InsideSources

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., alongside other progressive lawmakers, introduced a bill Thursday aimed at increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Sanders has been a leading voice in pushing for the $15 minimum wage. He was joined by others on the left including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi when introducing the proposal. The bill is written to gradually increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2024.

“I think most people are aware that for the last 40 years the middle class of our country has been in decline,” Sanders said while introducing the legislation. “In Vermont and all throughout this country we have people working two to three jobs, we have people working 50, 60, and 70 hours a week just to put food on the table, just to make sure their families can live with a modicum of dignity.”

Sanders first hinted his intent to introduce the bill Apr. 7. He posted online, at the time, that the current federal standard was an insult to workers. The federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour hasn’t been updated since 2009. The bill was originally expected to be unveiled last month.

“The reason for all of that is wages in this country are just too low,” Sanders said. “The time is long overdue for us to raise the minimum wage which is now at the federal level $7.25 an hour, which I think under any definition is a starvation wage. We have to raise the minimum wage to a living wage.”

Sanders helped make the $15 minimum wage a centerpiece of the Democratic presidential primary. He originally introduced the proposal in July 2015 towards the beginning of his presidential run. Some Democrats expressed reservations at first, but by the following year, the idea had gained enough support to be included in the party platform.

New York and California, alongside a list of cities, have already passed the $15 minimum wage. Seattle was followed by other cities when it first passed the increase in June 2014. Labor unions and other progressive advocates helped make the policy a national issue.

The Fight for $15 movement has been at the forefront of the minimum wage debate since it started in November 2012. It has held numerous protests and launched media campaigns in support of the policy. The movement is primarily supported by labor unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Supporters of the policy are optimistic it could help people escape from poverty. The increase might also spur economic growth as workers are able to afford basic needs. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a progressive nonprofit, found a federal increase would lift wages for 41 million workers without many consequences.

“The federal minimum wage was established in 1938 to help ensure that all work would be fairly rewarded and provide a decent quality of life,” EPI said in a statement when the bill was being introduced. “The current minimum wage falls far short of this goal. Thanks to congressional inaction, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has been eroded by inflation.”

The $15 minimum wage has also attracted plenty of critics who fear it could have severe unintended consequences. Employers might be forced to reduce their staff size or increase prices to overcome the added cost of labor. The National Bureau of Economic Research and The Heritage Foundation found the risk is especially prevalent for young and low-skilled workers.

“Democrats are confirming today that they are now the party of the looney left and will follow in the footsteps of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in a march towards extremism and away from the realities of basic economics,” Jeremy Adler, communications director for the conservative nonprofit America Rising Squared, told InsideSources. “This legislation proves that their party’s leadership will embrace a policy that will eliminate millions of jobs, increase costs across the board, and put an unsustainable burden on businesses.”

The Employment Policies Institute, a conservative nonprofit, has been highlighting the potential harms of the proposal in a digital campaign. The campaign features small business owners who were put out of work because of the $15 minimum wage.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

Should government-empowered accreditation organizations that oversee higher education institutions be stricter with low-performing schools, or do they already do too much and raise the cost of education with burdensome requirements? Democrats and Republicans were split at times on the right way forward for higher education accreditation reform during a Thursday hearing in the Capitol’s Rayburn office building.

The vast majority of American colleges and universities are regulated by what experts call a “triad” framework that includes federal regulations, state laws, and accrediting organizations. At the federal level, the comprehensive Higher Education Act serves as the blueprint for how federal higher education aid is doled out and what kinds of regulations schools need to comply with to be eligible. The law is up for reauthorization, and while there are other big-ticket items on Congress’s agenda, some believe that lawmakers may attempt a reform in the coming months.

In his opening statement, the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., made the case for putting tougher accreditation requirements on schools. He noted that the federal government issues over $150 billion in new loans and grants each year. All of that money goes to schools that have been approved by accreditors who are authorized by Washington.

“We know that there have been schools that were fully accredited up until the day they closed their doors, leaving students out in the cold and taxpayers holding the bag,” said Scott.

The congressman suggested that tougher oversight of accreditation organizations would lead to better transparency and earlier warnings about colleges and universities that are failing to deliver for students and taxpayers. The way the system works currently, a school is more likely to lose access to federal funds as a result of a direct education department decision, rather than being stripped of accreditation.

Charlotte Law School in North Carolina is a good example. The embattled for-profit institution was barred from participating in federal student aid programs in December when it emerged that school officials were misrepresenting bar passage rates and educational outcomes to incoming students. Despite systemic failures at the school, it remains accredited; the American Bar Association has only placed it on probation.

Some, like Scott, suggest the system is working backwards in these cases. They argue that the whole reason for having accreditors is to insulate the education department in Washington from having to make the difficult decision of stripping aid away from a school. Since Charlotte Law School students were prevented from taking out federal loans to pay for classes, hundreds of students have left and the school has been on the brink of closure.

