Skip to main content

Pelosi Exempts Constituents from Min Wage: Media Doesn't Care


It was reported by some news organizations yesterday that some of Nancy Pelosi's constituents were exempted from recent Minimum Wage legislation that passed the House of Representatives. How many news organizations are reporting it? Not many.

Updated: January 13, 2007 - Loophole intended to be closed.

Update: January 13, 2007. Spencer England provides insightful comments at the bottom of this post. I have also learned that Title 29 of the US Code apparently dictates Minimum Wage Laws in the US Territories. The Democrats have modified the Minimum Wage legislation to remove this loophole.

When I found out that Nancy Pelosi's own constituents were exempted from a Minimum Wage bill recently passed by the House of Representatives, I thought, this will be a good litmus test of the fair and balanced media. So I did a news search on Google. This is what I found (click image to enlarge):





















Maybe it's a mistake, and Washington Times is reporting something that didn't really happen, but here's what they're saying:

House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.

"I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage.
I was troubled to learn of this exemption," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. "My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn't permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate."


According to the article, Pelosi did not answer the charges. Here's what happened instead:

A spokeswoman for Mrs. Pelosi said Wednesday that the speaker has not been lobbied in any way by StarKist or Del Monte.

I decided to try my search on a different site. It didn't get any better at Yahoo (click on image to enlarge):
Labels:

Comments

  1. spencer1/12/2007 01:28:00 PM

    First, American Somoa is not in her district.

    Second, American Somoa has always been exempt from the minimum wage.

    Third, it does not make any difference to Starkist that has one processing plant in american somoa where they pay wages higher than the minimum wage.

    Fourth, the significant issue is that firms import Asian labor and pay them at Asian wage rates to manufacture clothing. But they put made-in-american labels on the clothing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JM Bell1/12/2007 09:43:00 PM

    So, that's it, Frank?

    You jump on the "Pelosi is the Devil" Hanitty-wagon and, when Spenser refutes your ... typed spasm? (I certainly can't call it a point, or a collection of points), you blow it off?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Frank Staheli1/13/2007 07:46:00 AM

    Spencer,

    Thank you for the clarification. I was directed on another site to United States Code (Title 29) that deals with territorial Minimum Wage issues.

    JM,

    I don't even listen to Hannity. I consider him a scumbag. By the way, did your foot hit you in the face when your knee jerked?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.
2 comments
Read more

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...
66 comments
Read more

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...
67 comments
Read more