No increase in minimum wage

Soxy · March 9, 2005

Senate Defeats Minimum Wage Increase

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON - The Senate defeated dueling proposals Monday to raise the $5.15-an-hour minimum wage — one backed by organized labor, the other salted with pro-business provisions — in a day of skirmishing that reflected Republican gains in last fall's elections.

Both plans fell well short of the 60 votes needed to advance, and signaled that prospects for raising the federal wage floor, unchanged since 1996, are remote during the current two-year Congress.

"I believe that anyone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year should not live in poverty in the richest country in the world," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., arguing for the Democratic proposal to increase the minimum wage by $2.10 over the next 26 months.

Republicans countered with a smaller increase, $1.10 in two steps over 18 months, they said would help workers without hampering the creation of jobs needed to help those with low skills. "Wages do not cause sales. Sales are needed to provide wages. Wages do not cause revenue. Revenue drives wages," said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.

The Democratic amendment was defeated, with 46 votes for and 49 against. The GOP alternative fell by a wider margin, 38 for and 61 against.

While the outcome was never in doubt, Democrats said in advance they hoped to use the issue to increases chances for passage of state minimum wage initiatives in 2006, as well as to highlight differences with Republicans who will be on the ballot next year.

Kennedy accused Republicans of advancing a "deeper poverty agenda" for the poor by including several provisions to cut long-standing wage and overtime protections for millions of Americans. He took particular aim at Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., a conservative who is atop the Democratic target list for 2006 and the lead supporter of the GOP minimum wage alternative.

"The senator from Pennsylvania has a record of opposing increases in the minimum wage," Kennedy said. "He has voted against it at least 17 times in the last 10 years."

"I have not had any ideological problem with the minimum wage, " Santorum responded, adding he voted for the last increase to clear Congress, in 1996. He said the other elements of the GOP plan were designed to help small businesses and give workers more flexibility in their work schedule, and not, as Kennedy said, weaken their rights.

Democrats sought minimum wage increases in three steps of 70 cents each, to $7.25. Republicans countered with raises in two steps of 55 cents apiece, to $6.25, as well as several pro-business provisions.

These include an option for employees to work up to 80 hours over two weeks without qualifying for overtime pay; a provision restricting the ability of states to raise the minimum wage for restaurant employees; and waiving wage and overtime rules for workers in some small businesses now covered.

The clash unfolded as part of a debate over business-backed legislation to overhaul the nation's bankruptcy laws.

The overall measure enjoys bipartisan support, although no vote on passage will occur until the Senate settled the minimum wage dispute and resolved companion controversy over allowing protesters at abortion clinics and other sites to avoid paying court fines by entering bankruptcy.

Republican aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they had the votes to prevail on that showdown, as well, and send the measure to the House later in the week. "It's an uphill fight but it's not over," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., author of the proposal.

Democrats conceded in advance they were certain to lose the minimum wage vote, particularly given the Republicans' four-seat gain in last fall's elections.

At the same time, they said they hoped to raise the issue to increases chances for passage of state minimum wage initiatives in 2006, as well as to highlight differences with Republicans who will be on the ballot next year.

Santorum was chief among them, the third-ranking member of the GOP leadership and an outspoken conservative. Democrats and Republicans alike said his decision to be the public spokesman for the Republican alternative reflected the potential significance of the issue.

At the same time, the Republicans' decision to allow a vote reflected their confidence that they could prevail. The GOP majority maneuvered successfully in the past two years to block votes on the issue, when Democrats might have won.

"When you raise the minimum wage you are pricing some workers out of the market," said Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H. "It is an economic fact, and the proponents of raising the minimum wage like to dismiss this by saying we have a hard time measuring it and the economy is large."

Countered Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record), D-Iowa: "This is a values issue. This is at the heart of what kind of country we want."

While Democrats sought only an increase in the minimum wage with their proposal, Republicans expanded theirs to include business regulatory relief as well as tax breaks totaling $4.2 billion, most of it directed toward the restaurant industry.

Forty-one Democrats, four Republicans and one independent voted for the Democratic proposal. All the votes in opposition were cast by Republicans.

All 38 votes in favor of the GOP proposal were cast by Republicans. Opposed were 43 Democrats, one independent and 17 Republicans.

southsider2k5 · March 9, 2005

Glad to see the boys could compromise :rolly

Soxy · March 9, 2005

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 8, 2005 -> 09:21 PM)

Glad to see the boys could compromise :rolly

At first that made me mad too--but it was a straight min wage issue that the democrats pushed. But there were other parts to the Republican one--I, for one, do not think that our budget can allow us to give another 4.2 billion dollars in tax cuts to industry...

I wish that the Republicans had countered with a pure and only a wage increase.

But they all suck.

Edited March 9, 2005 by ChiSoxyGirl

southsider2k5 · March 9, 2005

They are both BSers. A 25% increase in minimum wage would end up getting many people laid off or fired. At the same time we don't need anymore tax cuts, as employment and wages have been increasing at a solid, noninflationary rate.

They both need to get their heads out of their asses.

chimpy2121 · March 9, 2005

I just think its bulls*** that congress has voted to raise their salaries 4 times since the last time minimum wage was increased.

Soxy · March 9, 2005

QUOTE(chimpy2121 @ Mar 8, 2005 -> 10:06 PM)

I just think its bulls*** that congress has voted to raise their salaries 4 times since the last time minimum wage was increased.

I agree.

Rex Kickass · March 9, 2005

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 8, 2005 -> 10:26 PM)

They are both BSers. A 25% increase in minimum wage would end up getting many people laid off or fired. At the same time we don't need anymore tax cuts, as employment and wages have been increasing at a solid, noninflationary rate.

They both need to get their heads out of their asses.

I'm just curious to where that data comes from. They say that everytime that minimum wage gets raised, but whenever it happens - I don't remember the McDonalds' of the world laying off fry machine kids to make ends meet.

By the way, the Republican bill would have made waiters and waitresses unable to get the 2 dollars and change minimum wage that they get now, and it would have also allowed people to work over 40 hours in a week without getting overtime provided that the total worked in two weeks is under 80. The GOP counter bill was more a trap than anything, allowing Republicans to target vulnerable Dems by saying that they didn't support minimum wage hikes.

The Democratic bill was also a piece of theater, going up for vote even though it was well known that they didn't have the votes to pass it either.

YASNY · March 9, 2005

All in all, a fairly productive day in Congress. :headshake

TheBigHurt35 · March 9, 2005

QUOTE(chimpy2121 @ Mar 8, 2005 -> 10:06 PM)

I just think its bulls*** that congress has voted to raise their salaries 4 times since the last time minimum wage was increased.

IIRC, the base salaries for Congressmen is about $140,000. Given that importance of their jobs and the fact that they need to maintain two residences, it's difficult to argue that they're overpaid.

YASNY · March 9, 2005

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 06:29 AM)

IIRC, the base salaries for Congressmen is about $140,000. Given that importance of their jobs and the fact that they need to maintain two residences, it's difficult to argue that they're overpaid.

It may be difficult to argue, but I'll take a shot at it. First, we don't seem to get much out of them for our money except a bunch of partisan politics and rhetoric. Second, after one term in office they are on a lifetime pension, which is basically 100% of their congressional salary, iirc. Damn right they are overpaid.

TheBigHurt35 · March 9, 2005

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 06:43 AM)

It may be difficult to argue, but I'll take a shot at it. First, we don't seem to get much out of them for our money except a bunch of partisan politics and rhetoric. Second, after one term in office they are on a lifetime pension, which is basically 100% of their congressional salary, iirc. Damn right they are overpaid.

You sure that their pension is 100% of their salary? If that's the case, I may agree with you.

Texsox · March 9, 2005

The gap between minimum wage and the pverty line is the biggest corporate benefit we give to some businesses as a country. Lets look at $5.15/hour. $10,721 per year, working full time at a job that is probably not "fulfilling", but worked for sustenance. That is still well below the poverty level and qualifies many of these workers for various public assistance programs. In fact WalMart and other big employers have been heavily criticized for pointing their employees towards these tax payer supported programs.

