Lynch Vetoes Elimination of State Minimum Wage

they can't override the veto until... (0.00 / 0)

The Republicans can't override the HB133 veto until they put it on the Speaker's agenda and vote on it. They is a dumbfoundingly obvious point, but it is worth making in light of recent events.

Interestingly, the HB133 veto message made it into the very next calendar.  The HB474 veto message was held back a week.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 at 22:24:51 PM UTC

Why does the Bill O'Brien house and Bragdon senate hate (4.00 / 9)

states' rights?

One day it's pro-nullification, the next it's stick with the Feds all the way.

Men of high constitutional principles they are.

And thus concludes another chapter of "The Constitution Means Whatever I Want It To Mean for the Purposes of My Radical Right-Wing Agenda."

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 at 22:27:14 PM UTC

'yokel control' n/t (4.00 / 2)

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:18:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Goes right along (4.00 / 3)

..with how the "liberty" crowd are all in favor of limited government and local control when it benefits the employer, but when the benefit of those ideals go in favor of workers, it's government mandates all the way, just like Forsythe's amendment to SB 196 that would have the legislature mandating terms and conditions of teacher layoffs and override locally negotiated binding arbitration clauses. See also HB 474.

---

by: dooper @ Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:22:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Commerce has more in common with employers than with the (4.00 / 4)

workers who actually produce value.  In a sense, employers are middlemen, between the capital assets and the labor.  Whether the employer adds value is debatable.  That the commercial man adds no value in the age of easy access to information and rapid transport seems obvious, once you think about it. "Free enterprise" is the metier of the commercial person who inserts himself into a transaction and pries out profit for himself. The market is the source of free, effortless income. Of course there's resistance to any change in that process. That the middleman should be accountable for the quality of what he's peddling violates his dearest expectations.

In the two-sided system of accounting for our economy, there's no column for the commercial class -- parasites if ever there were such. The Chamber of Commerce is right to be concerned.  The prospect of a transaction tax levied against the middlemen must be terrifying.

---

by: hannah @ Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:58:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also important to remember that (4.00 / 5)

Sununu Junior and Gregg voted to abolish the federal minimum wage, so really this is a joint effort by GOPers to play Abolition Hot Potato with yet another safety net.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 at 22:46:17 PM UTC

This one has my attention. (0.00 / 0)

I'm interested to see how the Governor plays this one out.

Regardless of how the veto goes, minimum wage remains at $7.25 for the short-term - so what's the endgame?

---

by: dooper @ Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:29:06 AM UTC

Principle n/t (0.00 / 0)

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:27:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

HB 494 (4.00 / 1)

Will Infantine, a Republican (of the pre-O'Brien school) from Manchester, introduced HB-494-FN-A, "relative to tipped employees who deal card and table games at games of chance venues."  The purpose of this bill is to lower the minimum wage of poker dealers, etc. to the level currently enjoyed by waiters and hotel maids.  Ironically, if passed, it also brings back the state minimum wage.

The bill has been retained in committee.  The Republican majority has been placed in a quandary.  If they don't pass HB-494, a small but growing group of working-class families would make more money, which is (from the Republicans' perspective) not desirable at all.  If they do pass it, they reinstate the minimum wage, which effectively means every worker makes a little more money, which is even more undesirable.

I haven't followed this bill that closely, but I did pop in on a hearing earlier this week, where the Republicans were talking earnestly about how it would be beneficial for a gaming establishments to only pay their table-game dealers $3.25/hour.  I was thinking, do you really want a subminimum wage worker in a complicated job (with plenty of scope for pulling scams) where he or she is facing the public and handling huge sums of money?

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:59:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with Governor Lynch! (0.00 / 1)

This legislation [is] ... effectively ceding state control and authority to the federal government.

     This legislation would make New Hampshire ... completely defer to the federal government ...  I do not support turning over complete authority to the federal government to determine what makes sense for our citizens or our businesses.

     There is no need to ... cede our state authority to the federal government.  Therefore I am vetoing this legislation.

Governor Lynch is right... and I plan on quoting him often on plenty of other issues where his statement makes perfect sense.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

---

by: SethCohn @ Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 18:13:18 PM UTC

Completely disingenuous (4.00 / 2)

Gov. Lynch is not saying that New Hampshire should have the power to ignore or supersede the federal minimum wage law; he is saying that the state should maintain the power to mandate a higher minimum wage than the federal law when the legislature sees fit to do so.  This makes perfect sense given the state's high cost-of-living, and understands that like so many things, the federal minimum is precisely that.  He is by no means saying--and you know this--that the federal government does not have a role in setting a minimum standard.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 21:51:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lynch vetoed Rep. Cohn's vote: (4.00 / 2)

Seth  voted to eliminate the state minimum wage.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 21:57:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

His statement DOES make sense. Your implication does not. (0.00 / 0)

A legislator should know the difference between nullification and minimum standard preemption.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 15:46:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It seems clear (4.00 / 1)

that the O'Brien junta is interested in overturning every bill passed during the Democrat's tenure in control of the state house, whether it makes any sense or not to do so. It's petty, vindictive, and small; but those are some of the defining characteristics of this Teabaglican legislature.  

---

by: susanthe @ Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 19:02:42 PM UTC

If the GOPers kill the safty net (4.00 / 2)

Wonder what they think a good wage will be?
I AM BETTING YOU SHOULD THINK OF DICKEN'S ENGLAND

---

by: tchair @ Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 20:58:48 PM UTC

Please, sir (4.00 / 2)

They. Don't. Care.
We do.
Rinse, repeat.

---

by: GreyMike @ Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 21:57:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]