Last week, the Republican Governor of Connecticut vetoed a Democratic bill that would have raised the state's minimum wage from $7.65 to $8.00 on January 1,2009, and $8.25 on January 1,2010. That means for a person working a 40 hour week at 52 weeks a year, he or she would see a raise in 2009 from $15,912 to $16,640, or $728. In 2010, the raise would go to $17,160, or another $520.
To get this money, it has to be earned.
Contrast this action with the recent so-called "economic stimulus payment" given away by the Republican President. It wasn't a real tax rebate, because the Bush administration spent this year's tax revenues a long time ago. I got $600. I spent it on $4.29 a gallon regular gasoline, mostly imported from the Middle East, which George W. Bush has taught to hate us.
To get this money, the federal government had to borrow, mostly from China.
So, now the questions:
Which is better: earning $728 in a year for which one has to work, or borrowing $600 from China for which one has to mortgage our future?
Which party is the party of fiscal responsibility? Which party is the party of personal responsibility?
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
Let's do some numbers!
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
