Joni Ernst and the Minimum Wage …. Joni Ernst is Wrong


By  a repost

Raising the Minimum Wage Will Help Iowa Families, But GOP Senate Candidate Joni Ernst Opposes It

We’ve written about how a number of cities and states around the country have proactively worked to raise their minimum wage, benefiting millions of hard-working Americans. There are other areas, meanwhile, where the debate over whether or not to raise the wage has become a political focal point. Iowa is a perfect example: in the deadlocked race for U.S. Senate between Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley and Republican state senator Joni Ernst, the contrast between the candidates couldn’t be clearer. Braley proudly supports an increase in the minimum wage, while Joni Ernst has stated she does not support a federal minimum wage at all and that “$7.25 is appropriate for Iowa.”

A new report and poll from CAP Action outlines just how out of touch Ernst is for Iowans and in helping create an economy that works for everyone, not just the wealthy few. While 300,000 Iowans would see their wages go up and 80 percent of Iowa voters say they could not support their household on Iowa’s minimum wage, Ernst continues to call a federal minimum wage increase “ridiculous.” This extreme position would hurt hardworking Iowans and the overall economy. Here are just a few reasons why, from the report:

  • Failing to raise the minimum wage keeps money out of workers’ pockets. Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would increase wages for 306,000 Iowans by a total of $430,462,000. Opposing a minimum-wage increase denies these workers a much-needed—and much-deserved—raise.
  • Failing to raise the minimum wage keeps Iowans poor. A $10.10 minimum wage would reduce Iowa’s nonelderly poverty rate by more than 9 percent, from 10.9 percent to 9.8 percent, and would lift more than 26,000 Iowans out of poverty.
  • Failing to raise the minimum wage hurts women in particular. 57.8 percent of Iowans who would benefit from a minimum-wage hike are women. By opposing raising the minimum wage, Ernst is disproportionately hurting women.
  • Failing to raise the minimum wage hurts the economy. Increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 would boost the Iowa economy by $272,483,000. Not raising the minimum wage prevents Iowa from growing its economy.
  • Failing to raise the minimum makes it harder for Iowa workers to make ends meet. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT, a family of three in Des Moines needs $52,362 per year to meet minimum standards of living.

In addition to the report, CAP Action also releases a poll of Iowa voters on how they feel about these issues. Here are some key findings that illustrate how out of touch Ernst is with Iowans:

  • 80 percent say that they could not support their household on a minimum-wage salary, which is about $15,000 per year. So much for Ernst’s proclamation that $7.25 is “appropriate for Iowa.”
  • 57 percent believe that there should be a federal minimum wage, disagreeing with Ernst’s position on the matter.
  • 53 percent support raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10.

BOTTOM LINE: Ernst’s radical position on the minimum wage threatens the economic security of Iowans. At a time when too many families in Iowa and across the country are still recovering from the Great Recession, we need elected officials who will act to rebuild the economy so that it once again works for everyone, not just the wealthy few.

Like CAP Action on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!

The Lovings ~~ celebration in NYC ~~ and the Right to Marry


Mildred and Richard <b>Loving</b> visit Loving Day’s website.

================

The Loving Story:

Richard P. Loving, and his wife Mildred, shown in this January 26, 1965 photograph, will file a suit at Federal Court in Richmond, Va., asking for permission to live as husband and wife in Virginia. Both are from Carolin County, south of Fredericksburg, Va., and were married in Washington in 1958. Upon their return the interracial couple was convicted under the state’s miscegenation law that bans mixed marriages. They received a suspended sentence on the condition they leave the state, but they now want to return to Virginia. (AP Photo)

With fight for same-sex marriage such a regular point of conflict today, it’s easy to forget about the first fight for marriage equality: interracial marriage. But while anti-miscegenation laws may seem like a relic of the past, it wasn’t until 2000 that Alabama became the last state to adapt its constitutional laws on interracial marriage.

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court put an end to the prohibition of interracial marriage in the monumental case of Loving v. Virginia.

The case was sparked by Mildred Loving, née Jeter, who after discovering she was pregnant traveled with boyfriend Richard Loving and from their home in Virginia to Washington, D.C. They made the move to evade Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited them from marrying John was a white male while Mildred was black and Native American.

Five weeks after their nuptials, they returned to Virginia. An anonymous tip led to a police raid. Instead of finding them having sex, which was another criminal offense at the time, they caught them sleeping in their marital bed. The couple was taken to jail after Mildred pointed out their D.C. marriage certificate. It was used as evidence of “cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.”

The Lovings were sentenced to one year in prison, but it was suspended on the condition that the couple leaves Virginia and not return together for 25 years.

Initially they did just that, but by 1963, Mildred had enough and decided to write to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. The letter inspired Kennedy to connect her with the ACLU, which took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 12th, 1967, the Court’s ruling declared all laws against interracial marriage in the United States to be unconstitutional.

While cases like Brown v. Board of Education or Rosa Parks’ stand against segregation are taught regularly in schools, the Loving case gets less attention. Thirty-six years after the trial, Ken Tanabe first learned of the case as a grad student and founded the Loving Day Project to commemorate the anniversary. He, like many others, discovered it by accident.

“I realized that I might not be alive today (along with millions of other Americans) if it wasn’t for this case and those that came before it,” Tanabe, who is mixed race, told AOL via email.

The project has since expanded from its humble roots in New York City across the nation and even around the world.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 11 percent of Americans do not interracial marriage. When the Lovings were arrested the numbers, disapproval ratings were 94 percent. The falling disapprove numbers may appear to be a victory, but Tanabe says they are still worth worrying about.

“When Barack Obama was elected president, some people thought that racism was ‘over.’ While his election was an important sign of progress, it’s dangerous to believe we can stop being vigilant and proactive,” Tanabe explained. “The stories surrounding Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and so many others are some well-known examples. Racism also affects interracial couples and multiracial people every day.”

Rather than remain mutually exclusive, Loving Day embraced, and been embraced, by the LGBTQ community. On the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling, Mrs. Loving urged that gay men and lesbians should be allowed to marry. A march has been planned for this year’s Loving Day in Abilene, TX by Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).

“We see Loving Day as an educational resource for everyone to learn more about the history of marriage and understanding it as a civil rights issue,” said Tenebe.

National attention turned to Loving v. Virginia in 2011 when ‘The Loving Story’ premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival and was purchased by HBO. This year, Jeff Nichols, writer and director of the Matthew McCounghey flick ‘Mud,’ announced he will direct a new Hollywood “Loving” film starring Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton.

===============================================================

.

Is your state or country going through urban renewal, rebuilding while displacing


WordpressPicturesOutsidemywindowDefinition of GENTRIFICATION …

  The process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of upper-income or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents.
Below is a quote from Goodread
“In the twenty-first century, the visions of J.C. Nichols and Walt Disney have come full circle and joined. “Neighborhoods” are increasingly “developments,” corporate theme parks. But corporations aren’t interested in the messy ebb and flow of humanity. They want stability and predictable rates of return. And although racial discrimination is no longer a stated policy for real estate brokers and developers, racial and social homogeneity are still firmly embedded in America’s collective idea of stability; that’s what our new landlords are thinking even if they are not saying it. (138)”
Other reads below
Photo:Taken using my phone ~ Nativegrl77