"If you wonder why the media badgers candidates at times, this is it: Leave them an inch of wiggle room and they’ll take a mile of what-I-really-meant."

Actually, this is why people don't believe the media. Emmer did not say what the lead claims he said. And it does not logically follow from what he did say, as is evident from his current position that he wouldn't reduce their current wages.

Should anyone believe Emmer? No. The guy is obviously plays fast and loose with the truth. But they shouldn't believe the media either, because a clear, simple conclusion always makes a better story than an ambiguous or nuanced one.

That Emmer wants to cut servers wages is certainly a better story than a discussion of the nuances of the tip credit.

Of course, now Emmer is trying to figure out how to get money for his cronies in the restaurant business without taking it from servers. His solution? Let those $100,000 per year servers pay the same taxes as someone earning minimum wage. Now there is a win-win except for the rest of us who have to make up the revenue with higher taxes, or the kids whose education gets cut to make up the difference.

We have come to expect politicians to occasionally be dishonest. But Emmer is not only dishonest, but apparently not very bright.

Interesting post.

Aside from the minimum wage issue, and just to revisit the initial guts of the Emmers flap: it struck me at the time that his passing on the anecdote (which process got left out of much of the later coverage) of "three waiters who make $100,000 a year in tips," that such stuff actually was plausible, as eyebrow-raising as they numbers are.
So I finally did some math.
If a waiter at one of the nicer St. Paul establishments had, say, 35 customers each eight-hour shift, each spending $60, tipping 20 percent, or $12, that adds up to $420 per day in tips, times 250 days equals $105,000;
or , say, 35 customers per shift, each spending $50, tipping 25 percent, adds up to $437.50 in tips per shift; or $2,187.50 in tips per five-day week; or $109,375 per year (50 weeks of such five-day shifts and tip averages.).
That would be 4.35 customers per hour, each shift.
Or 24 customers per shift, each spending $75, tipping 25 percent, adds up to $450 in tips per shift; and $112,500 per year of 50 five-day weeks of such shifts.
I'm not expert in the field; are these figures far off the reality of such restaurants?
On top of this, the 40 hours per week at $5.25 an hour would gross $210 per week, or just over $10,000 a year.

These numbers make it seem plausible to me that a waiter at a top end establishment in St. Paul could do this.
I'm guessing that many who make that much per shift probably work three or four nights a week, rather than five, just because it's hard work and they can make a good living on three or four nights a week.
I've talked to bartenders who work in nicer establishments and they have told me they work three nights a week and make "a good living,";; I don't know what they mean exactly, but I'm thinking it's got to be north of $40,000 or they would work more.
It seems to me that much of the kerfuffle since the first Emmer/waiter story has been more spin than not....

I think one explanation for some of the reaction to Emmer's initial story was that no restaurant/bar owner wants to go public, telling how much his wait staff makes in tips, because I think it's a well-known secret that it's easy to shield much tip income from income taxes by under-reporting; unless income tax collectors have good reason to think that there is big underreporting going on in any certain establishment. Ergo, once Emmer went public with the anecdote (he named the restaurant, right?) the restaurant owner backed off, not wanting to make trouble for himself or his staff, over the $100,000 stuff.
And waiters themselves probably don't want it bandied about that they are making that much in tips.
Let's remember Emmer said the owner said that those numbers only applied to three of his employees; I'm sure in any such place there are primo employees who get primo shifts.
And of course, one possible fault in Emmer's initial point was applying the numbers of the few and elite waiters making the most, to any policy covering all waiters.
But, aside from all the confusing and weasely stuff Emmer may have done since, it seems to me the initial story was plausible.

Or is my math and/or figgerin' wrong?

I have a much simpler rule of thumb:

If you're a small biz owner, you don't provide your employess with any benefits and you can't afford to pay them minimum wage? Then go out of business. You really don't contribute anything meaningful to the economy or the job market.

