Will The First Bill Trump Signs Be A GOP Crusade Against Overtime Pay?

We just spent over a year explaining why Hillary Clinton, an avatar of the status quo, would be a terrible nominee for the Democratic Party. But that isn't what this post is about. This post is about why Donald Trump is a terrible choice of president for the United States of America. Kellyanne's quote above gets into it a bit. But you couldn't have been paying any attention in the last year and be unaware that Trump has preyed for his entire lifetime on working people-- and enriched himself by ripping them off. From his earliest days as a businessman he hired cheap foreign labor-- even during the campaign while he was preaching against it-- instead of American workers, and outsourced manufacturing jobs overseas at every opportunity to make a nickel more. As president, he claimed on the stump, he would use his knowledge of these practices he was so expert at to crack down and work for American working families. And, yes, there were workers in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa and Missouri who bought it.

So wouldn't it be ironic if among the first bills he signs are Ryan Republican schemes to further disadvantage the very working men and women who, unexpectedly landed Trump in the White House. Like the GOP age-old and unending desire to abolish the whole concept of overtime pay and a minimum wage. Conservatives, of course, have always fought against both and true believers like Ryan have tried turning back the clock countless times. Yesterday Rachel Bade and John Bresnahan, reporting for Politico, outlined how Ryan plans to use the Trump presidency to accomplish his virulently anti-worker agenda.

Rolling back DAPA, an executive order that gave the parents of DREAMers legal status to stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation-- may please plenty of Trump voters and few of them will give a hoot about Ryan's intention of reversing Obama's fiduciary rule, which was designed to eliminate conflicts of interests for financial advisers who were balancing corporate clients and individual investors. But the one that could shake their support for Trump is Ryan's intention to eliminate an overtime rule that requires companies pay overtime to employees making $47,000 or less a year. That, they may ponder, isn't what Trump campaigned on, at least not in their neighborhoods.

Weeks before the 115th Congress even begins, House Republicans are laying the groundwork for a major push to repeal President Barack Obama’s most recent regulations, using the Congressional Review Act. The 1996 law allows the House to reverse regulations enacted within the previous 60 legislative days-- and the Senate to pass a repeal by simple majority instead of the upper chamber’s typical 60-vote threshold.

While Obama is still president, the Republican controlled-Congress has no chance of repealing his regulations. But once Trump is inaugurated, that all changes.

Another boon for the right: The 1996 law is written such that the 60-legislative-day clock resets at the beginning of each Congress for all rules enacted in the 60 legislative days prior to the final day of congressional adjournment. That will give Congress months longer to tear up regulations issued late this year.

...House Republicans are currently in the process of making lists of regulations that fall within their time frame and could potentially be repealed early next year. One of the major ones they’re eyeing is Obama’s overtime rule that requires companies to pay time-and-a-half to employees who make under roughly $47,000.

The rule is set to go into effect Dec. 1 and will be a top priority for Republicans to reverse, multiple sources said.

“We have heard over the past year that it would have truly dramatically bad effects, not just on employers but on employees across the country,” said Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.), a former labor lawyer. He said the University of Alabama expects the rule will cost the institution $14 million a year, which will likely be passed on to students via higher tuition.

And “I can give you the names of a ton of private-sector businesses who will either have to eat that cost or pass that cost on to their customers,” Byrne said.

Bernie's and, somewhat reluctantly, Hillary's strong plans to raise the minimum wage went out the window exactly one week ago. Conservatives-- from both sold-out parties-- are jubilant. Most anti-minimum wage Democrats (Blue Dogs and New Dems) have been defeated but Kurt Schrader (OR) and Collin Peterson (MN) are still drawing breath and anti-worker fanatics Colleen Hanabusa (HI) and Brad Schneider (IL) were just returned to Congress while among the new Democratic freshman, you can expect all the worst from those from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party: Lou Correa (CA), Ro Khanna (CA), Tom O'Halleran (AZ), Stephanie Murphy (FL), Darren Soto (FL), and Josh Gottheimer (NJ). As for the Republicans... hey, in July they forced Puerto Rico to accept a $4.25 minimum wage-- a harbinger of things to come? When Alan Grayson and Norma Torres offered an amendment to get the $4.25 minimum wage out of the rescue bill, every Democrat backed them but only 15 Republicans agreed-- and of the 15, six-- Chris Gibson, David Jolly, Richard Hanna, Mike Fitzpatrick and Bob Dold-- won't be returning to Congress next year.



