President Obama’s weekly address:

The White House transcript:

Remarks of President Barack Obama

Weekly Address

The White House

August 30, 2014

Hi, everybody.  Whether you’re firing up the grill, fired up for some college football, or filling up the car for one last summer roadtrip – Happy Labor Day weekend.

We set aside Labor Day to honor the working men and women of America.  And this Labor Day, we’ve got more to celebrate.  Over the past 53 months, our businesses have added nearly 10 million new jobs.  Last month, for the first time since 1997, we created more than 200,000 jobs for six straight months.  And for the first time in over a decade, business leaders worldwide have declared, two years running, that the number one place to invest isn’t China – it’s America.

So there are reasons to be optimistic about where we’re headed.  And the decisions we make now will determine whether or not we accelerate this progress – whether economic gains flow to a few at the top, or whether a growing economy fuels rising incomes and a thriving middle class.

Think about it this Labor Day.  The things we often take for granted – Social Security and Medicare, workplace safety laws and the right to organize for better pay and benefits, even weekends – we didn’t always have these things.  Workers and the unions who get their back had to fight for them.  And those fights built a stronger middle class.

To build a stronger middle class in today’s changing economy, we’ve got to keep fighting.  We’ve got to fight for the right to affordable health insurance for everybody.  The right to fair pay, family leave, and workplace flexibility.  The right to a fair living wage.

Let me focus on that last one for a minute.  In America, no one who works full-time should ever have to raise a family in poverty.  A hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay.  And raising the minimum wage would be one of the best ways to give a boost to working families.  It would help around 28 million Americans from all walks of life pay the bills, provide for their kids, and spend that money at local businesses.  And that grows the economy for everyone.

The bottom line is, America deserves a raise.  But until we’ve got a Congress that cares about raising working folks’ wages, it’s up to the rest of us to make it happen.  And in the year and a half since I first asked Congress to raise the minimum wage, Americans of all walks of life are doing just that.

Thirteen states and D.C. have done their part by raising their minimum wages.  Four more states have minimum wage initiatives on the ballot this November.  And the states where the minimum wage has gone up this year have experienced higher job growth than the states that haven’t.

Business leaders at companies like The Gap are doing their part.  They’re raising base wages for tens of thousands of workers because they know it’s good for business.

Mayors across the country are doing their part.  Mayor Emanuel in Chicago and Mayor Garcetti in L.A. are working to lift their cities’ wages over time to at least thirteen dollars an hour.

I’ve tried to do my part by requiring companies that get contracts with the federal government to pay their workers a fair wage of ten dollars and ten cents an hour.

And earlier this month, the president of Kentucky State University set a great example by giving himself a $90,000 pay cut, so that he could give raises to his lowest-paid employees.  His sacrifice will give more of his workers and their families a little extra money to help make ends meet.

That’s how America built the greatest middle class the world has ever known.  Not by making sure a fortunate few at the top are doing well, but by making sure that everyone who’s willing to work hard and play by the rules can get ahead.  That’s the bedrock this country is built on.  Hard work.  Responsibility.  Sacrifice.  And looking out for one another as one united American family.

Let’s keep that in mind this Labor Day, and every day.  Have a great weekend, everybody.

Previously:

Opening of the 2014 legislative session – photos (January 8, 2014)

House Democratic Caucus press conference – Jefferson City – January 8, 2014 (January 8, 2014)

“…Well, first of all, I don’t feel that we should be leveraging the children of this state on anything. They should be our number one priority…”

Yesterday afternoon the House Democratic Caucus held a press conference in the House Lounge after the opening of the legislative session in Jefferson City. After prepared remarks by Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D) and Assistant Minority Floor Leader Gail McCann Beatty (D) they took questions from the press.

The video:

The transcript:

Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D): Questions.

Question: There is not agreement between the Governor and, uh, legislature on a consensus revenue estimate, so a couple of questions there. Where does your party stand on how much money the state should, uh, plan on having next year? And does that play into where you hope to see money come to the foundation formula? Do you think there’s more money there that can be pumped into that, or where is that gonna come from?

Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D): Well, first of all, I haven’t seen the, uh, Governor’s budget proposal, but I assume that that is where his, uh, numbers are coming from. Uh, look, I think we know that the, the House is going to, the Governor is gonna start with his number and the House Budget Committee will start with their number. You know, if, if they want to go ahead and start cutting money from education, from fully funding the foundation formula, um, and not try to trust the Governor’s number then that’s up to them. Then they can be in the position to go ahead and cut things from education. So, do I know which number is the absolute correct answer? I don’t. And I don’t think, I don’t think that it’s fair to say that either one, either one party does, so.

Question: From a position of a minority with fifty-two members you can’t force much, um, in the House of Representatives. So, you’re gonna have to rely on public pressure in some ways to [inaudible] the Republicans. What do you intend to do that would be different from what happened last year on Medicaid that would, uh, create that pressure to [inaudible] move ahead on this bill?

Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D): Well, first of all, I think that there’s enough people within the majority party that would vote for Medicaid expansion if someone in the Speaker’s office had the courage to let it come to the floor for a vote. How are we going to know if no one will bring it up for a vote? The Chamber of Commerce in Missouri as well as numerous chambers of commerce across the state have come out more strongly in favor of this. You know, they realize that this is a huge, uh, job creation tool. Why is it that the majority only wants to listen to the business community when it suits their agenda? I don’t think it’s fair to say that they want to say that, okay, fine, we can’t expand jobs in the state unless we do this. They’ve come out and said they think this is gonna create twenty-four thousand jobs. I mean, they agree with us. We’re not always on the same page as the Chamber of Commerce.

Question: Yeah, but chances are that, you know, barring peasants with pitch forks coming up here and pushing the Speaker in to this, um, up to the dais, uh, to get a vote on that, how do you, how do you get that pressure on him?

Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D): Well, what we have been doing is we’ve been going, in the interim, we went around the state for quite a while. Uh, we went to different areas of the state and we tried to inform the voters and the citizens that this is the right thing to do. And we’re gonna continue to do that. Um, and as you said, it’s up to public pressure to get these guys to do what they [inaudible], so.

Assistant Minority Floor Leader Gail McCann Beatty (D): Just a, a quick comment, too. I think as we start to see some of these hospitals start to close I think, uh, a lot of our counterparts are gonna have to rethink, uh, how they vote on this.

Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D): For the first time in history BJC has laid off employees. I mean, if that’s not an eye awakener I don’t know what is.

Question: Where would you like to see the minimum wage increase to? What is your, what, what’s your proposal  [inaudible]?

Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D): That’s Representative Roorda. Let’s let Representative Roorda  answer that, it’s his bill.

Representative Jeff Roorda (D): Thank  you, Jake. Uh, well, first of all, it’s great to be part of a team that is bringing common sense solutions to the table, uh, instead of what we heard in a very red meat speech from the Speaker today that, uh, I think folks notice that, uh, his own caucus was not excited about. We saw nothing but unenthused golf claps, uh, throughout the Speaker’s speech. And I think it’s because it’s an extreme speech, uh, that offers no bipartisan attempt to work with the Governor to pass important legislation. Uh, and I don’t think that’s reflective of the Speaker’s entire caucus, so.

To confirm what, uh, my friend and leader said, I think we’re gonna advance issues like minimum wage, House Bill 1098 was filed in early December. That seeks to raise minimum wage to eight dollars twenty-five cents per hour. Uh, for tipped employees it, it raises their percentage of minimum wage from fifty percent to sixty percent. It also, uh, doubles the damages, uh, for employees who were not, uh, paid properly under the minimum wage statutes. So, uh, it very closely mirrors the, uh, petition initiative, uh, that just fell few signatures short of getting on the ballot in November two thousand twelve. And it’s common sense legislation I think, uh, Missourians of every stripe can agree that it’s good for our state and good for our economy.

Question: Do you keep the COLA on?

Representative Jeff Roorda (D): Keep the COLA, yes.

Representative Jeff Roorda (D).

Question: Last year, uh, Representative Barnes, uh, worked on an alternate Medicaid proposal that would include, uh, a smaller increase with some, uh, market based reforms mixed in. And he’s been working on that over the, uh, since the last session ended. Is that something the House Democrats can get behind?

Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D): I, absolutely willing to sit down with Representative Barnes and, and discuss the proposal. I mean, the Speaker created special interim committees. So did the Senate. So tell me now why after we have been working on this the entire interim that all of a sudden they’re, it’s just not gonna be brought up. I mean, why did we waste all the taxpayers’ dollars having these interim committees if they weren’t going to do anything? And, you know, the Speaker said in his speech that he was tired of the Governor picking winners and lose, losers as he did in the Boeing proposal. Unless I’m mistaken, I could’ve swore the Speaker voted for that proposal. So, I’m confused on where he’s going with that.

