Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
THAT'S HOW I'M VIEWING ALL THE ISSUES THAT COME ALONG.
ISSUES THAT COME ALONG. >> LET'S GET RIGHT TO THE
>> LET'S GET RIGHT TO THE QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS. WE HAVE A QUESTION FROM A VIEWER
WE HAVE A QUESTION FROM A VIEWER IN ST. PAUL WHO HAS INDICATED
IN ST. PAUL WHO HAS INDICATED THAT THE NEWS MEDIA REPORTED
THAT THE NEWS MEDIA REPORTED SOME DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN
SOME DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN SENATOR BAKK AND THISSEN ABOUT
SENATOR BAKK AND THISSEN ABOUT THE MINIMUM WAGE AND WHAT THEY
THE MINIMUM WAGE AND WHAT THEY SHOULD DO WITH THE BUDGET
SHOULD DO WITH THE BUDGET SURPLUS.
SURPLUS. >> I AGREE WITH SENATOR HANN
>> I AGREE WITH SENATOR HANN THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE AN
THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE AN INCREASE MINIMUM WAGE.
INCREASE MINIMUM WAGE. THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS,
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, OBVIOUSLY HAD DISAGREEMENTS, AND
OBVIOUSLY HAD DISAGREEMENTS, AND YOU KNOW, WITH THE BUDGET
YOU KNOW, WITH THE BUDGET SURPLUS, IT ALLOWS US TO LOOK AT
SURPLUS, IT ALLOWS US TO LOOK AT A NUMBER OF OPTIONS AS WE MOVE
A NUMBER OF OPTIONS AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
FORWARD. IT'S A GOOD SPOT FOR US TO BE
IT'S A GOOD SPOT FOR US TO BE IN, AND THERE'S LOTS OF REASONS
IN, AND THERE'S LOTS OF REASONS WE GOT THE BUDGET SUR LUS, AND
WE GOT THE BUDGET SUR LUS, AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IN THE WAY
WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IN THE WAY THAT DON'T FOCUS SO MUCH IN THE
THAT DON'T FOCUS SO MUCH IN THE SHORT-TERM BUT MORE THE
SHORT-TERM BUT MORE THE LONG-TERM.
LONG-TERM. THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MET
THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MET TODAY, THURSDAY, AND I THINK HAD
TODAY, THURSDAY, AND I THINK HAD A GOOD WEIGHING IN OF PUBLIC
A GOOD WEIGHING IN OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
TESTIMONY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE, AND I THINK THEY ARE
ISSUE, AND I THINK THEY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO WRAP UP A
GOING TO BE ABLE TO WRAP UP A BILL.
BILL. THE DIFFERENCES ACTUALLY AREN'T
THE DIFFERENCES ACTUALLY AREN'T THAT SIGNIFICANT.
THAT SIGNIFICANT. I THINK WE WILL BE ABLE TO GET
I THINK WE WILL BE ABLE TO GET THERE.
THERE. IN TERMS OF THE BUDUET ITSELF,
IN TERMS OF THE BUDUET ITSELF, WE JUST TODAY PASSED OUT ABOUT A
WE JUST TODAY PASSED OUT ABOUT A $500 MILLION TAX BILL OUT OF TAX
$500 MILLION TAX BILL OUT OF TAX COMMITTEE THAT DOES PRIMARILY
COMMITTEE THAT DOES PRIMARILY MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF, FEDERAL
MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF, FEDERAL CONFORMITY WHICH INCLUDES
CONFORMITY WHICH INCLUDES MARRIAGE PENALTY AND CONFORMING
MARRIAGE PENALTY AND CONFORMING ON ADOPTION TAX CREDITS, MAKING
ON ADOPTION TAX CREDITS, MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE THAT WENT TO
SURE THAT PEOPLE THAT WENT TO MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE CAN TAKE
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGES IN TAX RELIEF AND
ADVANTAGES IN TAX RELIEF AND MAKING SURE COLLEGE TUITION GETS
MAKING SURE COLLEGE TUITION GETS TAX RELIEF.