Last May, when the White House announced new rules expanding overtime pay for as many as 4.2 million white collar workers, Republican obstructionists in the House immediately objected and started threatening law suits. Ryan led the charge against it and the NY Times editorial board explained why Ryan had it all wrong.

Under federal law dating to 1938, an employer does not have to pay time-and-a-half when salaried employees work more than 40 hours a week if they earn enough to qualify as executives, professionals or administrators. The problem is that the salary threshold that defines a white-collar job-- at least $455 a week, or $23,660 a year-- has not been fully updated for inflation since 1975. As a result, workers who earn modest salaries are often deemed ineligible for overtime pay.

The new rules, which take effect on Dec. 1, 2016, raise the threshold to $47,476. An estimated 4.2 million workers will become newly eligible for overtime and another nine million who should be earning overtime now (because of the nature of their work), but often don’t get it, will no longer be denied the pay that is rightfully theirs. In all, about one-third of salaried employees will be eligible for overtime pay under the new threshold, compared with a mere 7 percent currently.

Opponents of the new rules include retailers and low-wage employers who often require unpaid overtime from low-salaried employees. They have said that employers will cut base pay if forced to pay overtime, but that appears to be an idle threat, since pay cuts would be deeply unpopular with workers and would very likely create more turnover. If a business does not want to pay overtime, it could hold salaried employees to no more than 40 hours a week. Or it could hire new people to do work previously performed by those who put in unpaid overtime. Alternatively, it could raise the pay of salaried workers above the new threshold, and thus be exempt from the overtime rule.

The Labor Department originally proposed a new threshold of $50,440, which would have accounted more fully for inflation. That proposal also called for annual updates to the threshold; the final rule calls for adjustment every three years. These changes were made to respond to objections from low-wage employers, mostly in Southern states, who said the new rules would be too onerous.

Because the rule has been issued near the end of the Obama administration, Republican leaders in Congress could try to use end-of-session maneuvers that would let them vote next year to repeal it. A repeal would be vetoed if a Democrat won the White House, but it is unclear what the presumed Republican nominee, Donald Trump, would do. For now, in a rare victory for fair pay, the new rules are on their way to becoming a reality.

That's Ryan's agenda, not necessarily-- we'll soon see-- Trump's. It will be interesting watching how he and those around him navigate the treacherous waters so early in his presidency.

Does The Democratic Party Still Stand For Working Families? That Depends How You Define "Democratic Party"

Many of us are watching the clock tick down to November 8, election day. But millions of American workers have their eyes set a few weeks further down the calendar to December 1 when a Department of Labor rule kicks in that will double the salary threshold-- from from $23,660 to $47,476-- at which workers get overtime pay for overtime work. Republicans, of course, are up in arms. But so is the Democratic wing of the Republicans Party. Four of the worst Blue Dogs, ringleader Kurt Schrader (OR) and fellow conservatives, Henry Cuellar (TX), Collin Peterson (MN) and Jim Cooper (TN), all of whom are reliable supporters of Paul Ryan's reactionary austerity agenda, introduced a bill, H.R. 5813, to postpone the rule, stretching out the help the bill offers workers until December, 2019. 5 conservative co-sponsors signed on last week, Blue Dog Gwen Graham (FL) and 4 Republicans, Jeff Fortenberry (NE), Tom Emmer (MN), Jeff Miller (FL) and David Jolly (FL).

