Burnam Files House Bill 936 To Adjust the Minimum Wage for Inflation

Burnam Files House Bill 936 To Adjust the Minimum Wage for Inflation

(Austin, TX) – Rep. Lon Burnam (D – Fort Worth) filed HB 936 that will adjust the Texas minimum wage for inflation based on the consumer price index today. This legislation follows on the heals of the U.S. House of Representatives, which passed legislation increasing the federal minimum wage to $7.25 over the next two years.

“The federal government made the important first step in raising the minimum wage,ʺ said Rep. Burnam. ʺThe Texas Legislature needs to take the next step by linking the wage floor to inflation. The workers in this state cannot afford to wait years for lawmakers to raise the minimum wage. We need an automatic increase of the minimum wage tied to the cost of living.ʺ

Burnamʹs legislation would cause the minimum wage floor to automatically adjust each year based on the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers as computed by the United States Department of Labor.

Major opponents to the federal minimum wage increase cited the potential damage to businesses that are faced with a sudden wage hike. Because Representative Burnamʹs bill adjusts the wage floor each year based on inflation, this legislation will ensure that businesses are protected from sudden wage hikes in the future.
“This bill will eliminate the time spent legislating the minimum wage in the future,ʺ said Burnam. “It gives Texas workers the dignity of a living wage without having to fight for increases during every legislative session. This is a practical and necessary solution to a problem that affects the working poor all across the state of Texas.ʺ

Currently only the states of Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have laws that adjust the minimum wage annually according to measures of inflation.

Bill filed to study potential impact of global warming on Texas

(Austin, TX)–Representative Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, filed legislation today to establish a global warming task force which will assess the economic and public health impacts of global warming on Texas. The bill was filed on the day when President Bush is expected to address global warming in his State of the Union address.

“For too long, there has been a bogus debate on global warming fueled by junk science,” said Rep. Burnam.

“Now, that ‘debate’ is over. Just last week ExxonMobil admitted that global warming is a real threat and that greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide contribute to the problem. It’s time the state of Texas begins to make preparations to deal with the potential fallout from this very real crisis.”

2006 was the hottest year on record in the United States. The scientific community agrees that global warming poses significant risks and dangers yet the United States continues to be the number one emitter of carbon dioxide and Texas is the number one emitting state.

“We have 600 miles of coastline in Texas. If temperatures rise enough that sea levels rise a foot or more, there could be a serious economic and health impact on the state,” said Burnam. “The state is like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand. We need a plan to deal with this challenge.

“At the same time, the reality of global warming provides excellent opportunities for businesses that innovate and create solutions to these problems. My bill directs the global warming task force to investigate and prepare for the worst while seeking opportunities for businesses that do the right thing.

“I do hope, as it has been reported, that the President addresses global warming tonight. And I hope that the state of Texas will take the necessary steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for a carbon-constrained economy.”

Do conservative evangelicals regret justifying the Iraq war?

The Baptist Standard has an interesting article about how some conservative evangelicals may be changing their stance on the war in Iraq – despite justifying it with a “just war theory” before the wary began.

By Robert Marus – ABP Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (ABP)—As the number of American soldiers killed passes 3,000 and Congress debates President Bush’s latest strategy for winning the war, some Christians who supported invading Iraq in 2003 are wrestling with whether the invasion was a “just war” after all.
While most progressive evangelicals, mainline Protestant leaders and the Roman Catholic Church opposed the war prior to the March 2003 invasion, many Baptists and other conservative evangelicals justified the war in Christian theological terms.
“Military action against the Iraqi government would be a defensive action. … The human cost of not taking (then-Iraqi dictator Saddam) Hussein out and removing his government as a producer, proliferator and proponent of the use of weapons of mass destruction means we can either pay now or we can pay a lot more later,” said Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s ethics agency, in a Sept. 2002 article published by the denomination’s news service.
Land later organized a group of prominent conservative evangelicals who signed an open letter arguing that the proposed Iraq invasion satisfied classic Christian theological criteria for justifying a war—often referred to as just war theory.

The article references a letter by Chuck Colson who wrote argued that the classical definition of the Christian just war theory should be “stretched” to accommodate a new age in which terrorism and warfare are intertwined. He concluded that “out of love of neighbor, then, Christians can and should support a pre-emptive strike” on Iraq to prevent Iraqi-based or -funded attacks on the United States or its allies.

David Gushee, a Southern Baptist ethicist and professor at Union University in Jackson, Tenn., was much more cautious about the war than many of his fellow evangelicals from its beginning.
But Gusheee has turned increasingly against it in recent months. In a Dec. 11 column published by Associated Baptist Press, he cautioned his ideological cohorts.
“The massive carnage in Iraq should serve as a permanent reminder to my fellow Christian conservatives that war is a moral-values issue,” he wrote.
“Indeed, war is a sanctity-of-life issue. Every day’s body count in Iraq should drive this point home with greater and greater urgency. Every body that turns up with holes drilled in it, every head torn apart by gunshots, every soldier whose helicopter crashes and ends his life, every veteran who will spend the rest of his or her life with three or two or one or no limbs, is a human being of immeasurable worth, made in the image of God.”

43 million

Today is the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
The case was argued Dec. 13, 1971, re-argued Oct. 11, 1972 and finally decided Jan. 22, 1973.
The “right” to abortion has expanded in the decades since Roe. Many states now pay for abortions with taxpayer dollars. Thirteen states, plus DC, allow abortion at any point, right up to the day of birth. Ten states, plus DC, don’t even require that abortions be done by a doctor.
Since 1973, an estimated 43 million abortions have taken place, creating a $400-million-per-year industry.
In the time it took you to read this post, two more infants were torn from the wombs of their mothers and tossed into the trash.

Debunking Global Warming

In Thursday’s Daily Light:

It is amazing that so many people believe global warming is real and is caused by humans. This myth has been largely promoted by the major media that gives much attention to those who support it and very little to those who debunk it.
For example, in December, U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma chaired a “Climate Change and the Media” meeting. He said that global warming is a hoax. The meeting received almost no major media attention.
At this meeting, Dr. David Deming, a geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma, stated, “I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.”

Confederate Nugent

This morning we ran a story on Ted Nugent’s appearance at Gov. McDreamy’s inaugural ball early this week.
Nugent showed up wearing a cut-off T-Shirt with a Confederate flag on the back.
Gary Bledsoe, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People of Texas, said the Confederate battle flag is never appropriate.
“Whenever someone sports the Confederate battle flag, many Texans will be offended, and rightly so, because of what it symbolizes the enslavement of African-Americans and more recently the symbol of hate groups and terrorists,” Bledsoe said.
Perry’s spokesman Robert Black said the governor would never try to squelch anyone’s freedom of speech.
Locally, Ellis County Republican Chairman Rusty Ballard said he didn’t have a problem with Nugent playing.
“He believes in many of the conservative issues the Republican Party does,” Ballard said. “I thought it was a great deal having him play. Nugent is a great supporter of the governor.”
Ballard said he also had no issue with Nugent’s use of the Confederate battle flag.
“The flag is a part of Texas’ history and it doesn’t represent what a lot of people have come to believe that it does,” Ballard said. “You can’t try to restrict people’s freedom of expression – especially artists. I don’t think there was any political statement being made, it was just typical Ted Nugent.”
I don’t have a problem of granting free speech as long as you’re not going to harp on someone else’s right to free speech when it offends you.
Just this week I read about people getting up in arms when the F-word was shown on TV, or when Howard Stern says something offensive but if there are threats of the government censoring them they claim freedom of speech as well.
Where do you draw the line? Can you draw the line and still grant freedom of speech?