TAX RELIEF. THOSE THINGS MOVING BACK, AND
THOSE THINGS MOVING BACK, AND BUSINESS TO BUSINESS TAXES, I
BUSINESS TO BUSINESS TAXES, I THINK IT'S A GOOD USE, AND I
THINK IT'S A GOOD USE, AND I THINK WE WILL BE DOING THE
THINK WE WILL BE DOING THE INVESTMENT.
INVESTMENT. ALL FOUR OF US AGREE ON THE
ALL FOUR OF US AGREE ON THE INVESTMENT IN LONG-TERM CARE
INVESTMENT IN LONG-TERM CARE WORKERS, INCREASING THEIR WAGES.
WORKERS, INCREASING THEIR WAGES. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS WE ARE
THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS WE ARE GOING TO AGREE ON AS WE MOVE
GOING TO AGREE ON AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
FORWARD. >> SENATOR BAKK.
>> SENATOR BAKK. >> THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I EVER
>> THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I EVER HEARD CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN
HEARD CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVE THISSEN AND I
REPRESENTATIVE THISSEN AND I CASHINCHARCHARACTERIZED AS DISA.
CASHINCHARCHARACTERIZED AS DISA. WE HAVE A GOOD WORKING
WE HAVE A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP.
RELATIONSHIP. WE HAVE GOT MEMBERS THAT HAVE
WE HAVE GOT MEMBERS THAT HAVE STRONG OPINIONS, AND WE HAVE TO
STRONG OPINIONS, AND WE HAVE TO MANAGE THAT.
MANAGE THAT. SOMETIMES BECAUSE WE HAVE
SOMETIMES BECAUSE WE HAVE MEMBERS ADD ODDS, SOMETIMES THE
MEMBERS ADD ODDS, SOMETIMES THE LEADERS ARE AT ODDS, AND THAT'S
LEADERS ARE AT ODDS, AND THAT'S REALLY NOT TRUE.
REALLY NOT TRUE. YOU KNOW, ON THE -- I'M PROBE
YOU KNOW, ON THE -- I'M PROBE THE ONLY LEADER THAT WAS IN THE
THE ONLY LEADER THAT WAS IN THE LEGISLATURE IN THE '90s.
LEGISLATURE IN THE '90s. IT WAS A TIME WITH A VERY STRONG
IT WAS A TIME WITH A VERY STRONG ECONOMY, AND MY FIRST 7 YEARS IN
ECONOMY, AND MY FIRST 7 YEARS IN OFFICE WERE PRETTY EASY.
OFFICE WERE PRETTY EASY. WE CUT TAXES EVERY YEAR FOR
WE CUT TAXES EVERY YEAR FOR SEVEN YEARS IN A ROW, AND MANY
SEVEN YEARS IN A ROW, AND MANY OF THOSE TAX CUTS WERE
OF THOSE TAX CUTS WERE PERMANENT, AND WE CUT IN COME IE
PERMANENT, AND WE CUT IN COME IE TAXES ACROSS THE BOARD, AGAIN IN
TAXES ACROSS THE BOARD, AGAIN IN 2000.
2000. 2001, AND HOMEOWNERS WE TOOK THE
2001, AND HOMEOWNERS WE TOOK THE GENERAL EDUCATION LEVY, SHIFTED
GENERAL EDUCATION LEVY, SHIFTED THAT OVER FOR THE STATE'S
THAT OVER FOR THE STATE'S GENERAL FUND, AND THE RESULT OF
GENERAL FUND, AND THE RESULT OF THE 7 YEARS OF SIGNIFICANT TAX
THE 7 YEARS OF SIGNIFICANT TAX CUTTING WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS
CUTTING WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS VERY STRONG, BY 2002 WHEN
VERY STRONG, BY 2002 WHEN PAWLENTY WAS ELECTED HE WAS
PAWLENTY WAS ELECTED HE WAS FACING A $4.3 BILLION DEFICIT.
FACING A $4.3 BILLION DEFICIT. I WOULD ARGUE HAVING BEEN
I WOULD ARGUE HAVING BEEN THROUGH THAT, THE APPETITE TO
THROUGH THAT, THE APPETITE TO CUT TAXES GOT A LITTLE TOO
CUT TAXES GOT A LITTLE TOO STRONG.