I'm sure there are others out there that run run a similar business that CAN pay minimum wage. They deserve to stay in business while you become roadkill. It's called survival of the fittest. Those who can't run a small biz get crushed in the "free market".

In response to Tim Johnson's analysis regarding the possibility of servers make 100K or more a year.

First - it is possible but not probable. State wage data shows that the 90th percentile of waiters and waitresses earn an average of $17.64/hour, or $37k/year for full time work. There are about 4500 servers in the 90th percentile.

Those three servers at the Eagle Street Grille must work their tails off - look up the menu, its not an expensive, fine dining resturant. Two people with steaks and drinks could hit the $75+ ticket, but I suspect their average ticket is not $75 (could be wrong though).

Lying...denying...obfuscating...slippery positions...Emmer has just joined the Bachmann/Palin/Angle/Rand Paul/et al Club. When are we going to tire of this nonesense and baloney? And, why would we permit any of the above to be put in a position of power, responsibility, and the honor of holding office?

Mitch asked: "Think we couldn't use a couple thousand of those jobs these days?"

Before you answer, take a moment to enlighten yourselves. Here is a startling graphic of what "Hope&Change" looks like to someone out of work today:

http://tinyurl.com/yjvndyk

"Or is my math and/or figgerin' wrong?"

I think your figgerin' is basically wrong. First, most restaurants don't generate that many customers during their dinner hours 250 days per year. Second, at most upper end restaurants the server doesn't get to keep all their tips. They get shared with busboys, cooks etc.

"Minimum wage laws force businesses to pay more for unskilled/entry level labor than it's worth "

BS. The minimum wage rewards employers who make low skilled workers more productive. If you can't afford to pay minimum wage, then your business model is broken. Its not the workers who are unproductive, its you.

Hal - I find it a tough call.

I think if you talk to most folks - including Republicans - they would say the plain meaning of "tip credit" is "wage cut." It's true the freeze is possible, but it's the opposite of Occam's Razor, and it's curious Emmer never specified the least-obvious alternative. Also, as noted in my post, if you're proposing a freeze but not a minimum wage hike, you don't really have a tip credit at all. Highly fishy.

As a journalist, you don't want to be a dupe. I know plenty of folks inside and outside the media think Emmer clearly meant "cut," only later discovering "freeze" was not foreclosed and his campaign latched onto that.

If it were me, I would not have worded the lede the way Jackie Crosby did - and if I was her editor, I would've insisted on a quote if I was going to write "said," even if I was using "said" to introduce a paraphrase.

But in the end, I don't think Emmer really got an unfair shake. His own policy advisor admits he didn't have a policy, so the freeze looks even more like butt-covering. The Strib should've been more careful, but it wasn't a falsehood on the order of Emmer telling us he asked and answered a question he neither got, nor answered.

By the way, I noticed (after I wrote today's piece) that the Strib still refers to Emmer's original plan as a cut, so they aren't backing up.

Tim Johnson: "because I think it's a well-known secret that it's easy to shield much tip income from income taxes by under-reporting; "

Actually, not true at all.

First, with the vast majority of customers paying by credit or debit card, the paper trail for the actual amount of tips received is right there to be audited.

Second, in a "tipped" job category, the IRS automatically assumes an 8% tip rate based on sales. The employer is required to report total sales, so if you significantly under report your tips, you're setting yourself up for an audit.

John, I'd also make that argument if it was the EMPLOYEE crying about their wages. But you seem to ignore the fact that it was the EMPLOYER crying about having to pay a below-poverty-level wage. But thanks for the effort, albeit wasted.

"His own policy advisor admits he didn't have a policy, so the freeze looks even more like butt-covering. "

David -

But, in fact, the STRIB and others reported that he DID have a policy. Whether that was fair to Emmer's intent or not, it was unfair to their readers.

But the larger problem is simply failing to discuss the real issues around tips. I oppose a tip credit. But it is apparent that tips cost the restaurant money.

