Daley’s “profiles in courage” toss-off the other day, about aldermen unwilling to oppose big box/living wage, is suspicious, to say the least. When has he bet on a not-sure thing except when he ran for mayor the first time and had no choice? In the case of this bb/lw veto, for instance, do we think he will do it without first getting the votes to sustain it? Do we think he will do it either way? Reliable Spielman reports aldermanic opinion that he won’t:
The fact that all of the undecided votes broke labor's way led some aldermen to believe that Daley wanted it that way to get himself off the veto hook.
As for the suit v. bb/lw by retailers, held off until Daley does or does not veto at the 9/13 council meeting, Chi Trib discusses decisions about big-box legislation with nary a mention of this year’s Maryland fed court case that shot a bb ordinance down. The Defender, in a Medill News Service article, thought it worth reporting, however.
As for minimum wage in general, as in House Repub leaders wanting to raise it nationally, consider this from Cato chairman William A. Niskanen:
An increase in the minimum wage has long been a symbolic issue for the Democrats, however inconsistent with their other professed political values. House Republicans should challenge the Democrats on this issue, pointing out that an increase in the minimum wage would most hurt those that they claim to help.
Take Emma Mitts’s 37th ward, for instance. It’s a half mile east of Oak Park but worlds away in terms of unemployment. Ald. Emma is against bb/lw ordinance, needless to say.
No comments:
Post a Comment