Question: Question for some of your, uh, maybe for some of your members with the Education Committee. But, on the transfer issue if there comes up an opportunity to leverage that with some of the other issues that, uh, uh, Speaker Jones or the Republicans have been favorable for are there any that you can see working with or using as leverage?

Representative Genise Montecillo (D): Well, first of all, I don’t feel that we should be leveraging the children of this state on anything. They should be our number one priority. Educating our children in this state should be our number one issue that we’re addressing this session. Um, without that everything else falls by the wayside. So, no, I don’t believe that our children should be wagered. Uh, there were bills last year, I filed a bill, and, and several of us did and we were told that unless the Speaker’s legislation was moved ours wouldn’t see the light of day and it didn’t. That’s wrong. If we know something is gonna provide good education outcomes that should be a priority.

Representative Genise Montecillo (D).

Question: What would you like, do you have a proposal on the transfer law in terms of what changes you, your caucus supports on, on that law?

Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D): No, we don’t, we don’t have a, you know, we’ve looked at the proposal that being brought forward in the Senate. Um, we think there’s some good ground work there, think there’s some changes that probably need to be make, be made. But, um, and I’ll let Representative McNeil. She’s not here. [crosstalk] Well.

Representative Genise Montecillo (D): Representative McNeil does have, um, she’s working on legislation. She’s not present today.

Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D): I think there’s some common sense things that we can, we can start with. Like, I think that it’s, I think that it’s not out of the picture to say that the receiving districts can at least have some common sense way to set classroom sizes. Certainly I don’t think that they should be able to lower them they way some of them have below the number of students that they already actually have in class. Uh, but I think that there’s, there should be some reasonable expectations to, uh, take in mind classroom sizes in those proposals. And there’s some other things that we can work on, but, um, it’s a tough issue as everybody knows.

Representative Genise Montecillo (D): I think one other point to understand and, it’s worrisome to me that the Speaker said that the transfer issue doesn’t seem to be a priority for him.  Back in St. Louis we have students that already lost their teachers this year. They, when they return to school after the snow storm they are going to brand new schools. Their school has closed. I don’t, I cannot understand how that’s good, um educational policy for our children.

Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D): Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.

Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D).

Previously: Opening of the 2014 legislative session – photos (January 8, 2014)

“…The speaker said that we need new, fresh ideas. None of those ideas were new. They were the same ones, over and over, again. All of the crazy stuff that was, uh, brought to the floor last year…”

This afternoon the House Democratic Caucus held a press conference in the House Lounge after the opening of the legislative session in Jefferson City. Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D) and Assistant Minority Floor Leader Gail McCann Beatty (D) started with prepared remarks.

Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D).

The video:

The transcript:

Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D): Everybody, thank you, thank you all for being here today.  I appreciate, uh, everyone’s time.  Welcome back to, uh, session after a very brief break, um, in the news stories.  Uh, here to present our legislative priorities for this year on Elvis’ seventy-ninth birthday. Representative Mayfield wanted me to mention that in case anybody was curious.

Um, our number one issue, of course, is, is Medicaid. Uh, there’s no issue that’s before us that could be any more important. Uh, we came together in a bipartisan fashion, uh, to try and lure Boeing here, um, obviously without success. But, when you look at, at what we did, both sides of the aisle, to bring that issue to the forefront in a short time and try to create jobs in this state, it shows that we can do it.

We came together to try and create eighty-five hundred jobs in this state. We did it in record time. There is no reason whatsoever that we cannot create twenty-four thousand jobs in this state in the same manner. We’ve left twenty-four thousand jobs on the table last year. We cannot afford to do it again.

We support the Governor’s proposal to fully fund the foundation formula by twenty-seventeen. It’s been a long time coming and it’s something that we’ve needed across the state. We talk a lot about education reform in this state – it’s never about making sure that our schools and our high, higher education facilities are fully funded as they should be. That is one of our top goals for this year, is to support the Governor’s agenda.

We support a responsible fix to the school transfer issue. Uh, everyone knows that that is a, a huge problem. We think there are absolutely responsible ways that we can work together to get this issue fixed. What we don’t think is that we should be putting some of the majority’s extreme school reform issues tied to that legislation. We need to fix what’s going on right now and leave the crazy stuff to another day.