The bill is now with John Kline's Committee on Education and the Workforce, where we can count on progressive committee members Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Mark Takano (D-CA) and Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) to put up a massive fight. But they are outnumbered by 22 extremely anti-worker Republicans who very smoothly align with the Blue Dogs and New Dems. Schrader announced that his opposition to the new rule stems from having "heard from business owners and their employees who are worried about implementing this increase overnight. Without sufficient time to plan for the increase, cuts and demotions will become inevitable, and workers will actually end up making less than they made before. It’s long past time we strengthen overtime pay protections for American workers in a meaningful and effective way." Typical textbook Republican scare tactics that are always puked up any time there's a proposal made to lessen the economic burdens on working families.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, what Big Business and the corporate world like so much about Schrader's approach is that it would eliminate the rule’s indexation of the threshold, which would raise it automatically every three years, as wages for salaried workers rise, reproducing "the very disaster for working people the Department of Labor is seeking to prevent: an inevitable and significant loss of guaranteed overtime coverage due to inflation and wage growth."

Failure to adequately update the salary threshold over 1975–2015 caused the share of the salaried workforce that was guaranteed overtime pay to fall from 49.6 percent to just 9.5 percent in 2015. Had 49.6 percent coverage been maintained, some 26.6 million workers would have been covered, rather than the scant 5.1 million who actually were covered in 2015. Raising the salary threshold to $913 per week in 2015 would have allowed 17.6 million employees to enjoy overtime protection (12.5 million of whom would have newly obtained protection), but it would not restore the level of protection provided in 1975.

...[I]ndexing the salary threshold, as provided by DOL’s new rule, allows the share of salaried workers enjoying overtime protection to remain at or near 32.7 percent. The number of workers protected increases as the salaried workforce grows, rising to 20.5 million by 2035. Without indexation, however, the share of the salaried workforce guaranteed overtime pay would decline each year, falling to 23.1 percent in 2025 and just 16.1 percent by 2035. If Rep. Schrader’s bill were enacted, by 2035 there would be 10.4 million fewer salaried workers covered by overtime protection because of the failure to index the salary threshold. Lack of indexation would cut in half the share of the salaried workforce provided overtime protection, which would fall from 32.7 percent to just 16.1 percent (20.4 million versus 10.1 million).

So who's this Kurt Schrader fellow? The head of the Blue Dogs and a member of the New Dems, we talked about Schrader quite a bit last spring when he was being primaried by Berniecrat Dave McTeague back in Oregon. As we pointed out at the time, Schrader went even further than many Republicans care to go in his zeal to wreck Social Security and Medicare. Back in early 2013, Schrader offered an amendment to accept the Simpson Bowles proposals that do just cut Social Security and Medicare benefits and raise the retirement age. 54 disgraceful excuses for Democrats-- mostly New Dems and Blue Dogs from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- went along. Schrader's amendment failed 75-348.

Schrader represents a solidly blue district which Obama won 53-44% in 2008 and 50-47% in 2012. There are 7 counties in the district and in the Oregon primary in May, Bernie won all 7. These were Bernie's wins by county:

• Benton- 61.2%
• Clackamas- 51.5%
• Lincoln- 53.7%
• Marion- 53.0%
• Multnomah- 57.0%
• Polk- 54.5%
• Tillamook- 53.8%

On the same day, Berniecrat Dave McTeague, a former state legislator, went up against Schrader. The huge Bernie support just didn't bother to vote or didn't bother to vote for McTeague. Schrader win 67,124 (72.6%) to 25,289 (27.4%). There's no excuse for that. For a Bernie voter, Kurt Schrader has no saving graces on any level.

By the way, among the supporters of Schrader's amendment to gut Social Security and Medicare were many of the usual scum always looking for chances to lick the asses of the corporate campaign donors, including several Blue Dogs and New Dems up on the ballot in November, like Loretta Sanchez, who's running for California's open Senate seat, Chris Van Hollen, the Democratic candidate for Maryland senator, as well as recently defeated conservaDems trying to weasel their ways back into Congress-- Colleen Hanabusa (HI), Joe Garcia (FL) and Pete Gallego (TX). Electing more of these garbage-Democrats is the last thing we should be doing, but the DCCC and the California Democratic Party are delighted to be backing Lou Correa, a former state legislator who was widely considered the most right-wing Democrat in Sacramento (and one of the most corrupt). The progressive mayor of Garden Grove, Bao Nguyen, also made it through the primary and will be duking it out with Correa in a Dem vs Dem election November 8-- one real progressive Democrat against one from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. A few minutes ago he told us that "These corporate Blue Dog Democrats are eagerly pumping money into my opponent Lou Correa's campaign. We certainly have every reason to expect that my opponent will do the bidding of corporations in Congress if elected, as he has done in the past as a state legislator. What we really need is someone in Congress who will protect the pro-worker agenda that so many of us in the labor and progressive movement have fought so hard to achieve. I've been that champion for working families as Mayor of Garden Grove and as a labor organizer. If the people of the 46th Congressional District elect me in November, one of the first laws I would vote against is anything that would compromise or threaten Obama's overtime rule for salaried workers."

