John Boehner Blasts Obama for Using Executive Order to Hike Minimum Wage for Federal Contract Workers by 39 Percent

David Martosko, Daily Mail (London), January 28, 2014

Two influential Republicans are warning the White House that President Obama’s use of executive orders to bypass Congress before his State of the Union speech is blatantly unconstitutional.

Obama launched a pre-emptive strike Tuesday morning in his protracted battles with the GOP by raising the minimum wage for federal contract workers with a stroke of his pen.

‘I think it’s a constitutional violation,’ conservative Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa said Tuesday on CNN.

‘We have a minimum wage. Congress has set it. For the president to simply declare “I’m going to change this law that Congress has passed” is unconstitutional.’

‘We’ve never had a president with that level of audacity and that level of contempt for his own oath of office,’ King added.

And House Speaker John Boehner seemed to follow suit during a news conference Tuesday on Capitol Hill.

‘We’re going to watch very closely,’ he said of the White House’s newfound pen-stroke approach to governing, ‘because there’s a Constitution that we all take an oath to, including him, and following that Constitution is the basis for our republic, and we shouldn’t put that in jeopardy.’

Boehner reminded reporters that Congress holds the government’s purse-strings, and that his party isn’t afraid to tug them tightly if Obama doesn’t come to heel.

‘There are options available to us,’ he said, adding that Republicans would ‘have a discussion about that’ during a retreat that begins Wednesday.

Boehner also noted what some economists say is a relationship between minimum wage increases and job losses among young and unskilled minorities in the workplace.

‘I used to be an employer,’ he said. ‘When you raise the cost of something, you get less of it.’

‘We know from increases in the minimum wage in the past that hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans have lost their jobs, and so the very people the president purports to help are the ones who are going to get hurt by this.’

But Senate Democrats fired back, voicing support for Obama’s choice to raise contractors’ wages on his own.

‘Increasing the minimum wage for federal contract workers is an important first step toward leveling the playing field for all workers,’ Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said.

‘Now it’s time for Congress to take action, so that everyone who works hard and plays by the rules can earn enough to make ends meet.’

Her fellow Massachusettsan Sen. Ed Markey called a stagnant minimum earning level ‘a war against wages.’

‘We need to increase the minimum wage for all workers,’ Markey said Tuesday.

The president will deliver his State of the Union address Tuesday night, perhaps threatening still more executive actions designed to do an end-run around the legislative branch of government.

Obama’s surprising move on wages hikes the minimum by 39 per cent for companies using their employees to service contracts with the U.S. government.

The change, from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour, won’t affect the estimated 2.65 million civilians who work directly on the government payroll.

But private companies large and small that want to do business with Uncle Sam will have to certify that they comply, or risk losing their contracts.

According to the Obama administration’s Office of Personnel Management, some federal employees earn less than the president’s desired minimum wage.

Including base pay and supplemental income based on the cost of living where they live and work, full-time federal employees at the lowest end of the pay scale earn as little as $20,527 per year, a wage equal to $9.86 per hour.

Obama is sure to ask Congress to extend his minimum wage increase to the entire nation’s workforce during Tuesday night’s speech. Yet his pre-emptive strike on one of his pet issues is a unilateral move of the kind Obama has repeatedly promised to make, circumventing Congress whenever it doesn’t go along with whatever policy objectives he chooses to lay before them.

‘We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need,’ a frustrated Obama said on January 14 as he convened his cabinet in a public show of force.

‘I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,’ he warned. ‘And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.’

The implied threat behind the president’s mighty-pen strategy hasn’t been lost on Capitol Hill’s most vocal Republicans, and he seemed to reinforce it Monday with a tweet featuring a photo of a pen–although the White House said it stood ‘ready for editing his latest State of the Union draft.’

Obama’s speech itself will be a history-dripping stemwinder delivered in a setting that boasts all the pageantry of a royal funeral. But in the age of tweets and 90-second cable news interviews, fewer and fewer Americans pay attention to lengthy policy speeches.