Um, we also support a raising of the Missouri minimum wage. We think that that is important to, as we talk about job creation to bring the people at the bottom of the social layer to create a living wage so that they can provide for their families to begin to crawl out of poverty. And when you talk about the problems in some of our schools what people never talk about is the problems at home. The problems of people trying to feed their families, to make sure that there’s a place for their kids to sleep at night, and get them to school on time. You can’t do that on minimum wage. Representative Roorda, um, has a bill that he’s working on to do that.

We are going to present a bill to found, uh, to, uh, implement the school transfer issue. Uh, Representative Carpenter is going to, has a bill that he’s been working on the entire interim, uh, to our tax proposal, not a tax proposal that will drive an eight hundred million dollar hole in the state budget and one that will create tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations, but one that will give tax relief to ninety-eight percent of Missourians and will be revenue neutral.

We think that all of these things can be accomplished in this session and there’s no reason that we can’t tackle these.

Um, I do want to say that I was a little disappointed in the lack of bipartisan tone that came out of the Speaker’s, um, announcement today on the floor, on his priorities. Uh, we came together in December and look what we got done for the state. Maybe it didn’t work out, but that’s what the citizens of this state expect. They expect us to work past our differences and create jobs. The speaker said that we need new, fresh ideas. None of those ideas were new. They were the same ones, over and over, again. All of the crazy stuff that was, uh, brought to the floor last year – Sharia law, uh, drones – all that stuff’s been filed again. It’s nothing new. There’s no new ways to create jobs in this state. The Speaker wants to talk about right to work. It’s amazing then that Express Scripts is adding fifteen hundred jobs in St. Louis, that Boeing is adding several hundred jobs, Ford is adding, um, a thousand jobs, General Motors is adding jobs. We’ve created forty-four thousand new jobs from January twenty-thirteen to now. Forty-four thousand. Our unemployment rate, while at six point one percent is still unacceptable, it had been below the national average for, I think, fifty-one consecutive months. We’re doing something right. Right to work is not gonna help anybody in this state, except to lower wages for the people of Missouri.

So, my Assistant Minority Floor Leader Gail McCann Beatty has, uh, something to say and then we’ll take questions.

Assistant Minority Floor Leader Gail McCann Beatty (D): Good afternoon. So as we go into the two thousand -fourteen session two of our top priorities will be Medicaid expansion and the school transfer law.

The expansion of Medicaid represents the largest jobs creation bill that we have seen in generations, creating twenty-four thousand jobs in the health care industry alone. Our tax dollars are already going out to other states. It’s now time for us to bring our tax dollars back home.

School transfers are, are bankrupting school districts in the St. Louis area and the Kansas City School District is destined for that same fate. We must make, we must make common sense changes to our school transfer law. Our Missouri students are entitled to a quality education regardless where they live. We won’t improve our struggling districts by putting them in bankruptcy. We must be careful not to hurt the receiving districts. These districts should have the ability to set reasonable class limits to avoid overcrowding. We must act now. We cannot hold our children hostage to advance personal agendas. We have an obligation to Missourians to move forward without getting bogged down in unrelated issues in pushing personal agendas.

Minority Floor Leader Jacob Hummel (D): And one more thing,  I did forget one of our proposals. I’m sorry, I got the page turned.  Um, Representative McManus is, uh, leading our effort on ethics reform this year. It is not the same bill that we proposed last year. It is a much stronger version, uh, one that we think is, is desperately needed in the state. And he will be, he will be filing that probably either this week or the beginning of next week.

Assistant Minority Floor Leader Gail McCann Beatty (D).

Thursday saw about 100 fast-food workers in the St. Louis region participating in the latest of a series of ongoing protests demanding a wage hike to $15.00 an hour (nationally, fast-food workers average wage is about $8.94 an hour):

…  workers and organizers say they can’t live on the minimum wage, pointing to the disparity between their wages and the salaries of the people who run the corporations for which they work.

“We’re the ones busting our backs. He’s the one getting into his pool,” said protester Andrew Jackson, who has worked at Taco Bell on Hampton Avenue for 15 years and has five daughters, one of whom works at a McDonald’s and was also at Thursday’s rally. “I don’t think it’s fair that I have to work two jobs. I want time to be home with my family, too.”