Only 21 Republicans voted for the Blue Dog anti-Social Security amendment, including Pat Meehan from the suburbs outside of Philadelphia. Funny, he doesn't tell the voters in PA-07 that he voted to raise the retirement age and cut their benefits. Mary Ellen Balchunis, the progressive Democrat running against him this year, expected nothing more from Meehan. "I wasn't surprised when Pat Meehan voted to support cuts to Social Security and Medicare because he told us he would do that when he ran as a Tea Party candidate in 2010. Pat Meehan thinks that if he says he is a moderate enough times, the voters will believe it, but votes like this tell the truth. The real Pat Meehan has also voted to cut taxes for the wealthiest of Americans, to cut healthcare and cancer screenings for women, and end Medicare as we know it. If Pat Meehan was a true moderate he would stop prioritizing tax breaks for the rich and start looking out for seniors."

Please help replace Meehan with Mary Ellen and help keep Correa out of Congress-- he did enough damage to working families when he was in Sacramento-- by electing Bao Nguyen instead of him. You'll find them both by tapping the thermometer below:

UPDATE: Certain States...

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin are suing the government to stop the overtime rule. What do all these states have in common? No, they weren't all former slave-holding states that started the Civil War-- though most of the former slave-holding states that started the Civil War signed on to the suit. This list is a list of states that have Republican governors. Don't people in these states want to get overtime pay for overtime work?

Paul Ryan, Self-Proclaimed Champion Of The White Working Class, Declares War On Overtime Pay Expansion

Hispanic voters, fearful of what a Trump presidency could do to their families and communities, are registering to vote at unprecedented rates. Some Republican operatives and stategists think they can overcome that by selling themselves as the party looking out for the interests of the white working class. Well, there's an element of truth in that-- if you're talking about the segment of the white working class that puts a premium on KKK membership and rabid xenophobia. In terms of policies that actually impact the working class... not so much. Last Tuesday, when the White House announced new rules expanding overtime pay for as many as 4.2 million white collar workers (many of them, presumably, as white as their collars). Republican obstructionists immediately objected and started threatening law suits.

Unfortunately for Republicans who have to face the voters in November, Speaker Ryan has vowed to lead the House GOP in a battle against the overtime expansion. Long Island Republican Peter King represents exactly the kind of district that would benefit most from the new rule, but King is a zombie-like ideologue who goes wherever Ryan leads him. The progressive Democrat contesting the South Shore congressional seat this year, DuWayne Gregory, understands the rule change will help a lot of families who live on Long Island. "This new rule will potentially have a profound impact on thousands of Long Island families," he told us this morning. "It is my hope that Peter King will not do as he usually does and go along in lock step with the obstructionist Republican agenda that is so destructive to hard working families. King needs to show some leadership on this issue and not be a lap dog for a failed agenda. I applaud the President's move to expand overtime pay for salaried workers. This new rule will have a profound impact on millions of families and will help the economy. We can't allow this Republican anti-working class Congress to hurt the families that will be impacted by implementation of this rule." In an editorial last week, the NY Times game-planned how Republican opposition could manifest itself in terms of the November elections.

Under federal law dating to 1938, an employer does not have to pay time-and-a-half when salaried employees work more than 40 hours a week if they earn enough to qualify as executives, professionals or administrators. The problem is that the salary threshold that defines a white-collar job-- at least $455 a week, or $23,660 a year-- has not been fully updated for inflation since 1975. As a result, workers who earn modest salaries are often deemed ineligible for overtime pay.

