Welcome to the “Most Ethical Congress in History”
January 12th, 2007 at 9:15 am by Preston Taylor HolmesLooks like all you billions of people who raise families of 12 on minimum wage can breathe a sigh of relief – you’re all getting a minimum wage hike – except for those of you in American Samoa.
Why? Because the most ethical woman in the most ethical congress in history appears to be giving Del Monte a reach-around so that Charlie Tuna can continue to be canned by the underpaid and underloved.
Del Monte Foods Co. subsidiary Starkist Tuna employs three-fourths of the work force in American Samoa. Del Monte is based in San Francisco, Pelosi’s home district.
Probably just a coincidence. The most ethical woman in the most ethical congress in history wouldn’t do anything suspect, would she?
Shadegg said the Samoan/Starkist exemption is fishy.
“Simply put: It is unethical to provide a special benefit to a company in any member of Congress’ hometown,” he said. “For Democrats to act in such a manner so early on in their tenure is hypocritical at best, and criminal at worst,” said Shadegg.
The Dim-O-Crack Party: Working for the poor and downtrodden, to keep them poor and downtrodden and preserve their electoral tradition of ignorance.
Disclaimer: It should be noted that this is simply politics as usual, employed by both major parties, which is why both major parties should be forced to walk the plank.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Thanks Preston for pointing out once again that the American public deserves to get as many Pricks into office as possible.
I am presuming that none of the Pricks you know would stand for this kind of hypocritical crap.
I am holding my breath now, just waiting for the “outrage” that is sure to be emmanating from the halls of Congress. Waiting…waiting…
January 12th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Pelosi turns off the smoking lamp on House tradition…
Some fresh air blew into the Capitol on Wednesday, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi banned smoking f…
January 12th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Sorry Charlie, Starkist wants tuna’s that taste good,
January 12th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Samoa wasn’t under the current Minimum Wage regulations. The Dept of Labor has a special committee which sets Minimum wages for the various industries in the protectorate.
Pelosi didn’t specifically exempt the American Samoa Islands, she simply left the current system in place.
If Representatives want to change the system in place, than they should introduce a bill to scrap the current system in favor of imposing American standards on American Samoa, against the objections of the American Samoa Representative to the US House.
January 12th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
All your albacore are belong to us.
January 12th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Interesting info, Sean. Thanks for bringing that to the table. Oh well, I’ll have to wait for the next faux outrage to express more outrage.
January 12th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Yes, but doesn’t “special committee” sound just a little suspect? And just how special do you have to be to sit on said committee?
Probably something cooked up by the same bastards who want fluoride in our water, or (ugh) celery in our tuna sandwiches!
Dept of Labor, indeed. More like Party of Labor, if you ask me, but since you didn’t ask me, I’ll just go back to my baseball blogs…
January 12th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
And, Billy: thanks for that street Cartman clip the other day. It be hell waiting for new Sopranos, South Park and baseball all in the same timeframe, yo.
January 12th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Don’t mind Sean, Preston. His ultimate goal is to be the Tennessee Guerilla Women without the masculinity. No Donk duplicity is too low for him to bob his head under.
Why, just this week he was applauding the illegal aliens who shot the state trooper twice in the head for interfering with their drug running.
Just killing State Troopers Americans hadn’t gotten to…don’t ya know?
January 12th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Interesting, Smantix – you’ll have to forgive me if I’ve never heard of Sean. Sounds like a real stand-down guy.
I have heard of the Tennessee Gorilla Women, though. I saw pictures of their huge penises once up on the interneck.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
You’ll have to forgive me Smantix, I wasn’t aware that I applauded anyone for killing the state trooper. I do recall saying that it was unfortunate that the anti-immigrant groups wouldn’t have two more poster-children, considering those accused weren’t illegal aliens. I also recall saying, “Perhaps instead of looking for groups of people to blame tragic events like this on, Conservatives and/or Restrictionists can focus on ways to improve the safety of our Police Officers”.
I appreciate your attempts to completely misrepresent what I said, were you the one who wrote the press release on Pelosi?
January 13th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Funnier still:
Paul Pelosi (Nanners hubby) owns 17 million of Del Monte stock! (Star Kist parent co.)
Couldn’t be a connection, though. Coincidence. Gotta be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Del_Monte_Foods&diff=100228022&oldid=98156288
OH! And the other tuna canner in American Samoa is also based in California. More coincidence, I’m sure.
January 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Sean,
What the hell is an “anti-immigrant” group? Perhaps you can point one out for me?
I agree…Smantix did kind of misrepresent what you wrote. I don’t think you actually applauded the shooting.
