D.C. Council pauses Initiative 82 tipped wage increase
Arguing that restaurants are facing tough times, the D.C. Council paused the next phase of Initiative 82, weeks ahead of a scheduled rise in the tipped minimum wage.
Why it matters: Lawmakers voted 8-4 Tuesday to freeze the wage increase while it considers a full repeal of the law — as sought by Mayor Muriel Bowser and the restaurant industry.
State of play: The tipped minimum wage will stay at $10 per hour and not rise to $12 on July 1, as was mandated in the ballot initiative.
Council members supporting the pause argued that it does not change the fact that servers, bartenders and other tipped workers are still entitled to the District's full minimum wage. If a worker doesn't receive enough in tips, the business has to pitch in the difference.
The city's hourly minimum wage for all workers is scheduled to increase from $17.50 to $17.95 on July 1.
Between the lines: Initiative 82 has been controversial at City Hall and in the hospitality world. And with restaurants imposing service fees to help cover costs, it's sparked confusion among diners.
But there's been plenty of support at the ballot box: 74% of District voters approved it less than three years ago. A predecessor initiative passed in 2018, but the D.C. Council stopped it from taking effect.
This time, council members said they are intervening because of inflation squeezing independent restaurants, diners spending less, and uncertain tariffs.
Also on lawmakers' minds: Congress is considering removing federal taxes on tips up to $25,000 for people making $160,000 or less.
Several council members said they want to see how that proposal shakes out in the months ahead before moving forward.
What they're saying: The three-month pause"allows the council to fully consider the data and the impact on our local restaurant industry," said Council member Kenyan McDuffie, urging colleagues to vote in favor.
The other side: "Voters have now passed this twice," Council member Brianne Nadeau said. "A pause is not respecting the will of the voters."
Zoom out: Bowser is pushing for a complete repeal through her budget proposal, but there may not be enough support on the council.
Council members Christina Henderson and Charles Allen voted for the pause, but said they don't support overturning I-82.
Catch up fast: Initiative 82 incrementally increases the base pay for tipped workers until it matches the citywide minimum wage by 2027.
Labor advocates say I-82 has led to higher wages and fairer practices. Many businesses argue it's been hugely detrimental.
Some hospitality workers say they used to make more money off tips before I-82, and that now customers may be less likely to tip generously because of service fees.
Washington's restaurant association wants a repeal to set back the tipped minimum wage to around $5.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
How The Big Beautiful Bill Will Handicap Clean Energy
The Capitol Building, home of the United State Congress. Green Technologies At Risk In Current Mega Bill As it was written, the Big, Beautiful Bill (Mega Bill) passed by The House of Representatives in May would handicap certain green projects (solar, wind, and batteries) that are in line to receive tax credits made available by the Biden government. The handicap is hard to understand because in the U.S. over 90% of new energy projects in 2023 and 2024 was generated by solar, wind, and batteries. What is the handicap? The Mega Bill mandates that such projects must begin within two months of passage of the bill, and would have to be completed, and in service, by the last day of 2028, or the tax credits would be canceled. To see what impact this would have on green projects, one analysis looked at clean electrical projects that are currently in the interconnection queue, and due to go online during 2028 or later (it wouldn't be uncommon for projects slated to complete in 2028 to spill over to 2029, which would cancel the tax credits.) The total for all these at-risk projects in Figure 1 amounts to 600 GW (gigawatts). The largest three projects are CAISO of California at 183 GW, ERCOT of Texas at 128 GW, and MISO (Midwest and South) at 111 GW. Figure 1. The truth is, current electrical production in U.S. is 1200 GW, and this will need to grow rapidly to power new AI data centers. So, if all these seven green projects lost their tax credits and dropped out of the interconnection queue, it would represent a huge loss that is 50% of current electrical production in the U.S. This loss would be like tossing away 600 traditional power plants that added up to 50% of current U.S. electricity supply. Granted, a number of projects in Figure 1 would drop out of the queue anyway, due to other factors such as financial commitments that fall through. But still, a loss of remaining projects that would stand to boost current U.S. power by 30% or 40% or 50% would be an unforgiveable loss—especially since solar, wind and battery projects have all the market momentum in the past few years. Speaking of momentum, in 2023 and 2024 in the U.S., the vast majority (93%--94%) of new energy sources were solar, wind, and batteries. The only commercially proven competitor is gas-fired power plants, which are facing serious delays, and they cost more. What if projects that lost their tax credits were to go ahead to completion? They might, but it's obvious this would translate to higher cost of electricity for consumers. Mega Bill Changes Suggested By Senate. The House Mega Bill has gone to the Senate, and on Monday June 16 they have proposed some changes. UtilityDive reports that the