The new rules, which take effect on Dec. 1, 2016, raise the threshold to $47,476. An estimated 4.2 million workers will become newly eligible for overtime and another nine million who should be earning overtime now (because of the nature of their work), but often don’t get it, will no longer be denied the pay that is rightfully theirs. In all, about one-third of salaried employees will be eligible for overtime pay under the new threshold, compared with a mere 7 percent currently.

Opponents of the new rules include retailers and low-wage employers who often require unpaid overtime from low-salaried employees. They have said that employers will cut base pay if forced to pay overtime, but that appears to be an idle threat, since pay cuts would be deeply unpopular with workers and would very likely create more turnover. If a business does not want to pay overtime, it could hold salaried employees to no more than 40 hours a week. Or it could hire new people to do work previously performed by those who put in unpaid overtime. Alternatively, it could raise the pay of salaried workers above the new threshold, and thus be exempt from the overtime rule.

The Labor Department originally proposed a new threshold of $50,440, which would have accounted more fully for inflation. That proposal also called for annual updates to the threshold; the final rule calls for adjustment every three years. These changes were made to respond to objections from low-wage employers, mostly in Southern states, who said the new rules would be too onerous.

Because the rule has been issued near the end of the Obama administration, Republican leaders in Congress could try to use end-of-session maneuvers that would let them vote next year to repeal it. A repeal would be vetoed if a Democrat won the White House, but it is unclear what the presumed Republican nominee, Donald Trump, would do. For now, in a rare victory for fair pay, the new rules are on their way to becoming a reality.

If American voters replace Ryan-stooges like John Katko (NY-24) in November, with progressives like Eric Kingson, even if Trump winds up as president, he won't be able to use that maneuver. And there's no doubt that Trump, Hillary or whomever, Kingson, will be unrelenting in his fight for working class families-- in Central New York and across the country. Last night he told us that "Raising the overtime threshold from $23,660 to $47,476 is good policy, good economics and good for the country. On December 1, 4.2 million white collar workers will become eligible for time-and-a-half pay when working more than 40 hours a week. That means more money in the hands of low-and moderate income workers, more money circulating in the economy and greater reward for working long hours. Though not appreciated by Speaker Ryan who immediately announced that he will fight the overtime rule, it’s long past time to restore the rights of working people, relative to corporate profits and billionaire greed. President Obama’s directive to the Department of Labor is a modest step in the right direction. It fits well with other changes that would reward hard work and address unsustainable economic inequality-- a $15 minimum wage, paid family leave, Medicare for All, closing the gender wage gap and supporting unions."

Steve Knight, represents California's 25th congressional district that runs from Simi Valley through Santa Clarita and out into the Antelope Valley. He's a union-hating Tea Party extremist who can be counted on by Ryan to back his efforts to thwart expansion of overtime eligibility. The progressive Democrat running against him this year is Lou Vince, a union member himself. Yesterday Lou told us why he's enthusiastic about Obama's rule change on this. "During the 1950s and 1960s, overtime allowed Americans to thrive and achieve their American dream. Labor unions and overtime pay are the two biggest contributors to allowing a vibrant middle class to exist. I'm proud to stand with the President as he expands eligibility for overtime, allowing over 4 million Americans to earn more money and stimulate our economy. Given Congressman Knight's willingness to vote against the residents of the 25th district on all sorts of issues, I'm proud to embrace this initiative and promise to defend it once elected to Congress. With our growing income inequality and stagnating wages, we need to make sure we support our American workers and allow them to earn a decent living. As the only middle-class challenger to Congressman Knight this cycle, I understand this issue on a personal level and will be steadfast in my support."

Pat Murphy is the progressive Democrat running against reactionary multimillionaire Rod Blum is northeast Iowa. The former Speaker of the state House who pushed through an agenda centered on working families, Murphy is a big supporter of the new rule. "Too many employers are abusing loopholes to avoid overtime rules. The administration is right to expand overtime protections to millions more workers to ensure employees get fair pay for their work. This will have have a major impact on working families here in Northeast Iowa. In Congress, I will keep working to raise the minimum wage and pass paycheck fairness."Please consider helping progressive congressional candidates like Eric Kingson, Pat Murphy, Lou Vince and DuWayne Gregory beat obstructionists like Katko and King.

