Coburn Says Vote Against Minimum Wage Was "To Protect Salaries of Low-Income Families"

[Bob Geiger]

I figure the conversation went something like this last night in Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn's office after the Senate voted to increase the Federal Minimum Wage:

Media Flak Jane: OK, the boss was one of only three Senators to vote against the first minimum wage increase in a freakin' decade. How do we perfume this pig?

Media Flak Bill: Say he was drinking before the vote?

Jane: Can't. We've been using that for his support of the troop escalation.

Bill: Self-medicating?

Jane: Good point. He is a doctor.

Bill: Wait, how about this: We say he voted against giving the working poor a raise to "protect the salaries of low-income families."

Jane: But that makes no sense.

Bill: I know. I think the media will buy it.

That's the only way I can make any sense out of the press release that came out of Coburn's office last night, in which he depicted his steadfast desire to keep working families in poverty as a way of helping them. The headline on the press release said "Dr. Coburn Votes to Protect Salaries of Low-Income Families from Flawed Wage Bill" and it went on to explain how it's really him and not Ted Kennedy (D-MA) protecting America's working poor.



“This bill is unfair to workers and, in many cases, it will be harmful to the very people it is supposedly designed to help. Most workers will experience a minimum-wage penalty rather than a minimum-wage benefit because of this bill," said Coburn. "This bill has far more to do with increasing the political capital of politicians in Washington than increasing real wages of low-income families.”

Coburn than goes on to make the ludicrous argument that raising the wages of these workers would actually hurt them because allowing them to bring more money into their families would mean they would be eligible for… less welfare!

"In Oklahoma, low-wage workers are eligible for up to $25,726 in assistance in areas such as child care, housing assistance and food stamps," the reality-challenged Okie continued. "Under the minimum wage increase approved by Congress, these low-wage workers would find themselves eligible for benefits worth $4,600 less than they would under the current minimum wage. Yet, their newly increased wage would only provide an increase of $4,368 per year, resulting in a net income loss of $232 per year."

Coburn then explains that this is not all that big a deal because 29 states already have minimum wages higher than the current $5.15 per hour -- even though his constituents don't happen to live in one of those states -- and closes by saying that Oklahomans need to be wary of Washington politicians showing fake concern for the poor.

"American families deserve an economy in which they can prosper, not more counterfeit compassion from Washington,” Coburn concludes.

Hey, I think we can all agree on that.

Update: You can go here to see statements from Senate Democrats on the minimum wage increase.

[rfranklin]

1. Bottom line: Coburn supports welfare over work...

That's what I see.

[Deep13]

2. I guess the poor people are hoarding all the money.

:wtf:

[Renew Deal]

3. So we should keep the minimum wage low to ensure they get more welfare?

Coburn has confused pages in his republican witch craft manual. :dunce:

I can see the ad now: Coburn supports welfare queens. :blush:

[momster]

4. Coburn Introducing Legislation "Up is

now down...go at the red light, stop at the green, and, oh, yeah, the sky's much prettier in my world than in this one."

[Sparkly]

7. "Poor is the new rich." nt

[meegbear]

10. Well they are "lucky ducks", aren't they?

Not having to pay all those taxes rich people as subject to. Lucky ducks indeed.

[Sparkly]

5. K&R

Definitely a candidate for next Monday's Top Ten Conservative Idiots.

[Deja Q]

6. With the CEOs making 450+/1 income ratios, it's not going to hurt them much.

We deserve to prosper, we are intelligent, we are willing to work but everything we are told suggests we are the opposite.

The truth is in the middle; there are many who want to be lazy but there are just as many who are wanting and able and can't get jack shit.

Our system is screwed up, royally.