STRONG. IT SEEMED LIKE THE REVENUE WAS
IT SEEMED LIKE THE REVENUE WAS NEVER GOING TO QUIT COMING IN.
NEVER GOING TO QUIT COMING IN. WE HAVE BEEN MANAGING DEFICITS
WE HAVE BEEN MANAGING DEFICITS FOR MORE THAN A DECADE.
FOR MORE THAN A DECADE. THAT'S DIFFICULT, WHETHER IT'S
THAT'S DIFFICULT, WHETHER IT'S IN YOUR HOME OR IN YOUR
IN YOUR HOME OR IN YOUR BUSINESS, THE CHURCH YOU GO TO.
BUSINESS, THE CHURCH YOU GO TO. IF YOU ARE ALWAYS MANAGING A
IF YOU ARE ALWAYS MANAGING A DEFICIT, IT'S VERY HARD TO MAKE
DEFICIT, IT'S VERY HARD TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE.
GOOD DECISIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE. WE WENT THROUGH A LONG PERIOD OF
WE WENT THROUGH A LONG PERIOD OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACCOUNTING
DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACCOUNTING GIMMICKS AND LOANS, BORROWING
GIMMICKS AND LOANS, BORROWING FROM SCHOOLS TO KEEP THE STATE'S
FROM SCHOOLS TO KEEP THE STATE'S BUDGET IN BALANCE.
BUDGET IN BALANCE. WE DIDN'T INVEST ANY NEW MONEY
WE DIDN'T INVEST ANY NEW MONEY FOR A DECADE, AND WE ARE WAY
FOR A DECADE, AND WE ARE WAY BEHIND THERE, AND IF YOU CAN'T
BEHIND THERE, AND IF YOU CAN'T MAKE INVESTMENTS IN THOSE THINGS
MAKE INVESTMENTS IN THOSE THINGS THAT WE ALL AGREE ARE IMPORTANT
THAT WE ALL AGREE ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOU ARE MANAGING A
BECAUSE YOU ARE MANAGING A CRISIS.
CRISIS. I DON'T WANT TO REAP SO FAR ON
I DON'T WANT TO REAP SO FAR ON THE PERMANENT TAX CUT SIDE THAT
THE PERMANENT TAX CUT SIDE THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION
WE FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WE ARE MANAGING DEFICITS AGAIN.
WE ARE MANAGING DEFICITS AGAIN. I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THAT, AND
I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THAT, AND IT'S VERY DSK.
IT'S VERY DSK. THE SENATE IS GOING TO BE A
THE SENATE IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE MORE CAUTIOUS.
LITTLE MORE CAUTIOUS. WE WILL KNOW TOMORROW WHEN THE
WE WILL KNOW TOMORROW WHEN THE BUDGET FORECAST COMES OUT HOW
BUDGET FORECAST COMES OUT HOW MUCH ROOM THERE IS TO MAKE TAX
MUCH ROOM THERE IS TO MAKE TAX CUTS OR COMMENCE SPENDING THAT
CUTS OR COMMENCE SPENDING THAT CURTAILS INTO THE NEXT BIENNIUM.
CURTAILS INTO THE NEXT BIENNIUM. IF REPUBLICAN CONCERN IS THAT WE
IF REPUBLICAN CONCERN IS THAT WE GIVE TAX RELIEF TO BUSINESSES,
GIVE TAX RELIEF TO BUSINESSES, THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT
THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO THAT.
WAYS TO DO THAT. SOME OF THEM DON'T REQUIRE BIG
SOME OF THEM DON'T REQUIRE BIG TAILS BIENNIUMS, AND IT REALLY
TAILS BIENNIUMS, AND IT REALLY ALL KIND OF DEPENDS WHAT THE
ALL KIND OF DEPENDS WHAT THE REVENUE LOOKS LIKE TOMORROW.
REVENUE LOOKS LIKE TOMORROW. I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO THINK
I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO THINK THE SENATE IS NOT GOING TO
THE SENATE IS NOT GOING TO CONSIDER TAX RELIEF BECAUSE I'M
CONSIDER TAX RELIEF BECAUSE I'M SURE IT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF THE
SURE IT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF THE THINGS ON THE PLATE.