Any increases in minimum wage is partially balanced by a decrease in public assistance. So one question we need to ask is should tax payers be subsidizing these workers for businesses? Asked a different way, if the poverty level is $7.25 per hour, should an employer pick up $5.15 and let the government pay the rest? Of course arguing from the other side of the aisle, is it government's responsibility to assure all it's citizens have food, clothing, and shelter?

Like every public policy issue, push here and something pops out over there.

In a near perfect world we would have something like this

public assistance

now we have

minimum wage dead end jobs

There are very few minimum wage jobs that lead anywhere else.

southsider2k5 · March 9, 2005

QUOTE(chimpy2121 @ Mar 8, 2005 -> 10:06 PM)

I just think its bulls*** that congress has voted to raise their salaries 4 times since the last time minimum wage was increased.

Point of technicality here... Congress doesn't vote for their raises anymore. They did away with that. They are automatic, unless they bring a bill to the floor to vote AGAINST them.

And the point isn't about them being overpaid, its about these clowns being leaders of their country. Its the same mentality that gives CEOs multimillion dollar golden parachutes for laying people off. If they can't come to an agreement to give the poor a raise, they damn sure don't deserve a raise themselves.

And Wino the data is all theory. As you know most businesses that pay minimum wage so do for a reason. The food service industry especially is one of the lowest profit margined industries, with the highest turnover, both for employees and owners. Granted McDonalds does just fine, but it is the small businesses who see their costs jump 25% who suffer the most. The local guy who is barely breaking even is the one who suffers the most. And even so there aren't many businesses who could take an increase of about 20% in their biggest expense for two years in a row to get the minimum wage to $7.25.

Also finally there are two issues that really bug me here underneath it all. #1 this isn't a federal issue IMO. This is something that should be decided locally. What is best for Michigan City, isn't what works for New York City. #2 I think the local legislatures have been negligent in this issue, because they don't want to offend local businesses that have put them in office. #3 We need to forget about minimum wage and make sure that people have a living wage. Any full time worker should earn at least his states poverty level. I know that kinda contridicts what I said about cost, but it should gradually be done over like 5 years, to give businesses time to adjust. Done too quickly it will cost too many jobs.

mreye · March 9, 2005

I've seen people bring up McDonald's and WalMart. In my area (And it's not affluent, mind you) McD's and WM start at about $6.50 and $8 respectively. That's what they advertise. I think when job loss because of minimum wage increases is discussed, they/we mean small businesses. Mom and Pops. Just my $0.02

Texsox · March 9, 2005

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 06:43 AM)

It may be difficult to argue, but I'll take a shot at it. First, we don't seem to get much out of them for our money except a bunch of partisan politics and rhetoric. Second, after one term in office they are on a lifetime pension, which is basically 100% of their congressional salary, iirc. Damn right they are overpaid.

You are hitting a few urban legends here.

Congress is in Social Security, they have been making payments for 20 years.

Their pension is determined by the number of years of service and never equals more than 80% and that is for the real old timers. 1 termers receive very little. (and that may be too much)

When are Members of Congress considered vested and eligible to receive a pension? And how much is that pension? Monticello, Arkansas - 9/28/00

Members who have participated in the congressional pension system are vested after 5 years of service. A full pension is available to Members 62 years of age with 5 years of service; 50 years or older with 20 years of service; or 25 years of service at any age. A reduced pension is available depending upon which of several different age/service options is chosen. If Members leave Congress before reaching retirement age, they may leave their contributions behind and receive a deferred pension later.

How much they receive depends on a complicated formula based on when they joined Congress, how old they are at the time of retirement, how many years of service they had at the time of retirement (including previous military or other federal service), their salary, and which pension option they chose when they enrolled. In any case, a Member's pension amount may not exceed 80% of his/her salary upon retirement.

Since January 1, 1984, all Members of Congress also participate in the Social Security system and are required to pay Social Security taxes.

Members who were elected after 1984 are automatically part of the FERS, or Federal Employees' Retirement System. Members elected before 1984 were in the CSRS, or Civil Service Retirement System. In 1984, those Members in CSRS had to choose to remain with CSRS, or switch to FERS. The Members elected before 1984 could further choose between full CSRS benefits, plus Social Security or CSRS benefits offset by Social Security.

