 percent, or one in fifteen.

Well respected newspapers have editorialized on the subject as well. The New York Times, editorialized about the minimum wage rate increase once on January 14, 1987 and then again on April 15, 1987. In each editorial, the Times disputed the flaws that proponents defended for the increase in minimum wage. The justifications they have been making since 1987 are still being used today.

The Times stated, “Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market.” “Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the least skilled workers and fewer will be hired.” “Those at greatest risk from a higher minimum would be young, poor workers, who already face formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs”

More recently, the Boston Business Journal editorialized on March 1, 2013 against the rate increase here in Massachusetts. The BBJ stated, “Regulate something and you get less of it. Regulate minimum wage jobs and you’ll get fewer of them. Massachusetts should shelve minimum wage hikes for the sake of the tens of thousands who can’t find a job.” I have submitted copies of these editorials with my written testimony for your reference.

So what is the solution for helping the small percentage of minimum wage workers who are trying to support a family? In the 1970’s the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was signed into law. This law allows low income households to receive a tax credit based on their income level; the lower their income, the higher the tax credit. This permits targeted low income households to receive a break rather than the minimum wage pool in general. Additionally, the Times editorialized in 1987 and it can still be encouraged today to increase job training for minimum wage workers in hopes that they will be promoted to higher paying professions.

Thank you again for your time and I am happy to answer any questions you may have today or as a follow up.

Paul D. Craney

Below are some references:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/labor/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm#1

http://epionline.org/study/r132/

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/raising-the-minimum-wage-will-not-reduce-poverty

http://epionline.org/studies/macpherson_06-2004.pdf

Greater Boston Tea Party Statement on Revelation of Intimidation and Harassment of Tea Party Organizations by IRS

Featured

Posted on May 13, 2013 by Christine Morabito

The Greater Boston Tea Party is greatly distressed to learn that a department of the federal government, in its oversight of our tax system, has routinely targeted for intimidation and harassment citizen activist organizations, based on their conservative political ideology. As citizens and newcomers to the arena of policy advocacy, we feel this betrayal of the public’s trust is worthy of immediate investigation followed by swift disciplinary action. Any and all employees of the IRS suspected to have participated in, condoned or failed to report such activity should be suspended from performing their duties.

That President Obama has labeled these practices “outrageous” is encouraging. He well understands how swiftly political winds can shift. The trust we have instilled in our government is only preserved if the power of that government is leveled evenly and equally. We are disappointed and feel betrayed by the government we expect to act neutrally and transparently in its bureaucratic functions.

The Greater Boston Tea Party, while operating as a 501c3 organization, has delayed filing our application to be recognized as such by the federal government. The process is complicated, expensive and arduous. That it has been made more so by the agency reviewing the applications is, frankly, ironic, considering many of the targeted applicants advocate for less government oversight of our daily activities both private and public.

Again, we are encouraged by President Obama’s strong condemnation and his call for accountability in the scandal. We can only hope that part of the effort at combating this culture of oppression will include instruction of government employees in the constitutional rights of the citizenry.

This behavior matters to every American. No department of government at any level has the power or authority to target individuals or organizations based on ideology. We will be contacting Massachusetts’ federal representatives and asking for leadership on investigating and eliminating practices of political prejudice and oppression at all levels of government.

Action Alert: Stop More Bad Immigration Policy – Call Key Senators Today!

Featured

Posted on May 9, 2013 by Christine Morabito

Our immigration system is broken and in need of serious reform. However, the U.S. Senate is attempting to rush through a comprehensive immigration reform bill, S.744 that mirrors Obamacare in its size and scope. Many of the provisions will be completely unenforceable and the opportunities for wavers and exemptions from this law are endless. There is no assurance that the passing of this bill would make our borders more secure (only that there is a “plan” to secure the borders).

Instead, we should encourage our representatives to slow things down and work on incremental, common-sense reforms that will actually fix the problems, not make them worse. All the amendments in the world won’t fix this bill.

The Center for Immigration Studies has completed a thorough analysis of S.744. Director of Policy Studies, Jessica Vaughan offers this review: Senate Bill Rewards & Protects Lawbreakers, Undermines Law Enforcement.

Also worth a read is 10 Immigration Amendments to Watch.

Tell these senators (list updated 5/23/13) that here in Massachusetts, in light of the recent attack on our city, we feel the Gang of Eight immigration bill goes too far and presents an enormous public safety and national security risk for all Americans. Ask them to start from scratch and deal with the issues one at a time rather than passing this horribly flawed comprehensive bill.

Here are their phone numbers:

Orrin Hatch (R-UT) (202) 224-5251
Kay Hagan (D-NC) (202) 224-6342
Richard Burr (R-NC) (202) 224-3154
Mark Begich (D-AK) (202) 224-3004
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D-WV) (202) 224-6472
Joe Manchin III (D-WV) (202) 224-3954
Mary Landrieu (D-LA) (202) 224-5824

Common Core: Too Common for Our Kids

Posted on June 14, 2013 by Christine Morabito

This column orginally appeared in The Valley Patriot June 2013

By Christine Morabito

At the risk of sounding elitist, Massachusetts schools should not have to lower their exceptional education standards to be equal to other states. Alabama is a very nice place, but it does not necessarily share our educational requirements, especially if we hope to compete in the high tech and medical fields that attract students and businesses from all over the world.

