Mediaboss Marketing

SPRINGFIELD Amid a national push by unions and worker advocates for a $15 minimum wage, Illinois Democrats hope to pass an ambitious hike during the spring legislative session, despite a warning from Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner that he opposes an increase of any kind.

The proposal would lift the state's minimum wage from its current $8.25 to $15 over the next five years, a more accelerated leap than previous adjustments in Illinois. It also would constitute a larger jump than increases toward $15 approved last year in New York and California, where the rates had been $9 and $10, respectively.

But, as with previous efforts in Illinois, the measure is likely to be tied up in the state's electoral politics.

Sponsors of the legislation acknowledge Rauner's opposition but have signaled they want to force him to act on the measure ahead of next year's gubernatorial election, in which he already faces half a dozen Democratic challengers.

"We will get a really good opportunity to see where the governor stands," said Rep. Will Guzzardi, a Chicago Democrat sponsoring the wage bill in the House. "Does he side with the 2.3 million people in this state who need a raise now or does he side with the big corporations?"

In the past, Rauner has said he supported minor increases in the minimum wage. But he told the audience at a business forum on April 13 that requiring employers to raise pay is out of the question.

"That's not gonna happen," Rauner said. "Companies will just leave."

Democrats say they have considerable support for the $15-per-hour measure in the House, and expect a floor vote in May. The Senate is also considering two minimum wage bills, one similar to Guzzardi's and a less ambitious one that would raise the wage to $11 by 2021.

In 2014, Democrats placed an advisory referendum on the Illinois ballot asking voters whether they supported a minimum wage increase in an effort to motivate their base to go to the polls. The referendum secured 67 percent of the vote in the same election that Rauner won his first term in office. During the campaign, Rauner was criticized by his rival, former Gov. Pat Quinn, for statements supporting a reduction of the minimum wage.

Illinois has raised its minimum wage above the federal floor, currently $7.25 per hour, twice in recent history first in 2003 and again in 2006 to $8.25, where it's remained since 2011. That leaves Illinois with a lower rate than 20 others nationwide, but above every state it borders.

Business leaders claim increasing the rate puts Illinois at a competitive disadvantage, driving companies across state lines or forcing them to reduce staff. Labor unions and other allies of the national "Fight for $15" campaign contend raising the minimum wage boosts the economy by putting more money into pockets of low-wage workers, decreasing reliance on government assistance.

Advocates say anything less than $15 falls far short of the cost of living for millions of Illinoisans. They point to research including a 2016 report from the University of Illinois that shows at least 34 percent of Illinois workers earn less than $15 an hour, many of them while helping to support a family.

The report projects an increase to $15 would result in just a 0.78 percent employment decline while yielding an extra $2.4 billion in tax revenue.

Robert Bruno, a professor of labor relations at the university who co-authored the report, said research on previous increases indicates companies are able to recoup additional labor costs by raising prices a few cents on the dollar and benefit from enhanced worker productivity and purchasing power.

Some business organizations, including the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, oppose any increase above federal levels. Others, like the Illinois Restaurant Association, are willing to consider a more incremental adjustment something some economics experts also recommend, warning against potential job loss resulting from more substantial leaps.

Sen. Kimberly Lightford of Maywood, the Democrat sponsoring both Senate proposals, has been advocating for a higher rate since 1999 when she first proposed what became Illinois' 2003 increase. She said if the federal minimum had risen with inflation since its peak in 1968, it would be $11 today.

"I cannot sit back and allow millions of working people to receive no wage increase at all because it could not be the $15," she said.

The bills are HB198 , SB1738 and SB2.

See original here:
Illinois Democrats push ambitious minimum wage hike despite opposition from Gov. Rauner - The Southern

We'll entertain our thought experiment in a moment, but first, some background: If Congress misses its Friday deadline to pass legislation to fund the federal government, we will have our first Trump-era partial government shutdown ('partial' because thelarge majority of federal spending is already on autopilot). Republicans forced awildly unpopular shutdown in 2013 in a quixotic attempt to withhold funding from Obamacare -- an outcome to which the president and his party would not agree. The GOP's tactic paid zero policy dividends an was heavily panned by voters; that said, it did not end up hindering the party's ability to win asmashing victory in the following year's midterm elections. Now it's theDemocrats who find themselves in the driver's seat of a potential shutdown. They are pledging to block any spending bill that funds certain Trump priorities. Battle lines are drawn, negotiationsare underway, andallegedoffers are being bandied about:

Note the framing here. When the shoe was on the other foot four years ago, did the media report on "Obama's demands that could derail Republican support" for a bipartisan deal? No, the onus was laid on "poison pill" items being pushedby the GOP that Obama said he could never accept. Applying that same standard today, it's Democrats' insistent opposition to fundingborder security, and toprotecting sanctuary cities, and to maintaining a taxpayergravy train to ascandal-plagued majorpolitical donor, that could force a shutdown. And thus many of the very sameDemocrats who treated a GOP-triggered shutdown as an apocalypse are now open to trying one of their own -- perhaps confident that the media will help them blame their opponents for the outcome, and that the public is generally inclined to finger the 'anti-government' party for any funding impasse. Meanwhile, the Republican Senator who is perhapsmost associated with embracing shutdown tactics is amusingly wringing his hands and preemptively blastingDemocrats for toying with the idea. Yet everyone involves seems to wonder why people distrust the press and generallydespise Washington.

The vote-counting reality is that even though Republicans control the Senate with 52 votes, they'll need at least eight more to advance a government funding bill. The legislative filibuster remains firmly intact, even after theReid Rule was invoked on the Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination. And despite holding a sizable majority in the House of Representatives, Republicans will likely need Democratic votes to pass funding with a simple majority due to opposition to spending increases from fiscal conservatives. So Democrats have leverage on both ends of Capitol Hill, and they know it. If a deal isn't reached, their bet is that they can muddy the waters and pin a shutdown on the party in power, even if they're chiefly responsible for it. But putting the blame game off to one side, let's presume for the sake of this argument that the parties will be unable to settle on a plan to stave off a partial shutdown. Might the Trump administration consider eschewing the Democrat-inspired tradition of recent years of engaging in "shutdown theater"? This is a practice, employed by Presidents Clinton and Obama when locked in government funding fights with Congressional Republicans, in which the presiding presidential administration seeks to make the consequences of a partial federal shutdown as publicly-known and acutely-painful as possible. Two examples that exemplify this strategy are Obama ordering barricades erected at national monuments in Washington during the last shutdown, blocking tourists from seeing sights that would otherwise have been easily accessible to the public. This led to civil disobedience from war veterans:

Setting up these temporary fences actually required proactive government effort, which seemed counterintuitive in a shutdown environment -- but the whole point was to show ordinary Americans that life cannot go on as normal in the midst of a partisan Beltway "crisis." The other instance that comes to mind is a quote from former Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who was asked about a Republican proposal to prioritize federal spending on broadly-popular and more essential programs in the midst of a partial shutdown. The GOP had suggested that certain dollars ought to go to the front of the spending line while a broader funding plan was hammered out: Financing interest on the national debt, maintaining paychecks to the troops, ensuring Social Security payments, etc. Asked specifically about Republicans' request to also prioritize NIH research (a favorite demagogic pressure point for Democrats) Reid infamously replied witha revealing question of his own: "Why would we want to do that?" In other words, why make sensible adult decisions to mitigate the possibly harmful impacts of a partial shutdown when there are people to harm and voters to scare for political gain?

Let me stipulate that the political temptation to pursue this approach is understandably powerful, and the incentive structure obvious: Whip up the public in opposition to a shutdown, and convince them that your opposition is to blame. This, in turn, ratchets up internal pressure on the other 'team' to end the stalemate as to avoid lasting negative political fallout. Their desperation gives you the upper hand to resolve the fight on terms that are most favorable to you. But considering that (a) Democrats should shoulder the disproportionate blame for this impending shutdown, and (b) the party of Big Government will continue to use shutdown scare tactics to win spending standoffs so long as that dynamic works in their favor, perhaps the Trump White House could consider a different approach. Iexplored this alternative on Twitter the other day:

The president and his allies could express requisitedisappointmentand frustration over Democrats' shutdownwhile making it consistently clear that Republicans are taking action to ensure that Democratic recklessness impacts as few people as possible. The troops, Social Security benefits, NIH research, and interest on the national debt would all come first. National parks and monuments would remain open. The sun would rise in the east and set in the west. Life would go on, with the overwhelming majority of Americans experiencing no adverse effects whatsoever. Republicans could still remind voters that there's a "shutdown" underway, that Democrats forced it, and that they're working to end it -- but they could also highlight how cynical the previous administration was by going out of its way to amplify and magnify harm for political advantage. This could be, to borrow a phrase from our most recent president, a "teachable moment" for the American people: The sky need not fall during these partial shutdowns, and politicians who are invested in creating that impression aren't to be trusted. And maybe, just maybe, the federal government isn't nearly as crucial to the smooth functioning of everyday American life as Statists would like people to believe.