Based on the letters to the editor that were printed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch after an earlier iteration of this protest, it seems that many still think that fast-food workers are minors living at home and working for pocket change. Or they’re low-skilled losers who need to take responsibility for themselves, work two jobs, go back to school, get a better job, etc. If the letter writers concede that nobody can live on the minimum wage, they still think that asking for what one characterized as the entry-level salary for a college graduate is just too presumptuous, never mind that there’s a big difference between a college graduate’s beginning salary, which usually quickly increases, and the near-static pay of a fast-food employee.

But did you notice that the worker quoted in the Post-Dispatch article cited above is an adult man who is attempting to support a family? Most fast-food workers aren’t carefree teenagers:

…  these jobs are no longer introductions to the world of work. The age of the average worker is 28, with 70 percent 20 years old or older, according to statistics compiled by AOL Jobs. One out of four has at least one child. A third has at least some college education. And, according to the National Employment Law Project, there is “limited occupational mobility,” so the positions don’t lead to higher paying positions let alone opportunities to own franchises.

Most of these people are working in the fast-food industry because that’s where the jobs are in today’s post-industrial economy. The days of good-paying manufacturing jobs seem to be long gone. And News Flash! Lots of fast-food workers do work two jobs – in order to survive. Nor is fast-food work easy. At it’s worst it can be a relentless, hot, dreary scramble to keep up the pace while keeping your cool as you deal with an often difficult, demanding clientele.

It isn’t as if the fast-food companies can’t afford to pay their workers a living wage either. Profits are soaring. For example:

… corporate fast-food giants are enjoying robust profits. McDonald’s raked in $5.5 billion in profits in 2012 – a 27 percent increase in profits over five years – while YUM! Brands posted $1.6 billion in profits last year.

So don’t let folks tell you that paying a decent raise will push the cost of fast food into the stratosphere. Just remember that you and I are already being hit up for that low-cost Big Mac that some of us would never purchase outright:

Wages are so low that many workers have to turn to public assistance for basic survival. Which means that taxpayers must subsidize the poverty wages that fast-food corporations pay their employees.

While we’re on the topic of compensation and value rendered, I ‘d like to draw your attention to a different but related matter. Thursday’s print edition of the Post-Dispatch reprinted* an article from the Kansas City Star about a recent analysis from the Institute for Policy Studies that concluded that:

A select group of the nation’s corporate chief executives has been paid far more than their performance warranted, according to a compensation analysis released Wednesday.

[…]

Nearly 40 percent of the men who appeared on lists ranking America’s 25 highest-paid corporate leaders between 1993 and 2012 have led companies bailed out by U.S. taxpayers, been fired for poor performance, or led companies charged with fraud-related activities.

The reason that I bring this up is that I want to know why folks think it’s presumptuous for those who do some of the hardest, dirtiest work in the country to ask for a living wage while white collar incompetents and crooks collect billions.

* I can only find this online reprint from the Wichita Eagle – but it’s the same article I’m looking at in my print paper.  

The Associated Press reported today that Missouri GOP gubernatorial contender Dave Spence had to repay part of a grant he had received from the state of New York. The grant was associated with a plastics business he acquired in that state. It seems that Spence, who is running on his record as a job-creating businessman, failed to meet the job creation targets upon which the grant was contingent.

Embarrassing, sure; surprising, not especially. Businesses succeed and fail for a number of reasons. It does, of course, undermine Spence’s job-creator chops, the single qualification he presents to persuade us he deserves to be elected governor of Missouri. As the AP put it, “Spence was not able to create jobs in New York.” Of course, success in business is, on its own, at least, a pretty weak qualification for a political career since government’s goals and methods are much broader than that of for-profit business.

What especially struck me, though, was one statement from the Democratic Party response:

A party spokesman pointed to various speeches in which Spence has said he doesn’t like “corporate welfare” and believes businesses should have to repay government incentives if they don’t follow through on their job-creation agreements.

The Democrats are on to something, but seem not to have a very firm grasp of all the implications. My question is if Spence doesn’t like “corporate welfare” what’s he doing accepting government subsidies under any circumstances?  Whether or not he created jobs with corporate welfare government money is irrelevant.