How Do We Wind Up With "Democrats" Voting Against Workers' Rights? Have You Heard Of The DCCC?

Don't you just hate it when Democrats betray core progressive values and team up with Republicans to make the lives of working families tougher? That doesn't just happen suddenly, by chance. The Members of Congress who do that are almost always products of the corrupt, conservative DCCC. Last week, for example, 2 very right-wing Democrats, Blue Dogs Brad Ashford (NE) and Collin Peterson (MN), teamed up with 106 Republicans to demand that the Department of Labor not move forward with a new regulation expanding workers' access to overtime wages.

Two especially heinous Republican freshmen, Cresent Hardy (NV) and Steve Knight (CA), eager to raise money from the Chamber of Commerce, wrote a letter to Labor Secretary Tom Perez, filled with standard conservative claptrap holding back the legitimate aspirations to a decent life for American workers. In fact, the progressive Democrat running for the seat Knight occupies in southern California, Lou Vince, told me Knight's role in this makes him "wonder who he thinks he's representing because it isn't the hard-working families of the 25th District. This country has a middle class because of the availablilty of overtime and hard-fought rights that the labor movement earned for every American. As a congressman, the only people I will represent are the residents of my district, not the corporate special interests Steve Knight fights for. His only motivation is getting more contributions for his campaign from K-Street and Wall Street."

Cresent Hardy-- in a district that backed Obama over McCain 56-41% and then Obama over Romney 54-44%-- is considered extremely vulnerable this year, especially because of his lockstep support for anti-worker legislation the GOP has been pushing. His opponent is state Senator (and Majority Whip) Ruben Kihuen, who told us today that "It's no surprise that Congressman Hardy is leading another fight to hurt worker's rights. He got into politics to end prevailing wage and has said unions are, 'somewhere between a mob and gang.' His actions and votes directly hurt working families and we must throw him out of office in November. Nevadans and Americans deserve better than an all out assault on workers. I proudly helped beat back an all out-assault on worker's rights here in Nevada and I will continue the fight to expand the middle class in Congress."

You have the right to expect these kinds of a reactions from Democrats, right? But not the kind of Democrats that the DCCC recruits in their effort to mold a less working family-oriented party that is more responsive to (bribe-giving) business and corporate interests. Democrats have a brand new numerical advantage in Knight's district and Lou, a local elected official and a former policeman, is the perfect candidate to turn it blue. But Steve Israel and Ben Ray Luján, who run the DCCC, have no interest in that and instead recruited some wealthy out-of-towner who has been completely rejected by the California Democratic Party. In response, Luján wrote the district off and is refusing to contest it. You wonder why the Democratic Party has gone from have an 83 seat majority to being down by 59 seats under the terms of corrupt conservatives Rahm Emanuel, Chris Van Hollen and Steve Israel?

In Nevada, the DCCC is looking to defeat Hardy but they don't want to offend the multimillionaire socialite, Susie Lee, who claims to be some kind of Democrat and is running against Ruben in the primary. So they're just sitting on their hands.

But what about the two "Democrats" who joined the Republicans to demand the new overtime rules not be approved? Well, let's start with Brad Ashford. His Progressive Punch lifetime crucial vote score is an astounding-- for a Democrat-- 35.29, the second worst for any Democrat in the House. In fact, this session 3 Republicans-- Walter Jones (NC), Justin Amash (MI) and Chris Gibson (NY)-- are voting more frequently for progressive initiatives than Ashford is. That isn't surprising since Ashford began his political career as a conservative Republican. He was elected to the Nebraska state Senate in 1986, just another happy anti-union Republican. In 1994 he was defeated in the Republican primary for a congressional seat. In 2014 he was recruited by "former" Blue Dog Steve Israel to run as a Democrat for the seat of one of the least popular Republicans in the country, Lee Terry. According to the Omaha World-Herald, Nebraska Democrats see Ashford as a wolf in sheep's clothing. Joseph Morton begins a profile on the congressman by mentioning he "votes largely along a party line. But it’s not his party." He votes very consistently with the GOP. What more could one expect if you recruit a Republican? "He voted," wrote Morton, "for legislation to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline. He voted to ease employer mandates in the new health care law. He voted to roll back Wall Street regulations. Ashford says people should hardly be surprised at his willingness to cross the aisle. He was, after all, a Republican for many years."