A further variant in the amount of retirement benefits received is whether or not Members under either system choose to participate in the voluntary Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) open to all federal employees. Members under CSRS may contribute up to 5% of their salary and FERS Members 10% of their salary into this tax-deferred retirement investment fund. The differential favoring FERS Members is because pension benefits paid out under the old CSRS system are higher than those paid out under the current FERS system.

Both CSRS and FERS have differing formulas combining age and service factors which further affect how much a specific Member's pension will pay out. Therefore, the only solid averages concerning benefit payments are those that come from the just over 400 retired Members now actually drawing pensions.

The average annuity for retired Members, as of 1998, was either $50,616 [for those that retired under CSRS] or $46,908 [for Members that retired under FERS]. However, these averages don't take into account any additional funds these Members may have also accrued through investments in the Thrift Savings Plan described above.

Congressional pensions are funded the same way as those of other federal employees: through a combination of general tax provisions and contributions from the participants. Members of Congress in the FERS plan must pay 1.3% of their salary to FERS and 6.2% in Social Security taxes.

For more detailed information concerning pension benefits and age and service formulas under both CSRS and FERS, I recommend you obtain a copy of "Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress", a report by Patrick Purcell of the Congressional Research Service. [CRS Report RL30631, July 31, 2000]. CRS reports are free, but can only be obtained by requesting them through the office of a Member of Congress.

You can identify and contact your own 3 Members of Congress on C-SPAN's Write to Congress page.

Texsox · March 9, 2005

southsider, just a couple of thoughts to see what you think.

1. I agree, local control would make sense for retail, and most service industries. And allow for cost of living in Manhattan, NY vs. Stickney issues. However, manufacturers who need to compete on a regional or global basis would have problems. The Economic Development groups in towns with lower min wages would be poaching employers from higher min wage areas. Leave Indiana, enjoy the lower minimum wages in Texas.

2. One thing I liked about the GOP initiative is allowing a 2 week window for overtime. This reflects better what many workers prefer, and how most small businesses operate. Hey we are really busy this week, would you mind a 4 day weekend next week in exchange for working this weekend? Most guys jump at it.

3. I also would like to see some relaxation of overtime laws. Interesting that most salaried workers are putting in 50 and 60 hour weeks to make up for smaller staffs and greater responsibilities, but the guys working on an hourly basis are nailing the OT. I'd like to see more hours exempted from OT rules. If you are working a min or near min job, you should want to work more hours and better your condition.

4. Your comment about businesses that are barely breaking even opens up an interesting argument. There are some businesses that could survive if the minimum wage was $4.00. They failed at $5.15. No matter where we draw the line businesses may fail. However, I would counter, on a even playing field, if you and I are competitors and we both have to pay our employees the same minimum wage, may the best man win. I do not see an entire business segment failing.

southsider2k5 · March 9, 2005

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 07:38 AM)

southsider, just a couple of thoughts to see what you think.

1. I agree, local control would make sense for retail, and most service industries. And allow for cost of living in Manhattan, NY vs. Stickney issues. However, manufacturers who need to compete on a regional or global basis would have problems. The Economic Development groups in towns with lower min wages would be poaching employers from higher min wage areas. Leave Indiana, enjoy the lower minimum wages in Texas.

2. One thing I liked about the GOP initiative is allowing a 2 week window for overtime. This reflects better what many workers prefer, and how most small businesses operate. Hey we are really busy this week, would you mind a 4 day weekend next week in exchange for working this weekend? Most guys jump at it.

3. I also would like to see some relaxation of overtime laws. Interesting that most salaried workers are putting in 50 and 60 hour weeks to make up for smaller staffs and greater responsibilities, but the guys working on an hourly basis are nailing the OT. I'd like to see more hours exempted from OT rules. If you are working a min or near min job, you should want to work more hours and better your condition.

4. Your comment about businesses that are barely breaking even opens up an interesting argument. There are some businesses that could survive if the minimum wage was $4.00. They failed at $5.15. No matter where we draw the line businesses may fail. However, I would counter, on a even playing field, if you and I are competitors and we both have to pay our employees the same minimum wage, may the best man win. I do not see an entire business segment failing.