But note that at this time the media is saying it APPEARS that these two scumbags were in the country legally, based on two social security numbers and a drivers license.
Here in California, those documents are practically handed out at any “immigrant” job fair.
Nobody here is “anti-immigrant”. We are all anti-ILLEGAL immigrant.
And just a guess here…what are the odds that the parents of these two entered this country legally? We will probably never find out.
Of course in open-borders-speak, just thinking that makes me a racist.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Billy,
Don’t know if their parents were legal, doesn’t really matter as they are still citizens if they are born in this country. Even if that does change, I doubt the restrictionists will strip those kids already born of their citizenship.
As per who is “anti-immigration”, many of the strongest voices against “illegal” immigration are the same ones calling for an extreme cut back in legal immigration. Granted, they don’t call for an all out ban (because that would be too politically incorrect), but some do call for reducing the legal immigration rates by half or even more.
That, to me, is being anti-immigration (just as I’m called being an open borders advocate because I support more immigration). Being anti-immigration doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing, it depends on where you are coming from. I am coming from the side that thinks a large immigration rate is a good thing.
January 13th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Very concerned about being politically correct here – the sensitive lot that we are.
Apparently thinking that gaining citizenship should at least be as difficult as the background check process to be a Domino’s pizza delivery man is what stirs the plaintive cries of “nativist”, “restrictionist” and “xenophobe”.
I don’t need the current murderers to prove a point I’ve made on here half a dozen times in the last year. Whether it was the illegal who raped and murdered the 74 year old Bellevue grandmother, the rash of DUI murders, or the streets being flooded with $70 an ounce Mexican ditch weed or flush with cocaine. Some outlets in the last two days were covering the arrest of a dozen MS-13 gang members off Nolensville road.
This state has a serious and dangerous problem because of Bredesen, Serpas, and Hall’s laissez-faire approach to illegal immigration. Some of us see it as the threat that it is that requires some fundamental changes.
And others….well, others like to parlay their white guilt into namecalling and playing the race card. That’s where you come in.
January 13th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Smantix,
No, others (this is where I come in) feel that there should be a separation between those who came illegally to commit crimes, and those who came illegally to work hard an earn a living. I fully support more security at the border, but I also support giving those who haven’t committed a crime other than coming over here without the proper documentation, a chance to stay here to continue being productive members of society.
I wasn’t speaking to those who simply want a bit better security, I was speaking to those who want next to no immigration. If you are not one of those, Kudos to you. If you are, well, then your asking for an economic collapse in America and I can’t get behind that.
January 13th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
I have never met or spoken to one person who has ever called for boycotting all immigration. Not one.
The fact is that there is no way to discern an altruistic “just came here to work” illegal from a sex offender who illegally immigrated. Fringe open border groups (accepted as “mainstream”) like the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce wrote the police chief last year to request that he not enforce laws regarding theft of Social Security numbers, identity theft and document forgery. They were reluctantly rebuffed by Chief Spanky.
So many laws have been broken to get where they are that there must be stiff penalties to curtail it continuing any further. We need a fence and an inter-country agency to determine who everybody is. The problem is that everyone who is an ex-convict will not be registering anyway.
Seeing as how everyone here illegally is a criminal, we reserve the right to inconvenience them long enough to find out who they are. If you refuse to register, then you should be banned from ever being allowed back.
January 13th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
With my degree in Economics from UCLA, I can tell you that economic collapse theory is a pile of crap. Whatever alleged economic benefits the illegal alien workers bring is MORE than offset by the costs associated with them.
I often have musings about that whenever I am in the grocery store in line behind a teenage mother (who can’t even speak English) who is cashing her WIC checks for $75 in baby formula. What NET economic benefit did she bring?
Or the family who comes here for a “better life”…and sends their non-english speaking children through our California public schools (at a cost of approximately $11,500 a student). Since those kids have a 60% chance of NOT EVEN GRADUATING from high school, what NET economic benefit did that family bring?
What is happening here in California is the development of a peasant class that does not bother to assimilate to American society. They drain more resources than we can pay for.
And let’s not even broach the gang and drug problems (see Oceanide and Vista here in San Diego County) brought on by the illegal alien youth. That would be another discussion altogether. Maybe it’s not as bad in Tennessee…
Or the health care costs…
Or drunken driving statistics…
January 13th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Where did that troll come from anyway?
