Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. letter to R. C., May 7, 1996

May 7, 1996 Congress of tfjc fflmtcb States фшгёе of fteprtsmtattoce OTaStjmgton, 2ЭС 20515-2002 Dear This letter responds to your concerns about the op-ed piece I wrote for the Baltimore Sun regarding the national AFL-CIO’s political activities. I will attempt to address each of the issues you raised individually. First, in my article I did not accuse you or any other local union leader of personally spending local members’ dues on political activities. However, on March 25 the national leaders of the AFL-CIO approved a one-year “special assessment” on member unions in order to fund their 1996 political activities. This assessment will raise approximately $25 million of the $35 million which the federation has announced it will spend to defeat Republican members of Congress. Attached is some additional information about the special assessment for your consideration. Second, you stated that my voting record indicates that I do not “vote with labor.” A recent poll taken of rank-and-file union members indicates that most working people disagree with you. The poll shows that 87 percent of union members support reforming the welfare system so that it requires recipients to work. Moreover, 78 percent of union members support a $500 per child tax credit. Additionally, 69 percent believe a balanced budget would be “a good thing for working families.” I have supported all of these proposals since coming to Congress, and I will continue to do so. Third, you stated that my opposition to raising the minimum wage indicates that I “vote against poor people.” In reality, I oppose a minimum wage hike because many marginal, unskilled workers— the “working poor,” as they are often called— will lose their jobs because employers will no longer be able to afford to hire them. Labor, like any other commodity, is subject to market forces. If the cost of unskilled marginal workers increases, demand among potential employers will decrease. According to two of President Clinton’s appointees to the Federal Reserve Board: “The primary consequence of the minimum wage law is not an increase in the incomes of the least-skilled workers but a restriction of their employment opportunities.” MORE