#1 happens everyday all over the country and the world. Heck I am doing it right now. I couldn't find a job in my home town making more than $8 an hour probably. Right now I am making about 50% more than that by commuting an hour and a half on a train to Chicago. I don't think that would change much at all. People want to work where the wages are high and live where the rents are low. I don't know that it would change that much, because usually wage differentials aren't that drastic between communities that are close to each other.

#2 I see happen everyday. I actually don't like it as much as a rule, because personally I would rather have the overtime, and the company shouldn't be able to work me 72 hours one week, to work me 8 the next. If I want to do it, that is one thing, but I should retain my freedom to collect overtime. Honestly I don't even believe OT should be on an 40 hour week, but on an 8 hour day, unless there is a contract that has been negotiated to change that for industries that do 4 ten hour days or needs 12/24 hour shifts.

#4 I don't think an entire industry would fail. But would the net loss of jobs cancel out the increase in wages for the people who keep their jobs. That is what I am worried about. Is it worth it to give some people a living wage, while doubling the unemployment rate? I tread cautiously when it comes to wage cause and effect. I have seen first hand how quickly companies lay off people when its profits fall. I don't think the numbers being tossed around were very feasible.

Texsox · March 9, 2005

#1 was referring to companies, not individuals. It is big business enticing industry to relocate. Right now the fight is tax abatements, infrastructure, free land, etc. I'm not certain that throwing minimum wage in there helps the vast majority of the country. Big business moves to Mexico and other dots on the globe for lower wages, when small and medium size companies can move four states away, that may not help the workers. Overall, I do think there should be regional adjustments to minimum wage.

#2 Good point, there needs to be some protection on the extremes. Maybe a min/max system each week. Perhaps a 30/50, or any week over 55 hours is OT. We are starting to make this complicated, but isn't that was Congress does best?

#4 I'm not sold on a net loss of jobs. I don't see too many businesses hiring extra people to stand around. That went out in the 1970s. Most companies are "lean". And I'm still trying to resolve the "we lost some workers at $4.50 per hour" argument. No matter where we draw the line, the argument can be made that people lost jobs. Would a market driven, no minimum wage situation be best for job creation? At $2.57 per hour, businesses would, in theory, have twice as many available jobs for the same payroll*.

*numbers not adjusted to reflect employer match on FICA, SS, payroll expenses, etc. :rolly

southsider2k5 · March 9, 2005

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 08:10 AM)

#1 was referring to companies, not individuals. It is big business enticing industry to relocate. Right now the fight is tax abatements, infrastructure, free land, etc. I'm not certain that throwing minimum wage in there helps the vast majority of the country. Big business moves to Mexico and other dots on the globe for lower wages, when small and medium size companies can move four states away, that may not help the workers. Overall, I do think there should be regional adjustments to minimum wage.

#2 Good point, there needs to be some protection on the extremes. Maybe a min/max system each week. Perhaps a 30/50, or any week over 55 hours is OT. We are starting to make this complicated, but isn't that was Congress does best?

#4 I'm not sold on a net loss of jobs. I don't see too many businesses hiring extra people to stand around. That went out in the 1970s. Most companies are "lean". And I'm still trying to resolve the "we lost some workers at $4.50 per hour" argument. No matter where we draw the line, the argument can be made that people lost jobs. Would a market driven, no minimum wage situation be best for job creation? At $2.57 per hour, businesses would, in theory, have twice as many available jobs for the same payroll*.

*numbers not adjusted to reflect employer match on FICA, SS, payroll expenses, etc. :rolly

#1 Happens on the corporate level all of the time as well. Why do you think when companies like Toyota and Honda when they were looking to build factories in the US they built in places like Tennessee and Alabama and not New York or California? They looked at labor costs. I don't think that would change either. Companies would still look for the best combination of skills and wages. Actually I think it could make it easier for companies because they would need to do less research on what the prevailing wages in an area are, instead they could just jump online and look it up.

#4 I think if business were lean, it would make it even harder for them to stay open if they had a 20-25% increase in costs. There is less margin for error and cost increase. If they had fat to trim it would make it easier to adjust to something like this. I think it would make job losses more likely as more companies would just fold vs just laying off people.

Texsox · March 9, 2005

Both excellent points and would have to addressed in a comprehensive min wage law.

