States can serve as our “laboratories”

Published 7:33 pm Thursday, November 6, 2014

In the aftermath of the Nov. 4 elections, many are floating theories to explain how Republicans won. A common refrain is that some flipped their positions to fool the voters.

Certainly, politicians are capable of such behavior. Sometimes they call that an “evolving” position. But in the case of the minimum wage, there’s no flip and no flop to be found. Republicans who oppose a federal minimum wage hike can, in good conscience, support state and local measures that do the same thing.

It’s called “federalism.” But it’s confusing to many.

“There was one silver lining for liberals: Tuesday’s elections proved, once again, that the minimum wage is a winning issue,” writes Henry Decker in the left-leaning National Memo. “Initiatives to raise the minimum wage appeared on the ballot in four reliably Republican states. In all four, they passed easily.”

He’s also confused that some Republicans support state-level measures.

“Although his future colleagues in the Senate have steadfastly opposed any efforts to raise the federal minimum wage, Republican senator-elect Dan Sullivan [of Alaska] announced in September that he would support the state initiative,” said Decker. “This was a flip-flop from his position in the Republican primaries, and probably had something to do with polls showing the measure’s overwhelming popularity in the Last Frontier. Similarly, Republican Tom Cotton’s easy victory over Democratic senator Mark Pryor didn’t stop Arkansans from boosting their minimum wage to $8.50 per hour. Like Sullivan, Cotton decided not to oppose the overwhelmingly popular measure.”

But here’s the thing. It’s not a flip-flop. It’s an embrace of the concept of federalism. Some things are appropriate for the states to do, while not appropriate for the federal government to do. The balance is what we call federalism.

So how do we know which issues are right for the states, and which are right for the federal government? That’s easy. It’s laid out in the Tenth Amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” it reads.

That’s pretty simple, isn’t it?

The U.S. Constitution doesn’t mention a minimum wage. Therefore, no powers over minimum wage are delegated to the United State federal government. So it’s a state matter.

And that’s entirely appropriate. There are good reasons for federalism. One reason is that states are the “laboratories of democracy.” Do we want to test whether a minimum wage hike will truly spur the economy? Let’s try it in a state or two. Do we want to try some alternatives, such as a minimum wage hike paired with the creation of a “training wage” for young and inexperienced workers? Let’s.

If something works in Arkansas or Alaska, other states can try it. If something fails in California or Florida, then other states can learn from someone else’s mistake.

Washington specializes in one-size-fits-all solutions. Federalism ensures that policies can be tailored to different states and regions.

That’s how the minimum wage should work. It’s simply not a federal matter.