harsh 'start by – complete by' House requirement to access the tax credits has been removed. In one box, nuclear, geothermal and hydropower can claim the tax credits so long as they start construction by 2033. But in another box, wind and solar can obtain only 60% of the tax credits and only if they break ground by 2026. Or 20% if by 2027. Or zero if after that. This is a serious handicap for the frontrunners, solar and wind, that have provided over 93% of new electrical capacity in 2023 and 2024. And it comes at a crucial time, because the U.S. needs to quickly boost its power capability by a massive amount to supply AI data centers. One positive: battery storage or BESS (battery energy storage systems) can access tax credits until 2036, although the credits will be tapered down, according to Canary Media. Also, some solar and wind projects would be able to keep the tax credits beyond the end of 2028—provided they exist on federal land, generate 1 GW or more power, and have obtained right-of-way approval from the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). The next steps are: the Senate as a whole has to pass these changes, and then attempt to reconcile with the House. The timeline is short as the goal is to get the final version of the Mega Bill to President Trump's desk by July 4. Coming out of all the discussion and debate, it seems the Mega Bill wants to handicap wind and solar and batteries. But why? Reasons Why The Mega Bill Would Handicap Wind And Solar Energy. First, the Bill will cause electricity prices to rise. If cheap wind, solar and batteries are handicapped in preference to expensive almost-defunct coal power plants, commercially unproven SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors), and next-gen geothermal methods, then prices of electricity will rise. Table 1 lays this out, using the most recent LCOE data from Lazard. Table 1. Most recent LCOE estimates for various electrical sources. With tax credits and based on a utility scale, solar PV + BESS and wind + BESS are cheaper than geothermal with tax credits, and much cheaper than gas-fired power, nuclear, and coal. If the Mega Bill handicaps wind and solar in the race, electrical costs will zoom upwards. Second, the Bill seems to be unaware of green energy success in Australia. In the state of South Australia renewables plus batteries have been providing 72% of grid electricity continuously for three years, and this is expected to rise to 100% by 2027. Solar, wind, and batteries have proven the stability and reliability of renewables commercially. The first grid-scale BESS was started in 2017 by Elon Musk in South Australia, and BESS are expanding rapidly in the U.S. as well as in Australia. Intermittent power is no longer a reason to dismiss renewables, despite what the Energy Secretary says, because BESS have solved this problem and electricity from solar and wind renewables with BESS is dispatchable. Third, the Bill assumes new investments in old energy (coal, natural gas, and nuclear) will be embraced by the U.S. population. However, global spending on low-carbon power has doubled in the past five years. Solar PV is the leader in this space, with investments that will reach $450 billion in 2025. Coal is too dirty when it burns, and in the U.S. the market share has dropped from 50% in 2011 to 11% in 2024. Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, but the market for new gas-fired power plants has dropped out in the past two years, due to cost and delays in permitting and supply chains. The cost of new nuclear reactors, whether traditional reactors or SMRs, is substantially higher than renewable energies (Table 1). There is also the ubiquitous threat of being exposed to nuclear radiation, either from nuclear accidents or from underground storage of nuclear waste. It has been reported that U.S. nuclear reactors that were decommissioned some time ago can be recommissioned, but at a heavy cost of around $1 billion per unit. Fourth, the Bill enables China to forge ahead with a green energy economy, while the U.S. goes backward. Energy from solar, wind, and batteries is cheap, and has a short new-build time. It will continue to provide jobs and grow the economy, and benefits include lower electricity prices and less pollution. A key advantage is already-commercialized power for data centers that will enable the U.S. to compete with China in the race for AI. The handicap and setbacks of a thriving clean industry in the U.S. would be China's gain. Fifth, the Bill will force job losses by handicapping green industries. If projects in the above list of seven in Figure 1 were to be canceled due to the Mega Bill handicaps, there could be serious job losses. To illustrate by results in 2024, one report quotes $80 billion invested in clean power in 2024, which supported 1.4 million jobs in the U.S. Another answer is that current tax credits would enable strong economic growth by 2035: almost $2 trillion of monetary growth and almost 14 million jobs. This amounts to a return on the federal investment by four-times. The green energy benefits and financial returns of wind and solar with battery storage apply to both Republican and Democratic states in the U.S.. But so do the losses, if Congress decides to handicap wind and solar renewables. The biggest losses may be soaring electricity costs in the U.S., and the U.S. bending to China's clean energy boom of surging solar and BESS projects that will reliably service their AI data center programs.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Trump Criticizes Windmills In Latest Attack Against Wind Energy
President Donald Trump blasted green tax breaks and windmills in a rant about his signature budget package moving through Congress, tacking onto his longstanding criticism of the turbines even as they have become an increasingly cost-effective form of energy. US President Donald Trump waves as he boards Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport in ... More Morristown, New Jersey, on June 21, 2025 as he returns to the White House from his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images Trump said in a Truth Social post he 'HATED' green tax credits in the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' saying the cuts are largely a 'giant SCAM.' The bill, a massive measure currently in the Senate that will extend tax cuts passed by Trump during his first term, will remove or limit tax credits for electric vehicles and home energy efficiency if passed, as well as create gradual, year-by-year cuts to wind and solar farm tax credits. Trump said windmills 'are the most expensive and inefficient energy in the world' and are 'destroying the beauty of the environment.' The president also claimed, without evidence, windmills are '10 times more costly than any other energy,' taking issue with government subsidies linked to turbines. Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts : We're launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day's headlines. Text 'Alerts' to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here . What Has Trump Said About Windmills ? Shortly after taking office, the president said the government would not subsidize new windmill farms and added he doesn't 'want even one built' during his second term. Trump called wind turbines the 'most expensive energy' that only works 'with massive government subsidies, which we will no longer pay.' Trump could potentially impact windmill production on federal lands, but not on privately owned plots. Trump has also falsely claimed windmills kill whales, though there is no evidence supporting the claim about the mammals and offshore turbines. Not likely. The Department of Energy has said 'wind and solar projects are now more economically competitive than gas, geothermal, coal, or nuclear facilities,' though windmills in locations lacking wind could be an exception. Onshore wind turbines saw global costs of energy production fall by 68% in 2021, according to a report from the International Renewable Energy Agency, which noted onshore capacity increased four-fold from 2010 to 2021. The agency also reported onshore wind project costs fell by 13% while offshore wind projects fell by 9% in 2020. Key Background Trump once lost a legal battle in which he sought to block the construction of an offshore wind farm in view of a golf course project of his in Scotland. The president lost in court and was required to pay over $290,000 in legal fees to the Scottish government. His scrutiny of windmills is a change from his first term, when former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said he was 'very bullish on offshore wind,' adding the harnessing of the energy source was 'a big part of the Trump Administration's made in America energy strategy.' Trump's Tax Cuts Would Raise Deficit By $2.8 Trillion, New Estimate Suggests (Forbes) Trump Calls Windmills 'An Economic And Environmental Disaster' In Latest Rant Against Turbines (Forbes)
2 hours ago
GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON -- In another blow to the Republicans' tax and spending cut bill, the Senate parliamentarian has advised that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states — a centerpiece of GOP savings efforts — would violate the chamber's rules. While the parliamentarian's rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. The Republican leadership was scrambling on Saturday, days before voting is expected to begin on President Donald Trump's package that he wants to be passed into law by the Fourth of July. The loss is expected to be costly to Republicans. They have been counting on some tens of billions of potential savings from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to help offset the costs of the $4.5 trillion tax breaks plan. The parliamentarian let stand for now a provision that would impose new work requirements for older Americans, up to age 65, to receive food stamp aid. 'We will keep fighting to protect families in need,' said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. 'The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts,' she said. The committee chairman, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said in a statement that his team is examining options that would comply with Senate rules to achieve savings and "to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.' The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodgepodge of priorities, is drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's red ink over the decade and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage. Additionally, it would reduce or eliminate food stamps for more than 3 million people. The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO had estimated about $128 billion in savings under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not yet been made publicly available. The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Still to come are some of the most important rulings from the parliamentarian. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on 'current policy' rather than 'current law' as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would rollback Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services.
