While most of the Mid-Atlantic and northeastern states have been pummeled by the season's biggest snowstorm -- dubbed a bombogenesis by some meteorologists -- political life goes on in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Topic A today has been the indictment by a federal grand jury of former Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, on multiple counts of corruption-related crimes, including honest-services wire fraud, obstruction of a federal proceeding, and making false statements.
The indictment includes a colorfully descriptive list of items subject to forfeiture, including a Silver Rolex Watch engraved with "71st Governor of Virginia"; one baby blue striped Peter Millar golf shirt; one Heather Mackenzie water color and frame; two pairs of Foot Joy golf shoes; black Rebecca Minkoff shoes; and 30 boxes of Anatabloc®, the dietary supplement at the center of the scandal that has come to be known as “Giftgate.”
Later in the day -- on the cusp of the evening -- McDonnell made a public statement that was broadcast on NBC12 in Richmond. He was accompanied by his wife, one of his daughters, and his son-in-law. It's somewhat refreshing to see the wife of a politician standing by his side as he makes a proclamation of his innocence, without her seething inside about the way he's cheated on her with a high-priced prostitute or an Israeli boy toy.
In other Virginia political news, earlier this week a state Senate committee killed a bill -- SB 248, copatroned by Donald McEachin and Adam Ebbin -- that would have prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in state employment (not private sector employment).
I wrote about this issue on Bearing Drift today, asking whether GOP lawmakers are shooting themselves in the foot when they oppose popular legislation like this.
Four years ago, when similar legislation was under consideration by the General Assembly, I spoke in favor of SB66 as a representative of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia I noted that the RLCVA had endorsed the bill “because we believe it is not the place of the government to discriminate on irrelevant characteristics in employment regarding otherwise law-abiding citizens and taxpayers.”
I added that “if this bill extended to the private sector, I would not support it, and neither would our organization but it is also important to note that the private sector is way ahead of the government in terms of non-discrimination policy. Private businesses recognize that non-discrimination is good business practice. Government is always sluggish and slow to develop ideas like this.”
I noted that this position is at odds with general public opinion, pointing to recent polls by Rasmussen Reports and TargetPoint Consulting. That latter pollster explained:
An overwhelming majority of Americans –including’Republicans – support a federal law that protects gays, lesbians and transgender Americans from discrimination in the workplace. Here – unlike other surveys on similar topics – we asked specifically about federal legislation: 68% of registered voters support federal protection, with only 21% oppose. And indeed, intensity here very much lies with the supporters, as 46% strongly favor the law while only 15% strongly oppose it. When it comes to Republicans, 56% support a federal anti-discrimination law, while only 32% oppose.
That same poll revealed that support for a federal ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) stands at 65 percent.
Under the circumstances, it seems both odd and wrong to chide Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell for being two-faced, especially given that I like the result.
Today Governor McDonnell reversed his long-held position that only the General Assembly possesses the authority to add "sexual orientation" to the list of categories protected against discrimination in state government employment. After having, as Virginia's Attorney General, advised his predecessor that an executive order extending employment protections to gay and lesbian Virginians with state jobs was not permitted under the law, McDonnell today issued a similar -- if not stronger -- executive order doing precisely that.
McDonnell's order comes on the heels of a widely-criticized letter sent by the new attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, which told state colleges and universities that they could not include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies -- neither formal nor informal policies.
I'm divided on this issue because, as far as Virginia statutes go, Attorney General McDonnell was right on the law and wrong on policy. Now Governor McDonnell is wrong on the law and right on policy. I believe, as Attorney General McDonnell did, that the General Assembly had to act in order to expand Virginia's employment non-discrimination protections.
It's a mixed bag, to say the least.
A few weeks ago, I testified before the state Senate's Committee on General Laws and Technology in favor of SB66, a bill introduced by Senator Donald McEachin that would have added sexual orientation to the protected categories. I noted then that "there is no rational justification" for excluding sexual orientation from a broad anti-discrimination policy. Indeed, the committee members who voted "nay" offered no argument to explain their votes.