Common Core State Standards (CCSS), a K-12 curriculum, was designed by unelected, unaccountable special interest groups to inject “fairness” into the education systems across the nation. Adopted in 45 states, the program, concentrating on English language arts and mathematics, is scheduled to be in place by 2014. However, as concerned citizens learn the disturbing details, at least 10 states are having second thoughts – and with good reason.

Establishing an education curriculum is the responsibility of individual states and certainly not a function of the federal government. In a prime example of executive overreach, and in violation of 3 federal laws, the Obama administration has coerced states into adopting CCSS by tying their participation to federal grants for programs like Race to the Top and waivers from the epic failure that is No Child Left Behind. This gave cash-strapped states a huge financial incentive to adopt a one-size-fits-all education policy at the expense of our children.

State legislators around the country claim they had never heard of CCSS until they began to get complaints from constituents, especially parents and some teachers, afraid of losing control over what is being taught in the classroom. Those hurt most by the new standards will be students at the very top and the very bottom of the education spectrum, as the program has little to offer gifted children or those who are struggling.

In the rush to redistribute education, there was no time for cost analysis. In states where CCSS has been adopted, legislators are now being asked to fund the program – to the tune of $16 billion nationwide –according to a study done by the Pioneer Institute, a leader in the fight against national standards in Massachusetts since 2009. The implementation costs include funding for new technology, teacher training and the purchase of new textbooks and instructional materials.

Some of the approved textbooks have parents outraged. A lesson plan from a literature and writing book for first- graders, encourages youngsters to use negative words for maximum emotional impact and manipulation of the listener. Its companion workbook contains the following multiple choice question: “My mom always ____ me to clean my room.” The choices are “tells” and “nags.” Shockingly, the correct answer is “nags.” Equally disturbing is the language used in promoting the frameworks which describes our children as “human capital.”

The new guidelines ensure that teachers prepare students for state testing and little beyond that. Gone will be the promise of creating lifelong learners or challenging children who excel. While state assessments are important, they only measure minimum competencies. With these methods, what incentive will a student, a teacher, or even a school have to aspire to educational excellence?

There is no evidence that these national standards are in our children’s best interest. Simply repeating the narrative that the curriculum is “rigorous” does not make it so. CCSS gives new meaning to the term “fuzzy math,” which is more concerned with method than correctness. Critics say the algebra standards are mediocre and only prepare students to perform at a community college level. And parents are left frustrated by the inability to help kids with their homework.

Another area of great concern is the creation of student databases for the purpose of tracking children from school to the workforce by including healthcare history, household income, religious affiliation and family voting status, which will be accessible to federal and state agencies. Unfortunately, it is clear from the ongoing IRS scandal that such data can be used for evil in the hands of a coercive government.

The attempt to nationalize our education system, dumb down our kids and limit parent’s role in their child’s learning is an issue that has caught the attention of not only the Tea Party, but citizens from across the political spectrum. That’s because our children’s future – for that matter, America’s future – is a bipartisan issue. The Obama administration may be uncomfortable using the word “exceptionalism,” but here in Massachusetts, we embrace it.

See the original article here: http://valleypatriot.com/common-core-too-common-for-our-kids/

The Common Core: Haven’t We Been Here Before?

Who’s Minding the Schools?

The Road to a National Curriculum

The Beginning of Common Core’s Trouble

National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards

We Oppose Common Core!

Posted on June 9, 2013 by Christine Morabito

If there’s one issue that can unite the citizens of this state, regardless of party affiliation, it’s Common Core State Standards (CCSS), an a K-12 curriculum designed to inject “fairness” into the education systems across the nation.

Establishing an education curriculum is the responsibility of each individual state and certainly not a function of the federal government. Massachusetts at one time had the highest education standards in the nation, and we are now at risk of losing that status. I’m sure Mississippi is a very nice place, but we don’t necessarily have the same educational requirements, especially if we want to continue to compete in the high tech and medical fields that attract students and businesses to our state. MA should be exporting our standards and practices to other states, not importing lower standards.

The federal government has bypassed Congress, violated 3 federal laws and coerced states into adopting CCSS by tying their participation to federal funding for programs like Race to the Top and waivers from No Child Left Behind. This gives cash strapped states a huge financial incentive at the expense of our children. Thankfully, opposition is widespread. See for yourself:

Tea Party orgs across the country battling Common Core

Tea Party Groups Rallying Against Common Core

Pioneer Institute leads the fight against Common Core in Massachusetts

What can we do here in Massachusetts? Here is a petition to send to your representatives, Governor Patrick, the MA Board of Education, and the Attorney General. Here is where to send it. Our elected representatitves need to know there is opposition to instituting Common Core in MA. Who knows? You may get a positive response from your representative or senator – many share our opposition.

Statement on the U.S. Senate Special Election

Posted on May 7, 2013 by Christine Morabito

The Greater Boston Tea Party does not endorse candidates of either party. That said, we do have significant issues with Democrat Ed Markey’s 36 year history of ever expanding government, ever shrinking personal freedoms and the unfair burden this places on future generations in terms of taxation and deficits.

We question Gabriel Gomez on a couple of key issues, as illustrated in the letter he wrote to Governor Deval Patrick regarding his support for President Obama’s position on gun control and immigration, but find our core beliefs on economic and fiscal issues much closer to his.

Our membership consists of Republicans, Independents and Libertarians who are united in the belief that government is too big and spends too much money. In listening to our members, there is little doubt that while some may offer little more than support at the ballot box, many more are indicating enthusiastic support for the political newcomer.