Newspaper's Low Wage Bias Is The Reality

Tweet

Lately, there has been such a plethora of political news and activism coming out of Janesville’s highly controlled local media and government, that this is one of those times I can barely keep up. One of the more sardonic stories advanced by the Janesville Gazette involves Wisconsin state legislators who have announced they will be accepting a pay raise. A raise not voted onto themselves but granted to them by a separate state committee.

One of the main reasons legislators should refuse the pay raise, according to the newspaper, is at least for its symbolic value. And it is for that same reason why the newspaper helped Congressman Paul Ryan grandstand his raise when he said he would donate his to charity. Never mind that refusing the raise does nothing to help the deficit (it still will be paid out and reported as income).

But when politicians publicly announce they'll donate their raise to charity, they know it adds another dimension to that symbolism. To the unsuspecting, it implies a sacrifice volunteered at the ultimate cost, a cut in their personal income. Whatever happened to the time when people gave silently to charities, out of the goodness of their hearts, without setting it up as an opportunity to grandstand double points for public opinion?

Plus, it’s a cheap $4,700 for Ryan to pay if it keeps his low-wage conservative base happily second-guessing his fiscal conservatism after he delved out $750 billion to his Wall Street interests. The Gazette, in Ryan’s case, went as far as to re-enforce the Republican's decision by juxtaposing Democrat Tami Baldwin as uncooperative because she could not be reached for comment on the media-fabricated pay raise issue.

In Sunday’s paper, the Gazette published several anonymous comments about the upcoming pay raise for Wisconsin’s state legislators. All however were politically charged cheap shots approved by the Gazette editorial staff targeting State Rep. Mike Sheridan.

JG Sound Off Excerpt:
On Sheridan’s pay raise:
Rep. Mike Sheridan addresses Wisconsin residents about his real concern on the large deficit that we have in one breath and in the next breath he is gladly accepting the pay raise. We have the next election to look forward to for payback time. --anonymous

Apparently this person would rather see state legislators take a second job that somebody else might desperately need more. Besides, lawmakers shouldn't have a second job to conflict with their legislative duties. School teachers, active military or business executives need not apply - concentrate on your day jobs. And we certainly shouldn't want some retired fat cat who doesn't need the income to use the state office as a plaything for their business pals.

JG Sound Off Excerpt:
On Sheridan’s pay raise:
It’s interesting that Sheridan will not fore go his pay increase……He’s double-dipping- a pension from the UAW and GM and working in Madison and won’t turn his pay increase to people like at Lear Seating who need the money…..this would be a good example if he would give up his pay raise.--anonymous

Hey anonymous, one-up Sheridan and forfeit your raise or SS increase to Lear Seating, that would set a great example for all of us to follow.

JG Sound Off Excerpt:
On Sheridan’s pay raise:
…..When state government is $5 billion in the hole, the state employee jobs are going to be cut; state worker’s pay raises will be cut. Bad decision by Sheridan. – anonymous

The real story here is not about lawmakers and their willingness to take a pay raise, it’s about those who insist that they shouldn't, and the Gazette editorial staff is at the top of that heap. After reading their pump-priming editorial from January 6th titled “Lawmakers have wrong answers about pay raises,” it becomes a possibility that the Gazette editorial staff and their low-wage supporters are proof that misery loves company. That in order to remain true to their beliefs, they all must have refused pay raises and pension benefits from their own jobs for at least the past decade. How else can they justify their position and the supporting anonymous remarks? That's the only way.

When their boss offered them a raise, they must’ve said, “No, I must refuse the increase because there are people starving, jobless and homeless in our own community. Give it to them!” Or when they were first hired and told they will receive annual cost-of-living raises or bonuses based on their performance they must’ve said “I will not accept those raises if it means the company might not be able to afford to hire more workers. Give my raise to them!” Or when it’s time to collect their pension, they must’ve said ”No, I don’t deserve it, I’ll just collect Social Security because that’s all my best friend and neighbors are getting. Please, give it to charity.” Ha-ha, yeah right.

And don't let them fool you into thinking the current economic condition or budget deficits has anything to do with their raise refusal reasoning. Remember, a good economy or balanced budgets never stopped them before from repeatedly trashing raises and benefits for UAW workers, school teachers or even minimum wage workers. Yet, in order to justify their view that others shouldn't accept a once in a four year pay raise, they had to refuse pay raises from their employers over the past several years. They had to. Unless of course they’re hypocrites or just plain old mean-spirited people. And We know that can’t be the case.

So I say to them now, to the Gazette editors and their entire self-righteous low-wage base; take a pay raise for a change and accept your pension if you're lucky enough to deserve one. Believe me, you’ll feel better for it and might even publish the hope someday that others too can accept pay raises at their jobs without being made to feel unworthy.

This posting is the independent opinion of its writer.
See larger Doonesbury Cartoon here.