THINGS ON THE PLATE. WE MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT IDEA
WE MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT IDEA WHAT TAX RELIEF LOOKS LIKE.
WHAT TAX RELIEF LOOKS LIKE. >> SENATOR HANN?
>> SENATOR HANN? >> I THINK AS WE SAID, WE THINK
>> I THINK AS WE SAID, WE THINK THE SURPLUS OUGHT TO BE DEALT
THE SURPLUS OUGHT TO BE DEALT WITH BY FINDING WAYS TO RETURN
WITH BY FINDING WAYS TO RETURN THE MONEY TO TAXPAYERS.
THE MONEY TO TAXPAYERS. WE THINK MOST OF THAT COULD BE
WE THINK MOST OF THAT COULD BE DONE WITH TAX RELIEF IN SOME
DONE WITH TAX RELIEF IN SOME FORM OR THE OTHER, AND WE THINK
FORM OR THE OTHER, AND WE THINK IT'S GOING TO AFFECT FAMILY.
IT'S GOING TO AFFECT FAMILY. SOME OF IT IS BUSINESS ORIENTED
SOME OF IT IS BUSINESS ORIENTED BUT WE WANT TO HELP ALL
BUT WE WANT TO HELP ALL MINNESOTANS THAT WE HAVE
MINNESOTANS THAT WE HAVE COLLECTED OR PROJECTED TO
COLLECTED OR PROJECTED TO COLLECT ABOVE WHAT THE BUDGET IS
COLLECT ABOVE WHAT THE BUDGET IS CALLED FOR.
CALLED FOR. TOM MAKES A GOOD POINT.
TOM MAKES A GOOD POINT. WE HAVE HAD PERIODS OF DEFICITS
WE HAVE HAD PERIODS OF DEFICITS OVER THE YEARS, BUT FROM OUR
OVER THE YEARS, BUT FROM OUR STANDPOINT IT REFLECTS AN OVERLY
STANDPOINT IT REFLECTS AN OVERLY AGGRESSIVE SPENDING REGIMEN.
AGGRESSIVE SPENDING REGIMEN. WE HAD GROWTH IN SPENDING.
WE HAD GROWTH IN SPENDING. YOU CAN'T DEVICE A TAX PLAN THAT
YOU CAN'T DEVICE A TAX PLAN THAT WILL HELP THAT.
WILL HELP THAT. IF YOU ALLOW THE ECONOMIC GROWTH
IF YOU ALLOW THE ECONOMIC GROWTH OF THE STATE THAT IT WOULD BE
OF THE STATE THAT IT WOULD BE MANAGEABLE, THAT WE WOULDN'T
MANAGEABLE, THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT OVER
HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT OVER COLLECTING, NORMAL BUSINESS
COLLECTING, NORMAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS IT GROWS GENERATE
ACTIVITY AS IT GROWS GENERATE THOSE FUNDS, AND T THAT'S WHAT E
THOSE FUNDS, AND T THAT'S WHAT E BELIEVE HAS TURNED OUT TO BE
BELIEVE HAS TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE.
TRUE. QUESTION A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
QUESTION A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MINIMUM WAGE.
MINIMUM WAGE. WE ARE A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT
WE ARE A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE AGGRESSIVE NATURE OF IT.
THE AGGRESSIVE NATURE OF IT. I THINK IF WE MATCH THE FEDERAL
I THINK IF WE MATCH THE FEDERAL CONFORMITY IT WILL BE A 40%
CONFORMITY IT WILL BE A 40% INCREASE IN MINIMUM WAGE.
INCREASE IN MINIMUM WAGE. WE THINK IT'S DOABLE AND NOT TOO
WE THINK IT'S DOABLE AND NOT TOO HARMFUL TO THE ECONOMY, BUT
HARMFUL TO THE ECONOMY, BUT THERE'S NO QUESTION IN MY
THERE'S NO QUESTION IN MY OPINION THE ECONOMISTS BELIEVE
OPINION THE ECONOMISTS BELIEVE IT HURTS JOB GROWTH AND ECONOMIC
IT HURTS JOB GROWTH AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE. YOU HAVE TO BE CAUTIOUS HOW HIGH
YOU HAVE TO BE CAUTIOUS HOW HIGH THAT GOES.
