Joel Friedman and Aviva Aron-Dine at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have put together a great article comparing the benefits of a minimum wage hike and a reduction of the estate tax.

[The Economic Policy Institute] estimates that the average yearly wage increase for the 6.6 million workers who would benefit directly from the minimum wage change would total about $1,200.

[...]

The Tax Policy Center estimates that in 2011 an estate tax with a $10 million per couple exemption ($5 million per individual) and with tax rates of 15 percent and 30 percent - similar to the proposal under consideration in the House - would yield an average tax cut of $1.4 million for the 8,200 beneficiaries

The chart, though, by bringing it all together really drives it home.

The House is unexpectedly expected to vote on a minimum wage bill today. House GOP members are trying to tie the $2.10 minimum wage hike to a health insurance provision affecting small businesses. There is also speculation that Republicans are going to attempt attaching a permanent estate tax cut to the bill.

BNA (subscription required):

House Republicans July 27 appeared close to a deal on a legislative package that would link a minimum wage increase to wage-related sweeteners for business and a plan to allow small businesses to provide health insurance to their workers via association health plans (AHPs), according to lawmakers close to the negotiations.

The package, which would raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour over two years, also would allow restaurants to use "tip credits" when calculating wage rates for employees and would permit employers to offer a "training wage" for younger workers, the lawmakers said.

A vote on the package could occur as early as July 28, according to several moderate Republicans who have been pressing House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) for a vote on the minimum wage before the House adjourns for an August recess.

[...]

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio) said lawmakers involved in crafting the package are making a concerted effort to avoid including tax provisions. "Democrats are daring us to put a package up that has tax cuts so that we dare them to vote against the minimum wage. That's the game," he said. "I think that anybody who's expecting poison pills and tax cuts is going to be sadly mistaken."

[...]

Democrats wasted no time in responding to rumors of a minimum wage deal, calling for an up-or-down vote on the wage hike. "Before Congress goes home for August recess, we must have a vote on the House floor to raise the minimum wage to $7.25. But that means a clean bill--a straight up-or-down vote on increasing the minimum wage, without the usual Republican poison pills of attaching tax cuts for the wealthy or other so-called sweeteners for the Republican special interests," House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement.

(Recall that Boehner is blocking the Labor-H approps bill from seeing the floor because of the minimum wage amendment that is attached to it. A vote on a standalone minimum wage bill would obviate that amendment, so the House could conceivably be done with its funding work before the end of the fiscal year.)

As real wages stagnate and as energy prices continue their steep climb, Americans have reached the bottom of their pockets and have found only credit cards. Going into debt is becoming increasingly common as many Americans see their wages fail to keep pace with inflation.

A new survey conducted by Greenberg Quinlin Rosner Research for a consortium of organizations interested in household debt (Center for American Progress, Center for Responsible Lending, National Military Families Association, and the American Association of Retired Persons) found that :an overwhelming majority of Americans, 82%, view household debt as a "serious problem."

The public’s concern over this issue results from perceptions of an economy performing unevenly, from perceptions of rising costs of living, and for a surprising and pressing number, from first-hand experience with excess or unmanageable debt. Despite the prominence of pay-day loan artists and other debt merchants in low-income neighborhoods throughout the country, the public does not see this is as a "lower class" problem, but a growing threat to the American middle class and the American dream.

A great article (sub. required) appeared today in the Wall Street Journal sheading light on another trend that can be seen within the new deficit projections released last week by the administration. The Journal reports that the bump in revenues recently actually showcases a growing economic inequality in our country:

While tax revenue is growing far faster than the Bush administration forecast in its budget projections in February, the nation's economy isn't.

What has changed isn't the size of the economy, but how the economic pie is divided. The share of national income going to corporations and the wealthiest individuals, already large, has expanded, while the share going to typical wage earners has shrunk. Because corporations and the wealthy generally pay income tax at higher rates than does the typical wage earner, that shift benefits the federal Treasury.

So the end result of the Bush tax cuts has been that the economy has expanded, but has only benefitted those at the very top of the economic ladder - the people least needing help in times of recession. While many have criticized the administration's policies for having the wrong priorities, now there is actual proof that the administration's policies almost exclusively benefit the wealthy.

As the spender-in-chief pats himself on the back for managing to shirk the deficit to the fourth largest in U.S. history (via ThinkProgress), let’s take a look at a few things:

1. The surge in tax receipts is the result of a growing economy. Economic expansion is not dependent on tax rates. In fact, President Clinton raised taxes and the economy grew at what most would call a "good" pace. If marginal tax rates are 1% or 99%, an expanding economy will result in increased revenues.

2. The OMB has a habit of projecting of unrealistically large budget deficits so that the president can laud his tax policies for producing lower-than-expected deficits.

• In 2004, the president’s budget projected a $521 billion deficit for FY2004 that turned out to be $412 billion
• In 2005, the president’s budget projected a $426 billion deficit for FY2005 that turned out to be $318 billion

3. In numerous speeches and comments, the president repeats the refrain "we are on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009." Today, at his self-congratulatory press conference he said "We're way ahead of cutting the federal deficit in half by 2009. As a matter of fact . . . we're now a full year ahead of schedule."

But half of what? In the past twelve months, in the 43 speeches in which he mentions "cutting the deficit in half by 2009", Mr. Bush never - not once - mentioned what he is "on track" to cutting in half of. What OMB’s many budget documents state, but the president never says, is that he is "on track" to cut a $521 billion deficit in half. That’s right - Mr. Bush is going to cut a wildly-off-the-mark and never-materialized budget deficit.

4. The "surprise" surge in tax receipts comes mainly from corporate profits, executive bonuses, and capital gains. Only the well-off are seeing increased earnings, while for the rest of the country, real wages decreased in 2005. See, in other words, there’s a widening income gap. This supposed rising tide is lifting only yachts.

5. When Mr. Bush took office in 2001, he inherited at surplus of $236 billion. Today, he’s bragging about a $296 billion deficit. Things have certainly taken a turn since 2001.

6. The national debt in 2000 was $5.6 trillion. Since then, Mr. Bush has added $2.3 trillion in additional debt.

While the Bush administration likes to say that their fiscal policies are good for the economy and therefore good for all Americans, the facts reveal otherwise. This week’s EPI Snapshot focuses our attention on the racial income gap. While African-American median income had been growing as proportion of white income since 1995, the latest data indicate that there has been a reversal of that trend.

Compared to the full-employment job market of the latter 1990s, the weaker post-2000 labor market has reversed significant progress in racial income gaps.

In 1995, the median income of African-American families was 61.0% of that of white families (in 2004 dollars: $31,966 versus $52,492). By 2000, when the unemployment rate fell to 4.0%, the ratio was 63.5% (still a very large income gap: $36,939 versus $58,167 in 2004 dollars), the highest level on record, going back to 1947.