That bill later passed the state Senate -- a historic first for this type of legislation -- but it was killed in a House subcommittee, again with no Delegates offering an argument against it.
Just before that House vote, I spoke at a news conference at the State Capitol, along with Senator McEachin, Delegate Adam Ebbin (D-49), and other supporters of the bill. You can see the complete event below. (My remarks come in the second segment.)
In Part I, Jon Blair of Equality Virginia introduces the first speaker, former Secretary of Administration Viola Baskerville and offers some remarks of his own. This segment also includes remarks by Glen Pond of the Virginia Governmental Employees Association and Patricia W. Cummins of the American Association of University Professors.
My remarks (representing the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia) open the second segment (Part II), which also includes comments by Andres Tobar of the Virginia Coalition of Latino Organizations; Irving Taylor of AARP Virginia; Ben Greenberg of the Virginia Organizing Project; Falls Church city council member Lawrence Webb; and Delegate Adam Ebbin. Note that I make clear that, if SB66 applied to the private sector as well as the public sector, I would oppose it -- as would the RLC-Virginia.
In Part III, State Senator Donald McEachin (D-9), chief patron of Senate Bill 66, speaks to a gathering of journalists and activists to explain why the bill is needed. McEachin answers questions from the Associated Press, Virginian-Pilot, and other news organizations. The news conference ends with a few announcements by Jon Blair of Equality Virginia.
In his answer to a question, McEachin took a cheap shot at Governor McDonnell, suggesting that he had created an atmosphere conducive to protests by the virulently anti-gay (and clearly insane) members of the Westboro Baptist Church (the people behind godhatesfags.com). This was uncalled for, since the Phelps clan also held protests in Virginia during the administrations of Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, often demonstrating at the funerals of soldiers who lost their lives in service to our country.
Getting back to today's announcement by Governor McDonnell, it's noteworthy that he asserts in his executive directive that the rights of lesbian and gay people are protected by the U.S. Constitution. He says:
The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits discrimination without a rational basis against any class of persons.
(Andrew Sullivan may have been the first to point this out, but others may have mentioned it, as well.)
Bearing Drift -- which first reported the story about the new McDonnell administration policy -- has posted excerpts of a news release from Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling, who as Virginia's new "job creation czar" has a particular concern for issues like this. Bolling said:
“While various federal and state statutes set forth certain classifications in which employment related discrimination is prohibited as a matter of law, our policy and practice will be much broader than this. All state employees should take comfort in knowing that we will not tolerate employment related discrimination in any form or for any reason, including sexual orientation.”
What is troubling is the terse response by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who -- if you read between the lines -- seems to have no intention of enforcing the governor's executive directive. Here is the complete comment by Cuccinelli:
I applaud Governor McDonnell for the tone he is setting for the Commonwealth of Virginia. I will remain in contact with the Governor and continue to work with him on issues important to Virginians. I expect Virginia’s state employees to follow all state and federal anti-discrimination laws and will enforce Virginia’s laws to the fullest extent.
Since neither state nor federal law recognizes "sexual orientation" as a category subject to employment non-discrimination protection, then Cuccinelli can "enforce Virginia's laws to the fullest extent" without including gay and lesbian employees in that protective umbrella. His words sound expansive but, in fact, they offer nothing more than his -- and the previous Bob McDonnell's -- insistence that only the General Assembly can add sexual orientation as an anti-discrimination category.
As I noted before his election as governor, Bob McDonnell has matured on issues regarding gay and lesbian Virginians since his notorious reply to a reporter that he could "not recall" whether he had ever engaged in oral sex (or any violation of Section 18.2-361 of the Code of Virginia -- still on the books despite Lawrence v. Texas).