And we'll see where 'fake concern' gets separated out from 'no concern at all'. We were given fake concern over "no child left behind". We were given fake concern over "party of fiscal responsibility". We were given fake concern over "Party of Lincoln". Need I go on? Republicants. Many people on a peer level are republicans and they're not bad people and are right. The trouble is, they're voting for people who want to see them suffer too. A republiacn I once worked with in an environment-themed department got angry at our republican reps because (and this is a close paraphrasing of the actual comment) "I know they have to cut funding to departments, but why us?" (Well, most republicans in power have shown themselves to be anti-environment, you're republican, so why aren't you noticing what they are voting for? You gave them the noose to hang you with. They don't care about the environment.")

Once we see republicans not just saying but DOING the right things will they be given consideration. Or at least some upfront honesty instead of these dumb-ass games they're playing.

Ditto for Dems when needed.

[Bill McBlueState]

8. interesting

Coburn makes the perfect argument for increasing federal assistance to the poor. He doesn't see it that way, but that's what he did.

In Oklahoma, low-wage workers are eligible for up to $25,726 in assistance in areas such as child care, housing assistance and food stamps.... Under the minimum wage increase approved by Congress, these low-wage workers would find themselves eligible for benefits worth $4,600 less than they would under the current minimum wage. Yet, their newly increased wage would only provide an increase of $4,368 per year, resulting in a net income loss of $232 per year.

So we need to pressure Congress and the states to adjust the eligibility requirements for child care, housing assistance, and food stamps to make these programs more accessible. Sounds like a worthy project.

[CBGLuthier]

9. He is right about one thing

be wary of Washington politicians showing fake concern for the poor.

That is the truth. Those people do NOT give a damn about the poor other than getting their votes.

Oh and for those who don't know, the term "okie" is a slur and has been since the dust bowl days when the elite Californians used it as they marched migrant Oklahomans (who were poor) into their work camps.

[sutz12]

11. The only 'unfairness' here will be to the state of OK

Less 'benefits' for the low wage earners mean less money in federal block grants, thus less state control of the funds to be siphoned out of the system. If the low wage earners get more in their paychecks and less from the government programs, the state loses money.

Follow the benjamins. ;)

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

12. We had to destroy their [spending power] in order to save it!

Great logic.

[Turbineguy]

13. So...

would that mean that repealing tax breaks for the rich helps them too?

[Gato Moteado]

14. hard to feel sorry for the low income families in OK

...after all, they elected coburn and other human garbage like him.

[sinkingfeeling]

15. I wonder just how many low-wage workers in OK receive anything close to

$25,726 in assistance. Everything I've found indicates that Oklahoma is in the lowest 20% of the states in providing 'welfare'.

A study released this month by the Cato Institute ("Implementing Welfare Reform: A State Report Card") grades the welfare reform policies of each state and offers suggestions for improvements. Oklahoma's welfare system received a disappointing "D" grade, with a rank of 34 among the 50 states.

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

16. Here's a draft of my letter to Coburn

Here is a draft of a letter I'm sending.

Dear Sen. Coburn,

I noticed that you voted against raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. You cite that there is only one state left who hasn't raised the min. wage or is not considering a min. wage increase and thus this matter is not important enough for the senate to consider. What do you have against those folks in that state? What makes you think that the state would raise the min. wage? Did some fast food worker not give you ketchup with your fries?

Also, you cite the welfare benefits lost due to the increase. If you were a truly decent person, you would introduce legislation to raise the benefit amounts to coincide with the increase in wages. It would most certainly cost less than what we are paying for a week in Iraq. Maybe the congress could recoup the eight billion dollars that was lost from fraudulent contractors in Iraq to pay for the benefits.

This is from the labor department statistics, "Among the states, Oklahoma and West Virginia had the highest proportion of hourly-paid workers earning at or below $5.15 (at about 4 percent)." Does it bother you that some people actually make less than the minimum wage and that Oklahoma is a leader in this category?

See also that According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2005, 75.6 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 60.1 percent of all wage and salary workers.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm

Oklahoma is a poor state. Why aren't you voting in the state's best interests?
----

[Supersedeas]

17. Re-pig logic