Getting to #4, how many business do you think failed because the min wage is $5.15 and not $4.15? And if a venture can only pay $4.00 an hour, or $5.15, is that the employer we should be trying to keep in business?

When the job creation issue comes up, the slam on each administration going back to at least Bush the elder, have been high wage job loss vs. min wage creation. If as a society, we are not placing much emphasis on min wage job creation, how much emphasis should we place on min wage job preservation?

And opening up a #5

I do not believe that every job, full time or part time, should allow someone to support a family. Isn't there room for 2nd income jobs? Jobs for students? Semi-retired? Maybe the debate should center on replacing the higher dollar jobs being sourced off shore and replace them with *more* jobs paying in the middle. Perhaps as a society we have some gain if we lose a $80,000 software engineer job, but it moves 4 people from $25,000 to $40,000 per year.,

southsider2k5 · March 9, 2005

Where the heck am I going to get specific figures for where a businesses break even point is? I have no idea who would fail, or how many would fail. Do you?

I think you just answered #5 with the question you asked before that. Is it worth keeping 2 people working at $4 an hour or one at $7.25 or $6.15 (depending on which plan you like) You just kinda answered that except on a biggest scale with the 1 @80k vs 4 @20k.

As for the full time job part. I do believe if a person is going to work a 40 hour job, they deserve to earn a living wage. If someone wants to make less, there is nothing that makes them HAVE to work 40 hours in a week. If you are looking at a 2nd income job, it would fall under that part time category, as I can't see someone working 80 hours in a week.

JUGGERNAUT · March 9, 2005

QUOTE:

"Wages do not cause sales. Sales are needed to provide wages. Wages do not cause revenue. Revenue drives wages," said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.

I can't resist weighing in on this. First off the Dems have shown how much they care about labor. The GOP had a proposal to raise the min wage over 18 months? That's like asking a baby to take candy. The Dems should have voted for that proposal. It's a start & it had more GOP support than their own. Perhaps they think they can things done through filibusters

Oh Mr Enzi, can I slap you silly? Wages provide productivity, productivity provides sales, sales generate revenue, & revenue - operating costs generate profits. You learn that in economics 101. For a business with a conscience that cares more about employing workers than reaping profits it's cyclical. The profits are then fed back to expand productivity either through expansion or improved wages. A happy worker always produces more than an unhappy one.

Now Mr Enzi you might be surprised to know that under GOP leadership the US has experienced it's greatest growth in it's trade deficit. What does that mean Mr Enzi?

It means that in order to maintain profits more US companies have decided to shift wages from US citizens to foreigners. It doesn't matter if it's outsourcing, insourcing or any derivative thereof. It's a fact and the rate of growth in that shift is alarming.

So Mr Enzi let me complete the picture for modern economics 101 for you:

revenue - operating costs generate profits. Operating costs are reduced by shifting productivity from citizens to non-citizens. Less jobs available to citizens results in lower wages for jobs by citizens. Lower wages for jobs by citizens results in lower tax revenue & lower disposable income by citizens. Lower tax revenue & lower disposable income results in a shrinking market. A shrinking market means less $ for national defense. Less $ for national defense means a weaker nation.

The bottomline Mr Enzi, is that $5.15/hr is not keeping jobs in the hands of citizens.

We can't even make magentic ribbons to support our troops for pete's sake. Those are made in China. So the belief that $6.15/hr is going to have an adverse effect on jobs is ridiculous. It's only effect will be to reduce profits for those companies who have no other choice but to employ citizens (service jobs). It's only effect will be to raise tax revenue & disposable income dollars to strengthen the marketplace.

Thanks to GOP leadership & Dem leadership who seems to not give a s*** "Made in America" is a meaningless statement in this world. All that the world values is "Bought in America". Raising the minimum wage helps that. Unless of course you might want to get off your fat arse & do something to make "Made in America" mean something again. Heaven's forbid you should consider a bill to that effect.

BTW for all you lovers of the global economy do you care that your medical & tax records are going overseas to be processed? Do you care that violates your privacy rights? Do you even care about privacy rights?

Oh, why do I bother?

southsider2k5 · March 9, 2005

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 9, 2005 -> 12:47 PM)