If memory serves me, Spence got Alpha Packaging, his big Missouri business success, going strong thanks to a Small Business Administration Loan, and then, of course, there’s his  support for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP)  – he sat on the board of a bank that took TARP money and then defaulted. Seems to me that Mr. Spence has been more than happy to take advantage of corporate welfare. You could even say he owes much of his success to just that particular form of government largesse.

But when it comes to government looking out for the folks who occupy those jobs he claims he wants to create, he’s not so generous. He may be willing to accept government help to insure his welfare and to endorse policies that permit government to help businessmen like him, but he wants that same government to leave workers’ welfare to the “free” market, via  right-to-work-for-less legislation and totally abolishing the minimum wage.

Which brings me to a simple question that Mr. Spence’s many trips to the government trough suggests: Why isn’t what’s good for the goose, good for the gander? If government subsidies help businessmen like Spence “create” jobs, why isn’t government oversight to guarantee a fair share of the proceeds for the workers just as good? There might not be any proceeds, after all, if weren’t for our tax money – including those of union and minimum wage folks. Why should we subsidize a “free” market that offers us slave wages?

And, lest you be misled by Mr. Spence’s claim that unions and minimum wage requirements are what made it impossible for him to succeed in New York, bear in mind that as recently as 2011, New York led the nation in job creation and is ranked third in job growth by Kiplinger this year.

Yesterday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C111223 06/06/2012 SAVE OUR STATES JOBS COALITION Missouri Restaurant Association 1810 Craig Road Suite 225 St Louis MO 63146 6/5/2012 $24,153.25

C111223 06/06/2012 SAVE OUR STATES JOBS COALITION K.R.M., Inc. 5921 N.W. Barry Road Suite 300 Kansas City MO 64154 6/6/2012 $7,500.00

That’s an interesting committee name.

C111223: Save Our States Jobs Coalition

Po Box 27839 Committee Type: Campaign

St Louis Mo 63146

(314) 576-2777 Established Date: 12/16/2011

[….]

Proposed Amendment To Chapter 290Rsmo, Minimum Wage, 2012-084 And 2012-085 11/06/2012 Amendment To Chapter 290Rsmo Oppose

[emphasis added]

You’ve got to wonder if “Exploiting Low Wage Workers To Increase Profit Margins While Taxpayers Make Up The Difference Via The Social Safety Net” was already taken.

Previously: Campaign Finance: organized labor always looks after working people (May 21, 2012)

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C111126 05/24/2012 MISSOURIANS FOR RESPONSIBLE LENDING Communications Workers of America 501 Third St NW Washington DC 20001 5/24/2012 $15,000.00

C121010 05/24/2012 GIVE MISSOURIANS A RAISE CWA District 6 Political Educ Committee 10733 Sunset Office Dr Suite 201 Saint Louis MO 63127 5/24/2012 $15,000.00

[emphasis added]

For raising the minimum wage and capping the interest on payday loans.

Would you expect anything else?

Today, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C121010 05/21/2012 GIVE MISSOURIANS A RAISE Service Employees International Union 1800 Massachusetts Ave Nw Washington DC 20036 5/21/2012 $15,000.00

C111126 05/21/2012 MISSOURIANS FOR RESPONSIBLE LENDING Service Employees International Union 1800 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington DC 20036 5/21/2012 $15,000.00

[emphasis added]

For raising the minimum wage and capping the interest on payday loans.

Would you expect anything else?

Some time ago conservative radio personality Mark Reardon characterized current GOP Senatorial contender Sarah Steelman as “not the sharpest fork in the drawer.” While his comments were replete with good old boy sexism – he also felt the need to note that she was “hot” (dumb blonds, anyone?) – he may have been onto something.

Yesterday, Steelman revealed that despite dabbling in GOP politics for the past several years, she had no idea about what the Violence Against Women Act was. Even more surprising, given the recent news reports, she was also unaware that there was any controversy about renewing the Act, which dates from 1993.

Steelman’s ever-alert campaign staffers quickly responded that, of course, she is “open to the Republican version of the law’s reauthorization.” That’s the version that denies protection to LGBT people, immigrants, and Native American women on reservations. But not to worry – assurances to the contrary aside, there’s no real guarantee that she really knows much about either version of the legislation.