“I am for ratcheting back a lot of the regulation and letting businesses grow, not unfettered, but at least trying to unleash their ability to do business more productively,” Ashford said. “And that’s what I’ve always believed. So I don’t think I ever tried to hide that.”

That hasn’t stopped a lively discussion on Ashford’s Facebook page about the rightward tilt of his votes.

A sampling of comments:

“Is it too much to ask for the rare Democrat elected in this state to vote like the Democrat we fought to elect?”

“Usually takes more than a month for me to give up on someone. Apparently the congressman is a rare breed. Win my faith back. I dare you.”

“I just hate him for fooling me during the election process into thinking he was something better than Lee Terry. He is even worse, that wolf in sheep’s clothing!”

...While much has been made about his decisions to switch parties multiple times during his career, Ashford said his positions have been consistent over the years.

He said it’s the parties that have shifted, generally tilting further away from the middle.

Voting with Republicans hasn’t necessarily endeared him to Republicans, however-- at least not those in charge of defeating him in 2016.

...Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the last election cycle, downplayed any consternation among Democrats about Ashford’s early propensity to vote with the GOP.

“It doesn’t concern me, it doesn’t faze me, it doesn’t bother me,” Israel said. “He’s doing what he should do for his district. ... Every single vote he casts, from naming post offices to deciding whether to commit U.S. troops, his first priority has to be his district. Over the course of two years, there will be moments where he votes with Democrats. There will be moments he votes with Republicans.”

So no heartburn?

“The only thing that would cause me heartburn would be if he doesn’t come back in two years,” Israel said.

Do you ever contribute to the DCCC? It may interest you to know that a friend of mine who works there told me they are prepared to spend $6 million to save Ashford's seat. That's a lot. Last cycle they spent $1,089,513, while Pelosi's House Majority PAC spent another $432,895. But this year Ashford has alienated Democrats and has made little headway among Republicans; he's highly unpopular and it's going to cost a lot more to keep him in office-- but for what? So he can continue voting with the Republicans? How stupid are Steve Israel and Ben Ray Luján? Could someone tell me if there's another explanation that I'm missing?

And speaking of having to spend ungodly amounts to prop up an unpopular right-wing Democrat, Ashford's partner in crime in this effort is another consistent GOP supporter, Minnesota Blue Dog Collin Peterson. Peterson, who votes almost as frequently against against core Democratic values as Ashford does. And, at least as far as I know, Peterson never even was a Republican. Last cycle he was barely reelected-- 130,546 (54%) to 109,955 (46%) against a barely-known Republican. And it came at a heavy price. The DCCC was forced to spend $3,611,284 on his worthless ass, while Pelosi's House Majority PAC kicked in another $332,439. So $4 million wasted on someone who basically only votes with the Democrats when it comes to naming post offices.

If you'd like to help Ruben Kihuen and Lou Vince win their congressional races, despite the DCCC, please contribute here. Unfortunately, neither Peterson or Ashford has a primary opponent... at least not yet.

Will The Republicans Impeach Obama If He Moves Unilaterally To Stop Wage Theft?

The poll last week by NBC and the Wall Street Journal confirmed that most Americans support a progressive vision of our country beyond what the fractured, sclerotic Beltway Establishment Democrats have the guts to push-- and on another planet from the reactionary Republican vision of a mean, crabbed country divided in perpetual class war. 82% want to lower the cost of student debt. 75% want to spend more money on infrastructure. 65% want to raise the minimum wage. 59% support addressing climate change by limiting carbon emissions. Conservatives and Wall Street whores oppose all of these things. Only a third of Americans back the conservative push to raise the Social Security retirement age to 69 and only 41% want the Federal government to stop funding Obamacare, core Republican agenda items backed by more than a few from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

There isn't much President Obama can do to do about the progressive things, although it's likely he'll veto two years worth of Republican efforts to further annihilate the middle class with their Koch-inspired ideological extremism. But there is another piece of the progressive puzzle that Obama can and should move on unilaterally, one that has widespread support from the American people: overtime pay. "With a stroke of the pen," wrote venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, "President Obama can make sure you get what you earned, without any congressional action at all. If it feels like you're struggling harder than your parents did, working longer hours for less money, it's because you are. Meanwhile, a handful of capitalists like me are growing wealthy beyond our parents' wildest dreams."

