A life buoy for the poor
If there is one thing Massachusetts politicians seem agreed on, at least publicly, it is that living here isn't easy, economically speaking.
The Democratic candidates for governor all seem to want to make an issue of the burden on the state's middle class.
On Saturday, I watched Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly give a speech in a field in Watertown, explaining that people on his street -- and streets just like it across Massachusetts -- are suffering because of policies that have harmed their economic interests.
I take Reilly at his word about the plight of the beleaguered middle class, for now. But there is another class of people who have a major stake in a vote that will take place this week in the Massachusetts House.
The state's minimum wage, currently $6.75 an hour , is likely to rise this year. The question seems to be how much it's going up. Last m onth, the Senate approved an increase to $8.25 an hour, with future increases tied to inflation.
The House will vote on a more modest boost, to $7.75 an hour. House leadership, beginning with Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, is said to be particularly lukewarm to the idea of indexing increases to the economy.
Governor Mitt Romney in the past has endorsed the notion of indexing. He has not taken a position on either of these bills, however , and he has abandoned more than one long-held belief since he set his sights on Washington.
If both proposed increases seem incremental, they are; if the issue itself seems minor, it is not. Some 90,000 workers would get a raise if the minimum went to $7.75 an hour, while 155,000 workers would see a boost if the minimum were raised to $8.25 . The difference between the two figures would mean an estimated $1,000 a year for low-wage workers.
Massachusetts is already significantly above the national minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. So are lots of other states, because making ends meet at that salary has become impossible in most of the country. This state's minimum wage was last raised in 1999, though that increase has failed to keep pace with inflation.
Not surprisingly, the business community isn't wild about the proposed increases, and especially dislikes the idea of indexing.
``The Legislature has tremendous power to grant tax breaks, which they have done for corporations and wealthy individuals," said Lew Finfer of the Massachusetts Communities Action Network , a nonprofit advocacy group that lobbies on issues affecting poorer residents.
``This is a chance to help lower-wage workers with those same powers the Legislature holds."
It is a sign of the times that economic issues such as health insurance and the minimum wage have garnered so much attention this year. In the elections of 1998 and even 2002, the fiscal health of the state and the people who live here was barely seen as worthy of debate.
True, there was anxiety about job loss even four years ago, but a certain financial whiz-turned-governor was going to reach out to corporate America and make it all better.
By now, concern for the economy and its impact on the state has grown considerably. But a question raised by the minimum-wage debate is how far that concern is going to reach. Yes, the middle class is getting squeezed, but if the middle class is hurting, people living at the edge of poverty can only be feeling that pain even more acutely.
The cliché is that minimum-wage jobs are predominantly held by high school juniors flipping burgers for spending money. This is not true. Many adults are trying, and mostly failing, to stay afloat on $6.75 an hour. Sometime this week, the House will decide whether to sign off on an incremental increase that won't upset anyone, or a boost that might significantly improve the standard of living for poor families. It shouldn't be that hard a decision. But it is never easy to know how far compassion reaches on Beacon Hill.
Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at walker@globe.com. 