The chairwoman of the House Education Committee, Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., agreed in her opening statement that accreditors have a serious role to play in ensuring that taxpayer dollars that flow to higher education are put to good use. Unlike her Democratic counterpart, however, Foxx expressed reticence at the prospect of expanding the federal government’s role in how schools operate.

“It has never been and should never be the federal government’s role to judge the quality of a school’s education programs. Entrusting independent accrediting agencies with that responsibility protects academic freedom and student choice,” said Foxx.

The chairwoman argued that federal higher education regulations have gone too far, and in many cases the rules stifle innovation and raise tuition costs. Foxx urged Congress to find a happy medium where accountability for taxpayer dollars is protected, while higher education institutions retain the flexibility to operate without micromanagement from government.

The political debate over higher education regulation is not new, and it is particularly pronounced in the burgeoning for-profit education sector. The Obama administration issued a controversial “gainful employment” rule in 2010 that required accredited schools to show students that earning a degree would help them earn more and pay back their loans. Republicans have argued that the rule unfairly singled out for-profit institutions. The new education secretary, Betsy DeVos, has said she would review the rule to see if it is fulfilling its intended purpose.

One of the committee’s witnesses, Michale McComis, the director of the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, provided the committee a list of reform priorities from an accreditation organization’s perspective. His proposals included giving accreditors more flexibility to group and rate higher education institutions based on their areas of focus, rather than channeling judgments on a school’s quality through a one-size-fits-all approach.

McComis also argued for more flexibility in how credit hours are counted. Alternative educational models, including vocational credentials and online offerings are increasingly moving toward competency-based models. Rather than strict seat-time requirements, McComis suggested that the way students are earning degrees is being re-thought in some schools, and accreditation policy should reflect those changes.

In cases where schools that have been put on probation, or have had their accreditation stripped, McComis suggested that Congress should consider granting accreditation groups indemnification from retaliatory lawsuits. This change would arguably give his organization and others a freer hand to crack-down on schools that take advantage of students and taxpayers.

For now, the Congressional debate over accreditation is mostly academic. GOP leadership has not yet introduced comprehensive higher education reform. If and when they do, however, the battle lines have been drawn over where the party’s priorities are in reforming the accreditation prong of the oversight triad.

Follow Leo on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders and other leading progressives are rumored to be reintroducing a bill Wednesday that would increase the national minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Sanders has been a leading lawmaker pushing for the $15 minimum wage. He might soon be reintroducing a bill that would increase the minimum wage nationally. He is expected to be joined by Sen. Patty Murray, alongside Reps. Keith Ellison, Bobby Scott, and Raúl Grijalva.

Sanders first hinted his intent to reintroduce the bill Apr. 7. He posted online, at the time, that the current federal standard was an insult to workers.  Bloomberg reporter Josh Eidelson posted online Monday that all five progressive lawmakers are expected to put forth the bill midweek.

“The federal minimum wage of $7.25 is an insult to the workers of this country,” a post on Sanders’ Facebook page stated. “Our job is to ensure that anyone who works 40 hours a week in America should not be living in poverty. We need to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour and I will be introducing legislation soon to do just that.”

Sanders made the policy a critical component of his presidential run. He originally introduced the legislation in July 2015 with the intent of making the policy national. He has also participated in many rallies and speeches in support of the policy.

New York and California alongside a list of cities have already passed the increase. Seattle was followed by other cities when it first passed the increase in June 2014. Labor unions and other progressive advocates helped make the policy a national issue.

The Fight for $15 movement has been at the forefront of the minimum wage debate since it started in November 2012. The movement is primarily supported by labor unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The Center for Union Facts found the union spent over $19 million on the Fight for $15 last year.

The Fight for $15 and other supporters argue the policy is a great way to lift low-wage workers out of poverty. They have argued the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is too low for people to reasonably live on. The increase might also spur economic growth as workers are able to spend more.

Those opposed to the increase warn it will actually hurt the poor by reducing employment opportunities. Employers could be forced to reduce their staff or increase prices to overcome the added cost of labor. Some critics have even expressed concern that the movement backers have alternative motives.

“This is a good idea for helping line the pockets of big labor bosses, but it’s a terrible burden on workers across the country,” America Rising Squared Communications Director Jeremy Adler told InsideSources. “Even though millions would lose their jobs and have their hours slashed, this group of unabashed left-wingers would rather appease the unions that funnel money into their campaign accounts, instead of working on common-sense policies to create jobs and expand economic opportunity to more Americans.”

America Rising is a nonprofit research group that promotes conservative policies. It has been highly critical of efforts to increase the minimum wage.

The National Bureau of Economic Research and The Heritage Foundation found the increase will have a significant impact on employment. They found the risk is especially bad for young and low-skilled workers. The University of California, Berkeley found any losses would be marginal compared to the potential benefits.

Sanders, Murray, Ellison, Scott, and Grijalva did not respond to a request for comment by InsideSources.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning