Editorials
Monday, February 23, 1998IT was only a year and a half ago that President Clinton signed into law the last increase in the federal minimum wage -- from $4.25 an hour to $5.15. Now he wants to raise it again, to $6.15. It's too soon. It’s too soon to raise
minimum wage againObviously it's difficult to survive on $5.15 an hour (Hawaii's state minimum wage is $5.25) but many employees receiving that amount don't depend on it to survive. Half of the workers on minimum wage are under 21 and live in families with an average income of $47,000. More than three-quarters have other sources of income in the family. Most are working part-time and will go on to higher paying jobs.
The 1996 minimum wage increase was the first since 1991 and was an impressive victory for the president with Congress under Republican control. Republicans succeeded in including a 90-day, $4.25 an hour training wage for teen-age workers, but failed in efforts to exempt very small businesses from the increase. In an effort to save face, they attached the increase to a scaled-back version of business tax cuts that were included in their "Contract with America."
The raise received enough support to win because the minimum was nearing a 40-year low in inflation-adjusted dollars. Since then the inflation rate has been low; so has unemployment. There is no need to raise the minimum again so soon.
The main problem with raising the minimum wage is that if the increase exceeds the true market value of the workers receiving the raise it can push up the wages of workers earning more than the minimum, setting off an inflationary cycle. One of the keys to the current national prosperity is low inflation, and it's important to keep it low.
Another problem is that employers may decide to hire fewer workers because they have to pay them more. Even at the minimum wage, unskilled, inexperienced workers may be no bargain.
In Hawaii's weak economy, raising the minimum wage would put an additional burden on businesses struggling to survive.
There are other ways to help low-income workers without raising the minimum wage -- the earned income tax credit, for example. That makes more sense than forcing employers to increase their labor costs.
THE indictment of Maria Hsia by a federal grand jury on charges of using money from a Los Angeles Buddhist temple to make illegal campaign contributions to Democratic candidates is a reminder that President Clinton's problems extend beyond Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. Campaign violations
The indictment is also an embarrassment to Vice President Gore, who attended a Democratic Party fund-raiser at the temple. Gore has disclaimed any knowledge of the nature of the event, but the incident could damage his bid for the 2000 presidential nomination.
Hsia is the latest Asian and Asian-American fund-raiser to be targeted by Justice Department investigators. Three weeks earlier, the department obtained indictments of Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, a longtime friend of Clinton's from Little Rock, and Trie's business associate, Yuan Pei "Antonio" Tran, for conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice and election law violations.
Last year Eugene K.H. Lum and Nora T. Lum, an Oklahoma couple who formerly lived in Honolulu, pleaded guilty to charges of using false donors to funnel money to Democratic candidates. They were sentenced in September to 10 months in prison and fined $30,000 each.
Attorney General Janet Reno said the Hsia indictment "is yet another step forward in the Justice Department's investigation of campaign finance abuses associated with the 1996 election." Reno has rejected calls for her to turn over the issue to an independent prosecutor. She may be trying to show that such an appointment isn't necessary to ensure impartial treatment.
Hsia's attorney, Nancy Luque, called the indictment "a grotesque misuse of the criminal justice system" and an attack on Asian Americans and Asians. This has become a familiar refrain. Rather, the indictment appears to be a reflection of the fact that the White House badly wanted to increase contributions from the Asian community and that some of its fund-raisers evidently broke the law in the process of meeting that goal.
IT has become a cliche to call North Korea an enigma, but the label still applies. On Wednesday the Communist regime of Kim Jong-il said it was ready to talk with the new government of South Korea to end decades of confrontation. On Thursday North Korea sent letters to 70 South Korean leaders, asking to work for reconciliation of the two Koreas. North Korean enigma
Yet on Friday North Korea dismissed a proposed declaration of peaceful coexistence on the Korean Peninsula by North and South Korea, the United States, China, Japan and Russia. On Feb. 13, South Korean President-elect Kim Dae-jung proposed a six-nation conference to establish a diplomatic channel for dialogue.
"The call may sound good. But it is a silly and dangerous plan," North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency commented. The agency said a state of war still exits between the North and South and it was impossible to obtain peace in the current situation.
That situation, it said, includes the continued presence of American forces in South Korea. The North has repeatedly pressed for the removal of U.S. troops as a condition for a peace agreement to formally end the Korean War.
Where do these apparently contradictory statements leave us? Still trying to guess what North Korea's mysterious leaders really want.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