This sort of lapse is something of a pattern with Steelman – just for fun, let’s just do a quick and dirty compilation of the things she doesn’t know that have made the news:

— Most recently, she, (admittedly, along with the rest of the GOP gubernatorial primary candidates) had to admit she didn’t know what the minimum wage was set at in Missouri, although she was pretty sure that she was against it. Bear in mind that Steelman, purportedly, has a degree in economics.

— In a fundraising appeal at the beginning of her senatorial campaign last year, she begged “1000 friends to contribute $100 each to raise $10,000 by midnight … .” Gee, when I do the math, $100 multiplied by 1000 friends equals just a little bit more than Sarah thinks. And I can figure that out without a degree in economics.

— During her 2008 gubernatorial campaign, Steelman tried to capitalize on anti-immigrant fervor in the GOP base, emphasizing the burden that undocumented workers place on Missourians. Sadly, she completely misinterpreted the findings of a report on immigration and got her facts all wrong in an effort to magnify what is basically a non-problem in Missouri:

Steelman’s report overstated the estimate of illegal workers in Missouri by 5,800 to 10,800 workers. It overstated the unemployment rate among illegal workers by more than two-thirds. It also assumed that not a single illegal immigrant living in Missouri works for an employer who withholds and pays payroll taxes….

— Our own Michael Bersin participated in a twitter exchange where this holder of an advanced economics degree displayed major ignorance of current economic thought.

Given the economic nature of so many of Steelman’s public faux pas, it’s tempting to question her vaunted academic background. But of course, committed to equality of opportunity though we may be, we know that not everybody brings the same equipment to the game. We’ve all seen those students who sit with their mouths hanging open at the back of the class – they aren’t always the sharpest forks in the drawer either. Nevertheless, some of them manage to get degrees.

Slightly edited for clarity.

How many times will these ignoramouses (ingorami?) embarrass Missouri? Let me count the national blogs that found the level of ignorance – or contempt – displayed by these sterling representatives of the Grand Old (tea)Party of interest (and the roundup below reflects only those I encountered while casually browsing):

Laura Clawson at Daily Kos lays it out in her lead:

Missouri’s Republican Senate candidates may not know what the minimum wage is, but they’re in agreement on one thing: It shouldn’t be raised …

Greg Sargent at the Plum Line offers the money quote:

Apparently one good way to remain competitive in some GOP primaries is to urinate on the minimum wage, by casting it either as a case of Big Government run amok or as a key cause of our economic woes. …

Amanda Terkel at the Huffington Post was amused by the general level of ignorance, but also noted that Todd Akin’s failure to grasp the essentials was particularly egregious since, he:

… as a congressman, is currently responsible for helping to set federal policy.

Think Progress sees Terkel and raises her one:

The federal minimum wage (and Missouri’s minimum wage) is $7.25 per hour. Certainly all three should know the wage level at which four million American workers are at or below. Akin, especially, should know, since in 2007 he voted against raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25.

But the really perceptive observation in the Think Progress piece is the observation that:

Perhaps explaining their ignorance of the current minimum wage is the fact that none of the three candidates personally live anywhere near it. Akin owns two homes and receives an annual congressional salary of $174,000. Steelman has donated upwards of $400,000 to her own Senate campaign. Brunner tops them all, sporting a net worth of approximately $100 million.

Talking Poings Memo seemed especially struck with the ideological rigidity of Todd Akin who ignores pragmatics pragmatic considerations in order to offer up a particularly inept version of the party line – TPM also reproduces his typically addled syntax verbatim:

… We have a government that whenever any government says we have to spend this much for this product or that product or you’ve got to pay this wage or whatever, that’s basically government control of the marketplace. It always its destructive and disruptive.

Politico’s David Catenese bluntly declares:

The three Republicans vying for a shot at Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill went 0-for-3 in being able to name the federal minimum wage during a St. Louis radio debate Friday.

The fact that a senatorial primary debate in Missouri generates so much noise and has so much reach is significant.  To return to Greg Sargent, who aptly sums up the implications of the gaffe:

In the Missouri Senate race, which is going to be a tough one for McCaskill, the GOP candidates’ declarations on the minimum wage today could become a major issue. Dems will cast the statements as the latest example of Republicans being beholden to corporate benefactors, and skapegoating [sic] people on the lowest rungs of the income ladder for our continued economic suffering. Given that the issue will likely be key in other campaigns and even in the presiential [sic] race, how this argument fares in a red-leaning state will be a key test case worth watching.