While the political drama that follows Obama’s demands may be interesting, the speech itself promises little but campaign-style bluster likely designed as a preface to the campaigner-in-chief’s next populist swing through friendly political climes and their fawning audiences.

Only 41 per cent of Democrats polled by Fox News last week said they planned to ‘watch or listen to the speech carefully,’ and that’s Obama’s high water mark.

Barely half as many Republicans–22 per cent–told pollsters they intend to tune in, along with 29 per cent of political independents.

It’s just as well, since a Gallup poll released Monday found that the issue Americans most want to see addressed in Tuesday’s speech is their overall dissatisfaction with government in Washington.

And the words Obama speaks–a laundry list of wishes spanning the governmental universe from health care and gun control to U.S. policy on Iran and the minimum wage–will tell less of the story than the gamesmanship behind them.

The issues themselves, which also include a call for a new approach to immigration, a demand for the next no-strings-attached increase in the federal debt ceiling, and a long-term extension of unemployment benefits, will also serve to give Congressional Democrats something positive to run on in November while Republicans pummel them with Obamacare references.

Obama’s handlers have tamped down expectations in recent days.

Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s senior adviser, said two days ago on Fox News Sunday that ‘the Republican Congress is not going to rubber-stamp the president’s agenda’ and ‘the president is not going to sign the Republican Congress’ agenda. So we have to find areas where we can work together.’

Similarly, he wrote Saturday in a message to the the White House’s email list that the State of the Union speech would be summed up by the three words ‘opportunity, action, and optimism,’ two of which seem calibrated to suggest a tepid forecast.

Even the generally Obama-friendly New York Times predicted that Obama will pursue a ‘modest agenda’ in his speech.

But Pfeiffer’s momentary nod to ‘action’ was enough to bring him to repeat Obama’s taunt.

‘President Obama has a pen and he has a phone,’ he wrote, ‘and he will use them to take executive action and enlist every American–business owners and workers, mayors and state legislators, young people, veterans, and folks in communities from across the country–in the project to restore opportunity for all.’

The ultimatum approach hasn’t sat well with leading Republicans on Capitol Hill.

‘It sounds vaguely like a threat.’ the tea party-linked Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said Sunday on CNN, ‘and I think it also has a certain amount of arrogance, in the sense that one of the fundamental principles of our country were the checks and balances.’

‘It wasn’t supposed to be easy to pass legislation,’ he said. ‘You had to debate and convince people. . . . The president’s not allowed to write legislation, he’s not allowed to amend legislation.’

Mitch McConnell, the Bluegrass State’s other senator and the GOP’s leader in the upper chamber, said Sunday on Fox News that Obama has refused to see the Republican Party’s gains in Congress as a sign from the public.

‘This president, it seems to me,’ McConnell said, ‘after the 2010 election when the American public issued a–shall we say–restraining order, the president has sort of hung out on the left and tried to get what he wants through the bureaucracy as opposed to moving to the political center.’

What Obama wants, Republican observers say, is a free pass to lay down his legacy in the face of a shifting electorate that has wearied of his poetic style and craves textbook-prose solutions.

‘He may be getting what he wants on gay rights and global warming,’ MailOnline heard from a GOP strategist in Washington who declined to be named. ‘That’s just because he can push regulations when Congress won’t back him.’

‘But look at Iran, and look at the minimum wage fight–and, god, look at Obamacare, and immigration,’ he said. ‘he can’t just wave his magic wand and make a bill appear on his desk. That’s got to drive him nuts.’

Annoyed or not, Obama is expected to outline strategies on Tuesday night that don’t require Congress to act, in addition to pleading for legislative outcomes that he can’t generate on his own.

Previous efforts to shepherd legislation through Congress, even on topics where the public seems to agree with him–such as expanded background checks on gun purchases and comprehensive immigration reform–have almost predictably stalled.

It was Senate Democrats, led by New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, who stymied Obama’s efforts in Iran with threats of a new round of sanctions if the Islamic regime fails to halt its nuclear weapons program.