Most businesses pay VISA charges based on the amount charged, so when you put a tip on your credit card the server gets the full amount and the restaurant pays a percentage for the cost of collecting it.

The second issue is that restaurants have to pay the employer portion of payroll taxes on tips. So a $20 tip may cost them a couple bucks more than if no tip was left.

It appears the mainstream media is just one more participant in this meaningless scrum trying to spin things to make themselves look better.

Re: David Galitz: thanks for the response: aren't you, in effect, saying the IRS assumes a tip rate of less than half of what typical waiters receive? Ergo, it would be easy to under-report one's tips: turn in 8 percent instead of the 15 to 20 percent actually received, no?
Good point about the use of plastic to pay; but could anyone really track back sales/tips off receipts to individual waiters's actual vs. reported tip income ,and make a case of what was reported, what was not? Is that practically possible, even for the IRS?
I think this point should be established by someone, with real data. Are there some experienced servers out there who could tell us what the real deal is? Please weigh in.
And remember, I'm talking cases here; the high end; I have no trouble believing the $17.50/hour average or median for waiters. But I think it also could be true that some waiters are making $80,000 to $100,000 a year in tips, in the Twin Cities. Not many, no doubt. But if some are, it's pretty interesting, no? Because it would tend to include facts such as: few waiters get health benefits through their job, right? And, few pay income taxes on all their tips, right?
Maybe I'm off on this.
Depending on the area and the sort of restaurants - lots of old people still tend to tip a buck whatever the bill is - isn't 22 percent and more about the norm at high end restaurants?
I suppose if that were the case, the IRS sort of would know it and would tend to check out the high end restaurants more closely??

Tim, Elsa addressed most of your questions.

And if there ARE a handful of wait staffers making $100,000/yr, so what? While it might be an interesting factoid, they're such extreme outliers that it's certainly not anything on which to base a minimum wage policy.

David G: So What?
So let's DANCE!.
I agree, it's nothing to base policy on; but simply dang interesting. And germane to whether the original anecdote to this whole shebang was accurate.
That's something.
You can make a good living waiting. As it should be.
Elsa: thanks for the info. I can't disagree at all, and I think your point doesn't disagree, necessarily, with mine.
I did check with some people with waiting experience and they said it's the common practice to not report half of tip income or so....; but that regular tip income of more than $150 a night would be highly unusual.
I got interested because reaction to the first story about Emmer's comments seemed to be cant aimed at portraying him as uncaring of waiters and such; which didn't seem evident to me or the point of his first comments.
He obviously has weirdly handled the whole issue since then.
Anyway, would someone hang at the St. Paul Hotel every night for a few weeks and get this nailed down, please.
It would be fun to know what the people tending bar and waiting on tables make there in tips, week in , week out.
I know I've tossed Georges around the bar there like they grew on chopped down cherry trees.

Emmer is a crybaby. He got caught talking out of his hiney, and now it's someone else's fault. He clearly said that there were servers making more than 100 grand a year with tips, and that it was wrong for them to make more than the owners.

My question is, even if it were true that he was told that, (and no one has copped to saying it) why is that wrong?

The owner would have known the rules of the game before opening a restaurant. If an employee is so good at serving that they can make that kind of money, than tough bananas to the owner if they are not good enough at owning to do the same. Why should the government step in to make sure the owner wins? If the owner doesn't like it, fire the server or close the place.

Of course, if a server is that good, they may just go down the street and make some other owner that much more sucessful. And here is where we see that Emmer doesn't get how businesses work. A superstar server brings customers back. There's no way that kind of a server wouldn't be a godsend to the owner and everyone who splits their tips.

Of course, in the real world where actual governing has to take place, such a situation is so rare (if it even happens)as to have no real bearing on policy. The vast majority of servers are barely getting by. Emmer gave them a kick in the teeth just to serve up red meat to his selfish, small-souled fans.

And like I said, he screwed up, so it's someone else's fault and bad motives. He's not man enough to apologize.