THAT GOES. >> ONE OF THE THING THAT'S BEEN
>> ONE OF THE THING THAT'S BEEN MOST FRUSTRATING TO ME IS I FEEL
MOST FRUSTRATING TO ME IS I FEEL LIKE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE
LIKE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE WRONG THINGS IN ST. PAUL AND NOT
WRONG THINGS IN ST. PAUL AND NOT REALLY LOOKING AT THE PROBLEMS
REALLY LOOKING AT THE PROBLEMS AND SOLVING THOSE, WORKING
AND SOLVING THOSE, WORKING TOWARDS A SOLUTION.
TOWARDS A SOLUTION. I REMEMBER RECENTLY READING AN
I REMEMBER RECENTLY READING AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE CITY IN THE
ARTICLE ABOUT THE CITY IN THE COUNTRY THAT HAD THE HIGHEST
COUNTRY THAT HAD THE HIGHEST AVERAGE RENT PAID FOR A SINGLE
AVERAGE RENT PAID FOR A SINGLE BEDROOM APARTMENT.
BEDROOM APARTMENT. INTERESTING TO FIND OUT IT
INTERESTING TO FIND OUT IT WASN'T NEW YORK CITY OR LOS
WASN'T NEW YORK CITY OR LOS ANGELES.
ANGELES. IT WAS BISMARCK.
IT WAS BISMARCK. I KEEP THINKING IN BISMARCK,
I KEEP THINKING IN BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA, THEY ARE NOT
NORTH DAKOTA, THEY ARE NOT WORRIED WHAT THE MINIMUM WAGE
WORRIED WHAT THE MINIMUM WAGE IS.
IS. I THINK RATHER THAN DO THE
I THINK RATHER THAN DO THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO KIND OF
THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO KIND OF INSPIRE JOB CREATION IN THE
INSPIRE JOB CREATION IN THE ECONOMY, WE ARE DOING THINGS
ECONOMY, WE ARE DOING THINGS LIKE RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE.
LIKE RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE. OTHER STATES THAT RAISED THE
OTHER STATES THAT RAISED THE MINIMUM WAGE HAVE SEEN LESS JOB
MINIMUM WAGE HAVE SEEN LESS JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CITIZENS,
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CITIZENS, AND I THINK WHILE RAISING THE
AND I THINK WHILE RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE SOUNDS GREAT,
MINIMUM WAGE SOUNDS GREAT, UNFORTUNATELY IT DOESN'T SOLVE
UNFORTUNATELY IT DOESN'T SOLVE THE ACTUAL PROBLEM.
THE ACTUAL PROBLEM. FRANKLY IT'S NOT FAIR FOR THE
FRANKLY IT'S NOT FAIR FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO LOSE
PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO LOSE THEIR JOBS BECAUSE OF IT.
THEIR JOBS BECAUSE OF IT. >> SENATOR THISSEN I WANT TO GO
>> SENATOR THISSEN I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE MINIMUM WAGE.
BACK TO THE MINIMUM WAGE. YOU TALK ABOUT A CONFERENCE
YOU TALK ABOUT A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, AND THE REASON
COMMITTEE, AND THE REASON THERE'S A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
THERE'S A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE THE HOUSE AND SENATE PASSED
THE HOUSE AND SENATE PASSED DIFFERENT BILLS IN THE LAST
DIFFERENT BILLS IN THE LAST YEAR, AND THIS IS ALL PART OF
YEAR, AND THIS IS ALL PART OF THE SAME SESSION.
THE SAME SESSION. SO THERE'S A CONFERENCE
SO THERE'S A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE TO WORK OUT THOSE
COMMITTEE TO WORK OUT THOSE DIFFERENCES.
DIFFERENCES. >> THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT. YES.
YES. THAT'S RIGHT.