‘It’s almost like Obama’s trying to convince his adversaries that he’s not such a bad guy,’ offered the Republican operative, ‘but some of his friends are stepping in and saying, “Not so fast, there.”‘


Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • NeanderthalDNA

    When Beaner stops collaboration with the Mexico First lobby maybe I’ll listen to what he says about anything.

    • Laura Dilworth

      did i hear that he’s retiring?

  • I don’t think Obama will “go there” in regards to immigration, like he is with the effective minimum wage for workers hired by Federal contracts issue.

    Several reasons:

    1. If I want to murder you, I’m not going to tell you when where and how, because that would give you time to gather up defenses. Instead, I’m going to gain your confidence then slip a pill in your drink. Apply that reasoning to Obama and immigration. He’s not going to do any drastic public action on immigration because he knows it’ll hurt his party.

    2. Instead, he’s going to do what I would suggest to Democrats that they should do, if I was in the business of advising Democrats — Shut up about immigration, do nothing, say nothing, and take whatever the Republicans give you. Because whatever they give you, it’ll be good for you and bad for them for sure in the long term, and maybe even in the short term. Don’t get in between your enemies when they’re ripping each other to shreds.

    3. Why should Obama have to issue some massive public order to do non-enforcement of immigration when that’s been essentially Federal executive policy since Eisenhower’s Operation Wet Back concluded? Why steal milk that you’re getting for free already?

    4. Obama’s treacherous use of executive orders will be almost entirely on things that have massive public support or at least very little real opposition, and things which he knows nobody will try to undo. This minimum wage bit is a good example.

  • Truthseeker

    Our country is run by anti-white interests, particularly black ones, so what can we expect but an utter disregard for rule of law and forward-thinking common sense?

  • Druid

    boehner’s nothing but a lousy race traitor.

  • Spartacus

    ‘I think it’s a constitutional violation,’


    So is having a ni&&er as president .

  • D.B. Cooper

    I’m sick and tired of this freshly laid (nevermind). Getting Boehner out of office should be among the highest priorities of conservatives right now.

    • Alexandra1973

      I don’t know what it is but his eyes kind of creep me out.

      • NeanderthalDNA

        Beaner looks like one of those reptiloids from outer space to me.

        • NM156

          The guy’s a barfly. His looks reflect his history.

        • Whiteplight sees the Emperor N

          The weakest form of criticism is to focus on looks and exaggerate on them negatively. But I would expect it from you. Got anything concrete to say about his performance? You and posters like you come on like adolescents.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            People who accuse others of being immature or adolescents are often immature adolescents.

            What’s your erudite and mature take doctor?

      • John K

        Maybe it’s from all the crying?

      • Whiteplight sees the Emperor N

        I didn’t know that blue eyes were a cause for criticism on this board. How do you manage to focus on his eyes as creepy as opposed to the man’s performance, which gives us plenty to criticize? Are blue eyes a sign of something creepy? Why promote the notion unless you hate blue eyes (and blue eyed people)?

        • NeanderthalDNA

          You should either get back on your meds or perhaps off of them depending on the circumstances.

          You always have such suspiciously pithy commentary and seem to take great pleasure in trying to insult and rile posters at this site.
          You have my vote for the rudest and most insulting poster I’ve encountered, troll.

          Because that’s what you are. The way you spit out canards and then pick fights really points toward either some angry agitprop troll not half as clever as you think, or someone who is genuinely disturbed and needs either therapy or a more soothing hobby.

          Ever thought about writing children’s stories?

          You are a slimy one, you.

          Have a nice day.

  • r j p

    ‘We’re going to watch very closely,’ he said of the White House’s newfound pen-stroke approach to governing, ….”

    What Boner means is they are going to watch the pen strokes carefully.
    He is a POS.

  • ncpride

    For heavens sake, enough with the hand wringing and blather. I want to know what they (Republicans) are going to DO about this dictator and his wicked sidekick Holder? Anything? Anything at all?