Although I agree that Virginia statutes do not currently allow an expansive sort of non-discrimination policy for Virginia state employees, I believe this is a quirk in the law that should be scrutinized and reversed. For me, the legal standard should not be "unless it is permitted, it is prohibited." Notwithstanding the General Assembly's pride of place in the making of policy, the standard should be: "Anything not prohibited is permitted."
In his new executive order, Governor McDonnell acknowledges that latter, and better, standard. Let's hope his legal judgment -- as Governor, not as Attorney General -- holds up in both the court of public opinion and the courts of law.
Update: There is a distinction between an "executive directive," which is what Governor McDonnell issued with regard to sexual-orientation non-discrimination policy, and an "executive order." An "executive directive," first used by Governor (now Senator) Mark Warner is a statement of policy without the force of law. An "executive order" has the force of law. The difference between the two provides McDonnell with the wiggle-room he needs to deny that he has reversed the position he held as Attorney General. Reporter Rosalind Helderman has a more complete explanation in Friday's Washington Post.
Also, it is noteworthy that McDonnell's decision is coming under attack from the religious right, including the Virginia Family Foundation, Delegate Bob Marshall, and one-time lieutenant governor candidate Michael Farris. This suggests that McDonnell issued his directive cognizant of the political risk of alienating part of his base, something for which he deserves credit.
Side note: Victoria Cobb of the Family Foundation coins a new word in her news release: "unimmutable." Kind of like non-unchanging, I suppose. Here's the quotation, which was distributed by email in a FF "Information Alert" yesterday but does not appear to have been posted on the Family Foundation's web site:
We absolutely agree with one statement in Governor McDonnell’s directive – that state employment should be based on “qualifications, merit and performance,” regardless of one’s immutable or unimmutable characteristics.
From disparate directions of the economic debate come two thoughts on President Obama's proposed stimulus package. I thought this might be a useful follow-up to what I posted last Friday ("Short Term Gain, Long Term Pain").
First, veteran journalist Martin Walker, who now holds the title "editor emeritus" at United Press International, writes:
The stimulus plan that emerged from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House, without a single Republican vote in support, is not impressive, whether judged by its ability to create jobs or to invest money widely for the economy of the future. It does not even do a competent job of providing a quick fix for a consumaholic system that finds itself suddenly starved of cash.
The Senate compromise, which is expected to pass this week, is not much better. The largest single item remains the extension of Medicaid, which will be helpful for the surging numbers of unemployed but will not create many new jobs. Those it does create will be in the already swollen health sector. This is now set to consume 17 percent of GDP while producing worse life expectancy and infant mortality figures than other countries enjoy while spending less than 10 percent of GDP.
Second, from economist Arnold Kling, a member of the Mercatus Center's Financial Markets Working Group, writing in a "Tax & Budget Bulletin" for the Cato Institute:
The key to averting ... a depression, is to restore business profitability, especially in the nonfinancial sector. In a capitalist system, profits and losses are signals. Profits signal businesses to expand, and losses are a signal to contract. Profits have been collapsing, resulting in firms laying off workers and pursuing few new investments.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that total wage and salary disbursements grew 2.8 percent in 2008 over 2007.3 Meanwhile, corporate profits were down 9 percent through the third quarter of 2008.4 Fourth quarter data were not available as of this writing, but Bureau of Labor Statistics data for the fourth quarter show that labor costs rose faster than productivity at a 12-percent annual rate, which implies a further plunge in profits.
The government can help restore profitability in the private sector by reducing business taxes. Cutting the payroll tax rate on employers would be particularly helpful. A 50-percent cut in this tax would amount to about a $230 billion annual savings. Such a cut would increase the deficit by much less than the current stimulus bill, while likely producing a larger boost to employment. In addition to helping restore profitability, it would reduce the cost of labor at the margin, giving businesses an incentive to hire workers. Also, it would take effect more quickly than the spending in the current stimulus bill.
There you have it -- cutting the payroll tax will have a greater measurable effect on creating employment than the Obama-Pelosi "stimulus" package. Why isn't Congress talking about doing what is effective rather than what feels good?