THAT'S RIGHT. CONFERENCE COMMITTEE AT THE END
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE AT THE END OF LAST SESSION, AND THE
OF LAST SESSION, AND THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE DIDN'T
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE DIDN'T REACH AGREEMENT.
REACH AGREEMENT. WE COULD RECONSTITUTE IT THIS
WE COULD RECONSTITUTE IT THIS YEAR.
YEAR. I WOULD SAY THIS NOTION OF GOING
I WOULD SAY THIS NOTION OF GOING TO THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE,
TO THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE, THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT EVEN AN
THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT EVEN AN INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE IN
INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE IN MINNESOTA BECAUSE MOST
MINNESOTA BECAUSE MOST BUSINESSES PAY THE FEDERAL
BUSINESSES PAY THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE IN THIS STATE.
MINIMUM WAGE IN THIS STATE. IT'S A NICE THING TO SAY, BUT IT
IT'S A NICE THING TO SAY, BUT IT DOESN'T REFLECT REALITY.
DOESN'T REFLECT REALITY. IT WOULDN'T BE AN INCREASE FOR
IT WOULDN'T BE AN INCREASE FOR FOLKS.
FOLKS. THE POINT ON THE MINIMUM WAGE,xD
THE POINT ON THE MINIMUM WAGE,xD MANY ECONOMISTS, A GROUP OF 6000
MANY ECONOMISTS, A GROUP OF 6000 ECONOMISTS SAY IT DOESN'T AFFECT
ECONOMISTS SAY IT DOESN'T AFFECT JOBS.
JOBS. IN THE TWO MOST RECENT
IN THE TWO MOST RECENT EXPERIENCE IN MINNESOTA IN THE
EXPERIENCE IN MINNESOTA IN THE MID-'90s AND MID-2000, THERE
MID-'90s AND MID-2000, THERE WASN'T A DECREASE IN JOBS.
WASN'T A DECREASE IN JOBS. IT CONTINUED TO AGREE.
IT CONTINUED TO AGREE. WHEN YOU PUT THE MONEY IN
WHEN YOU PUT THE MONEY IN PEOPLE'S POCKETS, ESPECIALLY
PEOPLE'S POCKETS, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE MAKING THE MINIMUM WAGE,
PEOPLE MAKING THE MINIMUM WAGE, THEY ARE GOING TO SPEND THE
THEY ARE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY AND IT'S GOING TO BE
MONEY AND IT'S GOING TO BE RECIRCULATED BACK INTO THE
RECIRCULATED BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY.
COMMUNITY. THE IDEA THAT IT'S NOT REALLY
THE IDEA THAT IT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO HELP PEOPLE, THAT'S
GOING TO HELP PEOPLE, THAT'S KIND OF ABSURD ON ITS FACE.
KIND OF ABSURD ON ITS FACE. ONE OF THE THINGS WE KNOW, THE
ONE OF THE THINGS WE KNOW, THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE WAS RAISED,
FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE WAS RAISED, ONE THING WE KNOW FROM RECENT
ONE THING WE KNOW FROM RECENT STUDIES, SEVERAL HUNDRED
STUDIES, SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE WILL BE RAISED
THOUSAND PEOPLE WILL BE RAISED OUT OF POVERTY, AND THAT'S TRUE.
OUT OF POVERTY, AND THAT'S TRUE. THEY SAY IF YOU WORK A 40-HOUR
THEY SAY IF YOU WORK A 40-HOUR WEEK YOU DON'T EARN POVERTY
WEEK YOU DON'T EARN POVERTY WAGES.
WAGES. THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
THAT'S NOT RIGHT. WE CAN HAVE ALL THE ECONOMIC
WE CAN HAVE ALL THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT, BUT AT THE END OF THE
ARGUMENT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S NOT RIGHT FOR SOMEONE
DAY, IT'S NOT RIGHT FOR SOMEONE WORKING A FULL-TIME JOB TO HAVE
WORKING A FULL-TIME JOB TO HAVE TO GO TO POVERTY.
TO GO TO POVERTY. THAT'S THE SITUATION WE HAVE IN
THAT'S THE SITUATION WE HAVE IN THIS STATE.
