Governor Romney today vetoed the legislature’s two-step minimum wage bill, thereby ensuring that the bill will become law in Monday’s override-palooza.
Romney had the option of hanging on to the bill for a few more days and making it far more difficult, if not impossible, for the legislature to override his veto (since formal sessions end on Monday). By vetoing now, it’s a bit of a “wink-wink” move, isn’t it? “You know I have to veto this, but it’s not that important to me, so I’m going to let you override me.”
Fascinating. Good news for MA’s low-wage workers (yes, I know, some will disagree – we’ve heard it all before in this thread). Time will tell, though, how Romney’s decision not to kill the bill when he had the chance will play in South Carolina.
I’m no no way defending Romney, but it was probably the right political decision for him. He keeps his conservative bona fides by vetoing, as potential arguments that “he could have used a pocket veto!” are more technical and won’t likely gain traction.
<
p>
I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if he really does think the wage should be raised, even if not the full amount in the legislature’s bill. Too bad he’s running for President and makes his decisions based on that, rather than representing the Commonwealth.
I think the minimum wage is a sufficiently uncomfortable issue for the GOP that they would forgive him for not going all-out on this one. Even in SC, I don’t think they hate poor people that much.
I’ve finally reached the conclusion that the minimum wedge is to the Democrats what Flag burning is to the Republicans: a feel good bill affecting very few and remotely possible to cause damage, but, hopefully energizing to the political Base.
<
p>
Here’s Harvard’s own with a brief economist’s commentary on the minimum wage.
<
p>
More interesting debate now is the estate tax, minimum wage tit-for-tax debate in the Senate. The mother’s milk of big government price control for the poor in exchange for tax breaks for the dead rich folks.
<
p>
Don’t ask me how, but Washington seems to think the two issues are related–they are but in that they are each wedge issues.
First off, Greg Mankiw? Come on. So far you’ve cited Mankiw and the Cato Institute. Some unbiased citations would be more helpful.
<
p>
And comparing this to flag burning as a wedge issue I think is off-base in two ways. First, unlike flag buring, it goes without saying that some people benefit from a minimum wage increase. Maybe Mankiw and your Cato friends are right that more unemployement results from an increase. But even if this were the case, then some people still benefit. Not so with a flag burning amendment. The latter is more of a “wedge” issue since its ONLY purpose is political.
<
p>
Despite this, I think flag burning probably raises passions much more than the minimum wage. In that sense, it is a more effective wedge issue. That’s the advantage the Republicans have on wedge issues — they have gay marriage and flag burning, which affect almost no one but get people angry. The Dems don’t really have something like that, and even the minimum wage probably doesn’t qualify.
Yes, Mitt COULD have used procedure to override the bill. But now, each member will have to vote to override or sustain, and will have to be on record with the voters. Who are not as enthralled with this as BMG members seem to think.
<
p>
Could have been a snarky trick – like eight years of gay marriage votes – but instead, the will of the people and their representatives will prevail over backdoor deals.
<
p>
I know this is a new concept for the Mass. Legislature – but I wonder if they’ll WANT to be on record come November instead of blaming that dreat bid bad gubbanor.
that votes to override will be nearly unanimous in both chambers. Probably a few Republicans will vote to sustain; almost no Dems. My prediction: 35-5 in the Senate, 130-30 in the House. Waddaya got, PP?
we were both wrong. 152-0, 38-0, if memory serves. Not a single “no” vote.