    (crickets chirping)

  • bigone4u

    Anyone interested in running for high political office is by definition a psychopath. What we have in DC is a battle between a highly audacious psycopath vs. more cautious psychopaths. What it means in practical terms is that we are no longer a nation of LAWS, but a nation of PSYCHOPATHS …., er, men.

    • Rhialto

      I object to your Sexism: The political Fems are as psychopathic (and sociopathic) as the political types who lack female reproductive organs.

  • Evette Coutier

    More cheap talk from Boehner the boozer.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      Don Juan Beaner like-a the Tekillya? The kind with the worm, his totem animal?

  • John K

    Really? I don’t see him taking any pay cuts, particularly when he sucks at his job.

  • LHathaway

    We need a higher minimum wage and a ‘living wage’ that allows one to support a family, right? Obama is just using his stones to make it happen. . .

  • Johnny Squire

    “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,’ he warned. ‘And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.” – President Obama

    That’s like saying, “As long as I’ve got checks and a checkbook, I’ve got money in the bank.” Let’s hope those executive orders he keeps writing will start bouncing.

  • WR_the_realist

    This is a country that only impeaches a president for lying about getting a blow job. Never do we impeach presidents for violating the Constitution, because if we did that, we’d have to impeach every one.

  • bubo

    Still have no idea what kind of jobs these federal contract workers have. They can’t be highly skilled if 10 dollars is seen as a substantial raise. So I would imagine they are employing blacks in some sort of jobs program.

  • Vito Powers

    How inconsiderate that Obama guy is. The 2nd in the secession line to the presidency had to take time off from the tanning salon and golf course to read a prepared statement about how shocked, shocked he is that King Obama is using Executive Orders to undermine the US Constitution, that sacred document that the Rat-Pack Wannabe holds so near and dear to his heart.

  • willbest

    If Obama does something that is unconstitutional. Impeach him. Make the senate try and acquit him. And when he does it again. Do impeach him again. Its not rocket science.

  • Dunnyveg

    This is what happens when post-American liberals take over a country. Americans made American great, and the coming permanent liberal hegemony will be the ruin of it all.

  • Adam Smith was definitely not an anarcho-capitalist. And properly understood, he wasn’t really a free trader, either, even though today’s free traders evoke his name in almost holy and religious reverence. Adam Smith was for free trade as long as all the countries, nations, polities and principalities involved could bring something to the table in terms of having a competitive advantage in a particular good or service. He would not have been for the kind of free trade we have today, which is code for dumping the West’s manufacturing on population heavy cheap labor East and South Asia.

    • JohnEngelman

      Within the context of his time Adam Smith was moderately on the left. The right back then advocated mercantilism, which we would recognize as crony capitalism.

      Private property qualifications for voting meant that suffrage was effectively limited to employers. When these became rich enough they vied for special privileges from the government such as the exclusive right to sell a product.

      Minimum wage laws did not exist back then. Instead there were maximum wage laws, designed to relieve employers of the need to share too much of their income with their employees. Adam Smith condemned maximum wage laws.

      Adam Smith’s propensity to criticize businessmen surprised me when I read his book. Pro corporate reactionaries who claim him as a mentor have probably not read Wealth of Nations.

      • We see that same paradigm at work today. The Chamber Pot of Commerce type crony capitalists and doctrinaire right-libertarians hardly see eye to eye on most things, and the former have mostly declared political war on the latter.

  • There are executive orders, and there are executive orders. There’s a difference between a fluffy duff ineffectual EO and an EO which attempts to make legislation as an end run around the typical Congressional legislative process.

    Clinton really started the trend of legislating via EO, and Obama has taken it to new and ridiculous heights. But between them, Bush 43, while he was not as bad about it or did it as often as either his predecessor or successor, did use that tactic more than any President after the end of WWII and before Clinton.

  • Max

    Just how many economists do you suppose there are in the US?

    • JohnEngelman

      The number is fewer than the 71 percent of American voters who favor an increase in the minimum wage.

      • Personally, I think the support for raising the minimum wage among the public is a mile wide and an inch deep.

    • I know there aren’t any one-armed economists.