THIS STATE. WE ARE NOT GOING TO SOLVE IT
WE ARE NOT GOING TO SOLVE IT WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE WE WANT TO
WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE WE WANT TO GO TO.
GO TO. FUNDAMENTAL VALUES OF FAIRNESS
FUNDAMENTAL VALUES OF FAIRNESS AND HONORING WHAT HARD WORK IS
AND HONORING WHAT HARD WORK IS ABOUT CALLS FOR US TO TAKE THE
ABOUT CALLS FOR US TO TAKE THE ACTION, AND WE WILL TAKE IT UP
ACTION, AND WE WILL TAKE IT UP RELATIVELY QUICKLY.
RELATIVELY QUICKLY. >> THE SAME STUDY YOU REFERRED
>> THE SAME STUDY YOU REFERRED TO THAT TALKS ABOUT LIFTING
TO THAT TALKS ABOUT LIFTING PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY, THERE'S
PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY, THERE'S GOING TO BE SEVERAL HUNDRED
GOING TO BE SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND JOBS THAT ARE LOST,
THOUSAND JOBS THAT ARE LOST, PEOPLE THAT LOSE THEIR JOB
PEOPLE THAT LOSE THEIR JOB BECAUSE OF RAISING MINIMUM WAGE.
BECAUSE OF RAISING MINIMUM WAGE. >> MORE JOBS ARE GOING TO BE
>> MORE JOBS ARE GOING TO BE CREATED OVERALL.
CREATED OVERALL. >> ANY BUSINESS THAT YOU SAY YOU
>> ANY BUSINESS THAT YOU SAY YOU ARE GOING TO MANDATE A HIGHER
ARE GOING TO MANDATE A HIGHER COST IN WAGES, THAT IS GOING TO
COST IN WAGES, THAT IS GOING TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE.
COME FROM SOMEWHERE. IF YOU ARE A BUSINESS OWNER AND
IF YOU ARE A BUSINESS OWNER AND HAVE PEOPLE EMPLOYED, YOU ARE
HAVE PEOPLE EMPLOYED, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT YOUR BUDGET
GOING TO HAVE TO CUT YOUR BUDGET SOMEWHERE ELSE.
SOMEWHERE ELSE. YOU MAY HAVE TO CUT BENEFITS OR
YOU MAY HAVE TO CUT BENEFITS OR FIRE PEOPLE.
FIRE PEOPLE. WHO KNOWS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO.
WHO KNOWS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. THAT'S THE REALITY.
THAT'S THE REALITY. TO SAY THIS DOESN'T AFFECT
TO SAY THIS DOESN'T AFFECT ECONOMY OR EMPLOYMENT, IT'S NOT
ECONOMY OR EMPLOYMENT, IT'S NOT TRUE.
TRUE. EVERY BUSINESS OWNER KNOWS IT'S
EVERY BUSINESS OWNER KNOWS IT'S TRUE.
TRUE. MOST BUSINESSES AFFECTED BY THE
MOST BUSINESSES AFFECTED BY THE HIGHER MINIMUM WAGE ARE SMALLER
HIGHER MINIMUM WAGE ARE SMALLER BUSINESSES.
BUSINESSES. THE BIGGER BUSINESSES PAY MORE
THE BIGGER BUSINESSES PAY MORE THAN MINIMUM WAGE.
THAN MINIMUM WAGE. NURSING HOMES SAY IF YOU
NURSING HOMES SAY IF YOU INCREASE MINIMUM WAGE, WE WILL
INCREASE MINIMUM WAGE, WE WILL HAVE TO INCREASE FUNDING BECAUSE
HAVE TO INCREASE FUNDING BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY IT.
WE CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY IT. I THINK WE SHOULD DO IT WITH THE
I THINK WE SHOULD DO IT WITH THE IDEA SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE
IDEA SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THE COST AND IT'S NOT
TO PAY THE COST AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE STATE
GOING TO BE THE STATE GOVERNMENT, BUT THE
GOVERNMENT, BUT THE CONCONSUMERS.
CONCONSUMERS. >> BUT THE ECONOMY IS GOI