Now they think they know about the economy

The San Angelo Standard-Times Editorial Board (SASTEB) officially HATES the Democratic Congress. And all things Democrat. This includes the words Democrat, Democraty, Democratic, Democratalicious, Democratastic, and Democracy.

Behold: “Democrats shouldn’t tie wage boost to war” - May 2.

President Bush and most members of Congress agree that the minimum wage should be raised.

This as, at best, hyperbole. They both agree in an increase in the minimum wage. However, Bush and many Republicans have a far different policy from the Democrats. Bush’s plan differs in two ways:

1) The increase is phased, which means that the minimum wage increases incrementally by year, thus preventing major supply shocks to the economy.
2) The overall increase is less (even more so when adjusted for inflation) than the Democrats' plan.

But, please continue. You were oversimplifying?

Last year, when the Republicans controlled the House, they passed an increase but got a little too politically cute and attached a steep cut in the estate tax, knowing that this was unacceptable to Senate Democrats.

The idea was to force the Democrats into an embarrassing vote, reneging on one campaign promise to make good on another, but the Democrats simply bottled it up and the bill died.

Once again, very oversimplified. The Republicans had an entire economic package to pass. The estate tax and the minimum wage increase were just components of the package (albeit the major parts). Also, the minimum wage increase was proposed in the lame duck session, and the Democrats simply killed it by slowing the process, which bought time for the Dems to take power.

They did this for three reasons:

1) The Dems wanted the political credit for the minimum wage increase.

2) It would have no effect on the actual time that the increase would take place, since the increase would only be implemented by the beginning of 2008 whether the Republicans passed it or the Democrats passed it.

3) The increase was more than a dollar less than what the Democrats wanted.

You would think the Democrats would have learned some lessons from that about being in the majority, but political logic is not the same as textbook logic.

There are 29 syntactical errors in that sentence. Can you count them all???

I’m not even going to try to parse this sentence. Both the indefinite reference of “that” and the odd distinction between “political logic” and “textbook logic” are baffling.

The Democratic leadership instead tied the minimum-wage increase to an Iraq-war funding bill.

Sure. Why not? It’s going to be passed. And the increase will happen at the same time (Jan 1, 2008). Why not make it a political football? It won’t hurt anybody.

The Iraq bill is an emergency supplemental spending bill.

An emergency spending bill??? The Pentagon itself has said that the funds aren’t needed until AUGUST!!!! This is the farthest thing from emergency. If you went into the emergency room claiming that you will be stricken by a disease in three to four months, you’d be laughed out of the ER. And then featured on an episode of Scrubs, where Dr. Perry Cox will rip you a new one.

The minimum wage, while vital to workers at the bottom of the wage ladder, is hardly an emergency.

Indeed. It will be implemented at the same time no matter when it’s passed (assuming it will be this year). However, the Iraq Bill is clearly not an emergency, either.

Bush has said all along he will veto the Democrats’ Iraq bill, and the fact that the minimum wage is tucked in there won’t make him change his mind.

Stubborn as a mule to the end.

Thus, a measure that would be easily passed on its own will now be caught up in feuding between the White House and congressional Democrats over Iraq timetables, deadlines and troop withdrawals.

Actually, the minimum wage increase was passed on its own. It just went to conference committee and got tagged onto this bill. It has already been passed by both the House and Senate. And, get this: It doesn’t matter when the increase is passed, it will go into effect at the same time. I will now be repeating this after every paragraph from the SASTEB.

The federal minimum wage is currently $5.15 an hour. This bill would raise it to $7.25 an hour.

It doesn’t matter when the increase is passed, it will go into effect at the same time.

(Also, this is awkward space filler. Wouldn’t this have done better at the top than at the bottom?)

The increase is more symbolic than economic because of higher minimums in most states and the passage of time. The federal minimum was last increased 10 years ago.

It doesn’t matter when the increase is passed, it will go into effect at the same time.

(Now you’re critiquing the increase itself???? This editorial took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.)

Sadly, Congress can afford to play politics with the minimum wage because, unlike the war-funding bill, there’s no great urgency to it — unless, of course, you’re the one making $5.15 an hour.

You just argued that the increase was symbolic and not urgent. And now you say it's urgent? Make up your mind!!!

Also:

It doesn’t matter when the increase is passed, it will go into effect at the same time.
It doesn’t matter when the increase is passed, it will go into effect at the same time.
It doesn’t matter when the increase is passed, it will go into effect at the same time.
It doesn’t matter when the increase is passed, it will go into effect at the same time.
It doesn’t matter when the increase is passed, it will go into effect at the same time.