More:
Idea: If Democrats Shut Down the Government, Should Trump Make It As Painless As Possible? - Townhall

News & Observer

Disjointed US immigration policy needs an overhaul News & Observer The fuss over immigration reform always has been underlined by hypocrisy. Politicians, including the current president, talk about crime and drugs and portray huge groups of immigrants as a menace to American society. Trump's pushing ahead for the ... Trump's Executive Action to Reform H-1B Visa Program; EB-5 Program Tackled On HillHSToday all 67 news articles »

Read this article:
Disjointed US immigration policy needs an overhaul - News & Observer

MADISON COUNTY, Ala. President Trump has taken a strong stance on the Affordable Care Act and immigration. Actions at the national level are being taken, but Madison County district six commissioner Bob Harrison has concerns about how those actions are affecting his community.

On Tuesday, April 25th, Commissioner Harrison is holding a town hall where he wants to discuss the Affordable Care Act and immigration.

I think its about ten percent of the population of Madison County is Hispanic, he said.

With different immigration reform legislation rolling out, he said they are already seeing the impact in district six.

We have approximately 1,500 immigrants in my community who are being adversely affected by the current immigration policy, he said.

Commissioner Harrison cites their fears of intimidation, retaliation, and above all, being removed from their homes.

We know of at least two situations where mother and children have been left without resources, and weve had to rely on community resources, he explained.

The question Commissioner Harrison wants to try and answer is, Where do we go from here?

Its causing a whole myriad of problems. We want to address those and see how we as a community can deal with that issue, and to help alleviate the kinds of concerns that they have, he said.

He invites everyone, not just those in his district, to come out and have their voices heard.

The town hall is taking place on Tuesday, April 25th, at the Bob Harrison Center. Located at 6156 Pulaski Pike NW, Huntsville 35810at 6 p.m.

34.723973 -86.499655

Follow this link:
Where do we go from here? District 6 to hold town hall on immigration and other policies - whnt.com

The First Amendment Foundation is a highly visible and accessible source of authoritative information, expertise and assistance to the public and news media.Founded as a non-profit organization in 1984 by The Florida Press Association, the Florida Society of Newspapers Editors and the Florida Association of Broadcasters to ensure that public commitment and progress in the areas of free speech, free press, and open government do not become checked and diluted during Floridas changing times.

Floridas Sunshine Laws guarantee our right to open government, but government officials can get downright creative to keep their decision-making in the dark. Like the state agency that demanded $3,200 to copy a single page of a public record, or the city commissioner who accidentally dropped her government phone in the toilet after a reporter asked her to see her text messages. And of course, you, the taxpayer footed the $1.3 million legal tab to keep our Governor and his cabinet out of court over secret emails. Fortunately, we have the Florida First Amendment Foundation fighting on our side. I urge you to support the First Amendment Foundation and keep Florida government by the people, for the people and in the Sunshine.

Carl Hiaasen, Miami Herald columnist and author ofSkin Tight,Strip Tease, Skinny Dip, Nature Girl, Star Island,Bad Monkey, Razor Girl and many more.

Thepurpose of the First Amendment Foundation is to protect and advance the publics constitutional right to open government by providing education and training, legal aid and information services. Funding is based on voluntary contributions from various organizations and concerned individuals.

You know, the critical research of my book would not have been possible without access granted by law via Floridas longstanding Open Government laws. Without Sunshine, stories like the injustice I uncovered in Central Florida could not have come forward. The Florida First Amendment Foundation has been protecting your citizen right to know for the past 31 years. Support the First Amendment Foundation. Support Open Government. It pays dividends.

Gilbert King, February 2016. Pulitzer Prize winning author of Devil in the Grove Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

Our actions get results. In the past year, we led a broad coalition of open government advocates anddefeated a billthat would have made it harder to hold agencies accountable for public records violations. In dozens of courthouses and government offices around the country, citizens with FAFs help won access to the recordsand meetings.

Still,our job has never been more challenging and,with your help, we will continue to fight efforts to erode Floridas long-standing tradition of open government.

Find out more about the First Amendment Foundation.

Read the original:
First Amendment Foundation