When I first got into the workforce, over 65% of salaried workers earned overtime pay-- today, just 11% do. Overtime was a fact of life... a good fact of life and I used to relish those awesome time-and-a-half bumps in my paychecks when they came. Now workers are looking an an entirely different phenomenon, wage theft, "which occurs when an employer withholds pay rightfully earned by an hourly worker. It happens in a variety of ways, from not paying for overtime, to denying mandated breaks, to subtracting hours from employees' weekly total."

A recent poll commissioned by labor group Fast Food Forward estimates that a stunning 89 percent of fast-food workers have experienced at least one form of wage theft. A previous study, conducted in the first half of 2008 before the recession, found 68 percent of low-wage workers had been victims of wage theft in their previous work week, and estimated that wage theft cost workers an average of $2,634 annually.

...Wage theft can become increasingly common in times of high unemployment, experts say. "When people are desperate for jobs, they're afraid to risk them by taking on their boss," said Ross Eisenbrey, of the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.

And because the amounts of wages being withheld are often small, it can be hard for a low-wage worker to find an attorney willing to take their case.

For their part, fast-food managers are under "tremendous pressure" to keep labor costs low, especially when sales are sluggish, said Nelson Lichtenstein, the director of the Center for the Study of Work, Labor, and Democracy at the University of California Santa Barbara.

Companies may also engage in the practice when the risk of getting caught is low. There aren't nearly enough U.S. Department of Labor investigators to enforce the laws, said Gebreselassie. He added, "The chance any worksite will be investigated is miniscule."

Nevertheless, the issue of wage theft has been getting increased attention in recent months. In March, the owner of seven McDonald's restaurants in New York was ordered to pay almost $500,000 to more than 1,000 employees who performed work off the clock and had other pay illegally withheld.

Now back to our friendly, enlightened capitalist Nick Hanauer and his suggestion to President Obama to remedy this without letting conservatives stand in the way. He;s working with DFA, which has a petition you can sign if you agree. Hanauer wants the Department of Labor to simply raise the overtime threshold to $69,000. In other words, if you earn $69,000 or less, the law would require that you be paid time-and-a-half for every hour worked over 40 hours a week. Hanauer:

That would mean 10.4 million middle-class Americans with more money in your pockets or more time to spend with friends and family. And if corporate America didn't want to pay you time and a half, it would need to hire hundreds of thousands of additional workers to pick up the slack-- slashing the unemployment rate and forcing up wages.

President Obama could also expand the ranks of workers eligible for overtime pay by ending the exemption that denies overtime to teachers, doctors, computer professionals, and many others. And he can do all this simply by instructing the Department of Labor to change the rules-- immediately putting money into the pockets of millions of American workers.

...Many of my fellow capitalists will warn you that a higher overtime threshold would be a job killer, but the truth is, we already have more capital than we know what to do with. Corporate profits have doubled over the past 40 years to more than 12 percent of GDP; that’s about a $1 trillion a year in extra profits.

But rather than invest in creating jobs or raising wages, executives like me are mostly spending our windfall profits manipulating the price of our own shares through stock buybacks. In fact, over the past decade, public U.S. corporations have spent an astounding $6.9 trillion buying back shares, reducing the total outstanding, and increasing the value of the remaining shares owned by capitalists like me.

We get richer. You get nothing. Again, sorry. But we're only playing by the rules-- rules that President Obama has the power to change.

President Obama is showing that he isn't shy about using his executive powers to do good things for the American people. But the White House needs a strong public push-- the president needs to hear from as many of you as possible that overtime pay is to the middle class what the minimum wage is to the working poor, and that a stronger middle class is good for business and good for America.

Again, here's the DFA petition.