According to Friday's Washington Post, today (Saturday) has been designated "Cranky Co-Workers Day." Whether that's a holiday or not is another question, but the Post's Vicki Elmer describes it like this:
Cranky Co-Workers Day is designated as the time to recognize the role of the unhappiest in our midst.
One blogger suggests that you take that cranky cubicle dweller out for a drink -- a martini -- to try to turn around his or her mood, at least temporarily.
Another says that having the grump as a regular character in your personal blog may help put things in perspective, or at least give you a regular joke that people will find relevant.
We figure most workers have at least one cranky colleague, if not in the same row of cubicles, then in the same building. About three in 10 workers in an OfficeTeam survey say a colleague is rude or unprofessional, and among those, two-thirds say the bad behavior is frequent.
Telecommuting has more advantages than saving gas and reducing traffic congestion, doesn't it?
One more question, though: Why does Cranky Co-Workers Day fall on a Saturday? Don't most people still work M-F, with weekends off? Is this just a way to avoid another office party with stale cake and flat sodas ito celebrate yet another employment-related holiday?
That was more than one question. Here's the last one: What would Samuel Gompers say about this?
Last week, I criticized Rich Collins, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Virginia House of Delegates in the 57th District, for favoring the doubling of the minimum wage, to over $10 per hour. Such a move, I argued, would lead to increased unemployment among the most vulnerable members of the labor force, primarily minority teenagers looking for their first jobs, single mothers seeking part-time work, and the elderly semi-retired trying to supplement their pensions.
Now I have the pleasure, if you will, of aiming that same criticism at Collins' two opponents in the race, businessman Kim Tingley and attorney David Toscano. (Collins teaches urban planning at the University of Virginia.)
In a report on WCAV-TV's 11 o'clock news on Tuesday, Toscano said on camera, in response to a question about mandating a "living wage" for UVA employees, "why shouldn't we talk about raising minimum wage in the state as a whole[?]" The report did not cite a percentage or amount that Toscano prefers for a statewide minimum-wage increase.
In this morning's Daily Progress, Bob Gibson (who also appeared briefly, though silently, in the WCAV-TV report) quotes Kim Tingley:
Tingley spoke of his “full support for the living wage” and told UVa employees he was “very concerned about outsourcing” of university jobs from the state workforce to private companies.
University wages “need to reflect the high cost of living in this part of the country,” said Tingley, 60, whose wife, Deborah Lawrence, is an environmental science professor at UVa.
Moreover, the minimum wage is not an equal opportunity destroyer. Teens in general suffer more from this law than do adults. Each succeeding increase in the minimum wage has negatively impacted teenage unemployment rates. Just as the minimum wage attacks the young more than the old, it also harms blacks more than whites. Observed Milton Friedman more than three decades ago: “Of all the laws on the statute books of this country, I believe the minimum wage law probably does the Negroes the most harm.” Each increase in the minimum wage has been followed by an immediate widening of the unemployment rate gap between black and white teens. Prior to the 1949 increase the two rates were virtually identical; immediately a gap was created. Every subsequent increase led to a dramatic increase in non-white unemployment while the white level stayed relatively stable.
The problem is not racism, but lack of employment skills. Friedman explained that black “youngsters are less productive than white youngsters. They tend to have a lower level of education, a lower level of skill.” This being the case, any given level of mandated wage is likely to trap more black than white youth.
The one advantage low-skilled workers might have over their skilled counterparts is price competition, offering to work for less. But the minimum wage makes such an offer illegal. Thus, the minimum wage hurts those whom it is intended to most help: unskilled laborers.
Given its disastrous consequences, why does the minimum receive so much support? It preys on people’s good intentions. Voters think: Poor people are not making much money. How can we help them? Mandate that their bosses pay more. When a politician opposes an increase, people hear “I want poor people to earn less money.”
It appears that in their understanding of basic economics, the three Democrats seeking to succeed Mitch Van Yahres in the House of Delegates are as different as Tweedledee, Tweedledum, and Tweedledummest. (Your pick as to who is whom.) Whichever candidate gets the nomination, he'll provide a fat, juicy target for Republican nominee Tom McCrystal.
As a guest on "Charlottesville Live" this morning on WINA-AM, Rich Collins, a candidate for the Democratic nomination to succeed Mitch Van Yahres in the 57th District seat in the Virginia House of Delegates, said that he favors "doubling" the current minimum wage in this state from $5.15 per hour to more than $10 per hour. He defined this new minimum wage as a "living wage" necessary to pay for "food, education, and housing."
Apparently Mr. Collins wants to prevent poor black kids from getting their first jobs, since that would be both the immediate and long-term result of his proposal.
It is hard to find an economist who disagrees that when the government raises the minimum wage, some jobs are lost. In the 1930s, when the first minimum wage law took effect (in this case, among forestry workers in the Carolinas), over 3,000 workers immediately lost their jobs. The historical experience has been the same ever since. Every time the minimum wage rises, thousands of Americans either lose their jobs entirely or see their hours cut back, their fringe benefits cancelled, or -- in the most dire situations -- their businesses closed.
This adverse effect of the minimum wage has its most palpable, lasting effect among young black men in the nation's inner cities. The problem is not so much the workers who are fired, but those who are not hired in the first place. The bottom line is: Businesses faced with an artifical rise in costs will cut back in whatever way they see fit. Since in this case labor costs are artificially increased, labor is the logical thing to cut. As a result, businesses decide not to hire that high school student saving money for college. They choose not to hire the young man trying to emerge from the drug culture. They don't hire the teenage mother who wants to make a life for herself and her child.
Who suffers? Not the labor union members whose leaders are the most vociferous proponents of a higher minimum wage. Those who suffer are the young people who need that vital first job if they are ever going to advance in business and in their communities. These are the people who will not learn basic skills, will not acquire important work habits, will not make the connections with employers and co-workers that we all need for success.
The fact is, fewer than 3 percent of minimum-wage workers are the sole or primary wage-earner in a family. The fact is, 60 percent of minimum-wage workers earn more than the minimum after nine months on the job. The fact is, as the New York Times put it in an oft-quoted 1987 editorial, the best minimum wage is "$0.00."
Lest anyone doubt that the Old Gray Lady actually said that, here's an excerpt from a speech on the floor of the U.S. Representatives by California Congressman Christopher Cox, named today by President Bush to be the new head of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This appeared in the Congressional Record on April 23, 1996 (page H3703):
Let me read from that editorial in the New York Times which was titled, 'The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00.'
'Anyone working in America,' the New York Times says, 'surely deserves a better living standard than can be managed on the minimum wage.'
I think we can all agree with that.
But there is a virtual consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price poor working people out of the job market, people like Joanna Menser, whose remarks we just heard.
'An increase in the minimum wage,' the New York Times wrote in their editorial, 'would increase unemployment.'
Let me repeat this line from the New York Times editorial: 'An increase in the minimum wage would increase unemployment, raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the least skilled worker, and fewer will be hired.'
'If a higher minimum wage means fewer jobs, why does it remain on the agenda of some liberals,' the New York Times asked.
'Those at greatest risk from a higher minimum wage would be young poor workers who already face formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs.'
They conclude their editorial in the New York Times as follows:
'The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable, and fundamentally flawed.'
Living wage? Like any minimum wage, it's simply a recipe for unemployment at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. It's good intentions gone awry with disastrous consequences. It may be summertime, but the "living" ain't easy.
"One of the smarter blogs is the libertarian-leaning collection of Charlottesville posts put up by Rick Sincere..." -- Bob Gibson, The Daily Progress, May 8, 2005
, a member of the Mercatus Center's Financial Markets Working Group, writing in a "
by economists Kevin Sohr and Walter Block. (Block is the author of the popular 