For the record, 73% of all Jews are against illegal immigration and 91% prefer tuna over gifilte fish…
January 14th, 2007 at 12:37 am
J. Ryan, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, nor do I really care.
Billy, I can’t really speak for what is happening in California. I do know that in Tennessee, all illegal immigrants pay their sales and property taxes, which are the only forms of taxation in our state. They may not pay enough to meet the amount spent on services such as Public Education, but that is the same for much of the lower economic classes. But a low-skilled, low-wage work force is necessary to keep the economy booming, because we do need them for our Construction and Service industries.
January 14th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Smantix,
I have no problem with “illegal immigrants” registering, because I support giving them a pathway to citizenship, which would require them to register with the government. Once that system is in place, and once legitimate immigrants have had a chance to register, I don’t care what system is in place to “catch” the rest of the illegal immigrants.
My concern is with those who are here and working, those who have committed major crimes here or in Mexico (not related to the necessary infractions to live in the Unites States) can burn in hell for all I am concerned.
As for those who don’t want immigration “eliminated”; those who want to see all illegal immigrants deported, as well as a severe reduction in legal immigration, are those I consider “anti-immigration”. The idea that we can eliminate 3-5% of the US Workforce without replacing them, is a fantastical notion that is not based in reality.
My position is simple, I want those who are here illegally, but have not committed crimes outside of immigration infractions and using false identities to gain employment, to be allowed a chance to earn their citizenship by paying back taxes and being on probation. Once that system is in place, I favor doing whatever is necessary to secure our border to insure that nobody is coming across that isn’t registered or tracked. I also support redoing our immigration laws to allow low-skilled labor in, which is necessary for our service and construction businesses. That’s what I believe, and I’m not going to defend or apologize for other pro-immigration groups that believe differently.
January 14th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Billy – And tangentially, how does raising the minimum wage help Americans who are competing against illegals being paid less than minimum wage.
Claiming to want to help the poor by raising the minimum wage while tacitly condoning illegal immigration is like asking the working poor to run the 100 yard dash after you tied their shoelaces together.
For all of the companies exploiting illegal labor and getting away with it, raising the minimum wage just solidifies their decision. They didn’t want to pay the old minimum wage so how does raising it help the poor?
The same thing happens when you say – “people in prison should be picking up trash or menial jobs that the state pays for”. It’s a good idea unless you are the small business person who runs a company wanting to bid on a job and you somehow have to magically compete against prison labor and slave wages.
Forcing US workers to compete against illegal labor is no different.
January 14th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Smantix,
Uh…I don’t think I said anything about raising the minimum wage. In fact, I am kind of against there being ANY minimum wage. The market should decide what a “minimum wage” is.
Sean,
I think anyone in construction would take offense at your depiction of them as “low-skilled”…I know my father and grandfather (who built about half of Northern Virginia)would. We don’t need illegal immigrants to do construction work here in California and I am sure that if builders in Tennessee hired only legal residents that there would be NO trouble filling those jobs.
So a builder pays a whopping $2,000 in extra wages by only hiring legal residents to build a house. That’s about $10 a month on a mortgage.
I am stepping out of this discussion because there’s too much football and Tubing to focus on today…
January 14th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
That wasn’t implying you to be in favor of it. I’m sure Sean’s in favor of it though.
I was just asking the big economics degree holder. Rather than the struggling associate’s degree pursuing undergrad.
January 14th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Sean,
Clearly you do not have any insight as to the power of the Jewish voting bloc, nor of my importance or relevance to this blog.
98% of all Jews are here legally, and 74% of them voted Democrat. Even trolls know that.
January 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Billy,
There are low-skilled construction jobs and high-skilled construction jobs. As someone who went through the American education system, I know that kids have it drilled in their heads that if they don’t have a white collar job they don’t amount to anything. Its unfortunate, I certainly don’t have a white collar job, but I think that might explain why fewer Americans are flocking to the service/construction industry than they were when your Father and Grandfather were working.
I’d imagine that the construction industry is a bit like the Military, in that some do it for a few years and move on, while others stay in it for life, and learn a specialty or become general contractors and hire other construction workers.
As for this glut of workers…the unemployment rate is at historically low levels, and that is with an estimated 10-15 million undocumented workers in the labor force. Get rid of those workers, and you have a severe shortage of workers. The question then is, will the wages for workers simply rise and more people flock to those industries? Or do many of those jobs simply disappear, thus slowing down our economy? While I wish it were the former, I fear it would be the latter.
January 14th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Smantix, considering the Democrats are planning on crafting and passing legislation which would take away the illegal status of many of the immigrants in the workforce; a minimum wage increase will not hurt low wage workers as much as you’d think. Besides, many of the illegal immigrants make more than the minimum wage, its just that the employers need employees.
