The minimum wage: red, blue, and shades of gray
The minimum wage increased in 19 states on January 1st. Per data from the Economic Policy Institute, those increases mean that, for the first time, more minimum wage workers will earn $15 or more an hour than will earn $7.25, the federal minimum wage that, even if worked full time with no time off, would leave a person in poverty.
In total, 30 states — with roughly 63% of the American population — now have a minimum wage higher than federal law. Thirteen of those have wages that still lag what is necessary to raise a family — in Michigan, for example, the $13.73 wage would leave a single-earner, married couple with two children in poverty, even if they worked full time. They do, however, place workers in a far better position than the twenty states in which federal law is the wage floor.
From my research, this appears to be the highest number of states ever to have a minimum wage higher than federal law — a fitting development given we are currently on the longest stretch without a federal minimum wage increase since it was first established in 1938.
This is also a prime example of just how different life in red and blue states is becoming: 19 of the 20 states with a $7.25 minimum wage voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election, while 14 of the 17 that have set it at $15 or higher voted for Kamala Harris (and in the remaining three states, the hike was passed by voter referendum, not the legislature).
Beshear and Newsom’s soft launches
We’re in the State of the State season, the period of the year when (most) governors give their annual addresses. These speeches can often be really useful for seeing issues bubbling up in individual states: in 2014, then-Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin devoted his entire address to the opioid crisis, which was then not yet on most national reporters’ radars.
The first three SOTS came this week, two of them from likely 2028 contenders Andy Beshear and Gavin Newsom. Both men tended to state issues for the requisite amount of time, but their speeches were about as close to proto-2028 stump speeches as they could be.
For Beshear, that meant returning to the themes that would guide his campaign: decrying the tone of D.C. (“national politics has been poisoned by division”) and pledging to provide “hope beyond the chaos.” He also gestured at some technocratic post-partisan themes (“not right, not left, but forward”). In case there was any ambiguity, he even winked at his likely campaign, telling the audience that this was “my seventh state of the commonwealth, and my last budget address…in this job.”
Newsom also test drove his own likely themes, namely California boosterism (“In California … we’re a beacon”), running straight at conservative talking points (decrying “California derangement syndrome,” he bragged of the state’s progress on housing and crime) and positioning himself as the leader of the Trump opposition (“We’ve provided a policy blueprint for others to follow,” “Contrast these efforts to Donald Trump’s”).
There were also some genuinely interesting nods to conservative-curious themes on gender and food policy (“It’s a budget that … advances the most expansive and audacious efforts to eliminate ultra-processed foods from our cafeterias,” “Men are struggling, boys are struggling”).
N.B. The third person to deliver a SOTS address this week was Phil Scott, Vermont’s maverick Republican governor since 2017. In a time when the label “moderate” is being severely stretched (especially for Republicans), he’s the rare actual liberal Republican, close to a mainstream Democrat (he also voted for both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the only incumbent Republican governor or member of Congress to do so publicly).
That record has made him the most popular governor in the country and virtually unbeatable. Until and unless he retires (Vermont elects governors every two years), Democrats are likely locked out of the state’s governorship. The speech gave no indication he’s on his way out.
Venezuela reactions
Traditionally, most governors have steered clear of major foreign policy controversies. As is the case with so many political rules, that’s no longer true. What’s been interesting to watch is the nuanced, complicated response Democrats have had to the Trump-ordered military operation in Venezuela. Here’s a rundown of some major governors’ responses.
Newsom released a nuanced statement condemning Maduro and nodding to human rights concerns: “Maduro is a thug and a criminal. But Donald Trump proposing to ‘run’ Venezuela without a coherent long-term plan beyond an oil grab is dangerous for America. The path forward must be democracy, human rights, and stability.”
IL Gov. JB Pritzker straightforwardly condemned the operation: “Trump’s unconstitutional military action in Venezuela is putting our troops in harm's way with no long-term strategy. The American people deserve a President focused on making their lives more affordable.”
In a local news interview, PA Gov. Josh Shapiro also condemned Maduro as a “bad guy” but went with a protectionist and populist message: “It sounds like a massive nation-building project with basically no plan for what comes next, other than him stealing Venezuela's oil to enrich his friends.”; "So the idea that we're going to get tangled in foreign wars instead of fixing the problems here at home, that's my biggest beef with this.”
CO Gov. Jared Polis was one of the most supportive Democrats in the country, calling Maduro a “brutal socialist dictator” and a “thug,” and saying his ouster was “a moment to celebrate.”
NY Gov. Kathy Hochul, the Democratic governor with the largest Venezuelan and Venezuelan American community, condemned Maduro as a “horrible dictator [who’s] ruled with an iron fist” but took issue with Trump’s “wag the dog strategy” and the “pretty extreme and pretty shocking” “way he did it.”
ME Gov. Janet Mills, running for Senate, condemned Maduro, the operation, and Sen. Susan Collins: “We need a senator with backbone to stand up to this administration and demand answers. Nobody is saying President Maduro is a good guy. He’s a murderous dictator. There’s a lot of murderous dictators around this world. So what are the grounds? … What’s next? Is it Cuba? Is it Greenland? Colombia?”
Keep an eye on NY
Hochul and new NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani unveiled their plan for universal childcare in New York City this week. The plan they released would bring free care to 100,000 children in the city, making it the first city in the country to do so. This isn’t really surprising: Hochul has long indicated it’s a point of commonality, and, as an idea popular with Democrats across the ideological spectrum, it’s the lowest-hanging fruit for their partnership. The devil will certainly be in the details on how they achieve it: getting the money through the legislature will be easy compared to the logistics of actual implementation. Not to mention the extra scrutiny of government funding for childcare centers that will be here for the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, Hochul’s got a little heat on her left flank: two democratic socialist members of the state legislature endorsed her own Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado, who is primarying his boss from the left.
That’s all for this week. Enjoy your weekend, folks.
Got feedback on today’s newsletter? Email me [email protected]