January 14th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Ah…
So you were looking for an answer. Sorry, bro, thought you were being rhetorical…
I guess I should have read the word “tangientally”. Coffee hadn’t kicked in (until the Tubing comment, unfortunately).
Raising the minimum wage actually will hurt most of our legal residents here in California…because it raises the floor for labor cost…a cost many small business owners are unwilling to pay.
Unless of course they hire illegal aliens.
Again, I could probably give you a LONG analysis, but I need Darrell Jackson to score a couple of touchdowns for my post-season fantasy football league. So I am going to watch football.
Go Chargers!
January 14th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
The California Minimum wage at 7.50 per hour is already higher than the Federal Minimum wage would be in 2 years. The unemployment rate in California is nearly equal with the Federal unemployment rate.
November 2006; California – 4.5, US – 4.3
January 14th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Democrats are planning on crafting and passing legislation which would take away the illegal status of many of the immigrants in the workforce; a minimum wage increase will not hurt low wage workers as much as you’d think. Besides, many of the illegal immigrants make more than the minimum wage
Here’s the thing. Who should be passing laws about the minimum wage if even illegal immigrants make more than minimum wage – as you just contended? Think about that one for a second. Who is clamoring for this legislation if that is truly the case?
Declaring a group no longer “illegal” doesn’t alleviate the problem. Where once you could work a job that paid $10-12 an hour and paid no taxes, you now have to hand over 30% of your weekly income to Uncle Sam not counting healthcare. Being declared a legal US citizen would be a pay cut.
The incentive moves like so:
a) Continue same job = make less money after taxes
b) Find better job = make up for 30% loss of income
c) Have no job = legally receive federal assistance
I’m just going to have to side with the American worker on this one and say that their wages would have already increased on their own if they didn’t have to be comparison shopped against illegal competition.
January 14th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
“I’m just going to have to side with the American worker on this one and say that their wages would have already increased on their own if they didn’t have to be comparison shopped against illegal competition.”
Considering there is no way of backing up that claim, its hard to agree or disagree.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
OK…help me out here. What is a “Mexican National?”
Amazing that these “Mexican Nationals” didn’t hurt any “Oklahoma Americans” in the crash…
January 14th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
A Mexican National is someone whose Nationality is Mexican. They may have been “illegal immigrants” or they may have been here legally (work, travel, or education visas) but not citizens.
January 15th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Considering there is no way of backing up that claim, its hard to agree or disagree.
Sure there is. Show the number of textile manufacturers closing their Southeast Asian factories and moving them to the United States. If there’s no difference between paying someone 50 cents a day in Indonesia and paying someone $16 a hour in California then it should be a fairly simple exercise.
January 15th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Smatix, we are talking about two different things now. Are we talking about wages being depressed because of “illegal” immigration, or because of competition with foreign markets? I think there is a stronger argument for the latter, simply because textile companies have to compete on a global market, with much cheaper product coming out of lesser developed countries.
Even if some of these companies hire illegal immigrants to compete, they still have to pay them a much higher wage than a company in Indonesia. The question is though, if there weren’t illegal immigrants, would they pay more to hire legal citizens; or would they simply close down because of an inability to compete? Frankly, I think an American based textile plant employing illegal immigrants is better than a closed down plant producing nothing. But then again, I’m sure that textile plant could be converted into some nice loft space for some artistic liberal to convert into a studio
January 15th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Different sides of the same coin from my perspective.
Unfair competition from so-called Free Trade with countries (that don’t freely trade with us) and illegal competition by hamstringing American workers against workers unencumbered by labor laws. The level playing field is not.
At the end of the day I’m an economic nationalist. If a rising tide lifts somebody in another country’s boat – well that’s just super but if that tide means poking a hole in the US worker’s boat then I’m going to be against it.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I am actuall well-aware of the liberal definition of “Mexican-national”. I was being ironic.
Of course we all know that “Mexican-national” is a neo-journalistic euphemism for “here illegally.” Especially when there are 8 of them in one vehicle in Oklahoma.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:26 am
Just an update for Shauna Braindead since she was arguing about how we need illegal aliens to do the jobs Americans won’t do and how vital they are to our economy. Oh, and how we apparently are humming along at such low unemployment levels…
The latest unemployment data has these cities with the highest unemployment rates:
#8 Hanford, CA 7.8%
#5 Fresno, CA 8%
#3 Visalia, CA 8.4%
#2 Yuma, AZ 13.3%
#1 El Centro, CA 16.2%
Hmm…is there a common factor between these cities? Wait! I got it…
All have large ILLEGAL ALIEN populations!
Just sayin’…