Because their borrowing and spending caused the problem to begin with?
I sense a fallacy of single cause.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes
I tend to subscribe to the Keynesian view, which is that government borrowing and spending is one possible cause of inflation, but probably not the largest and most important.
Fallacy of the single cause comes up when there are several valid causes for something and, one is held above all the others as being the only cause. This one liner doesn't get far enough to reach being even one of several valid causes, to have it held above the the others as the primary cause.
The problem in this argument begins with the word "their," where it was stated, "Because 'their' borrowing and spending,..." I assumed "their" meant Democrats because I was talking about Democrats:
Democrats do not spend money alone, both houses act and then the president signs. There is no well defined accounting for what Democrats have added, or what Republicans have added, to the total.
And then the problem in this argument is compounded by the assertion that "borrowing and spending" caused the problem of the minimum wage having not been raised for five years, as Ralph said, "being stuck at $7.25 since 2007."
Remember that the OP defines the problem to be, failing to raising the minimum wage for five years. Inflation was mentioned in the OP, but failure to raise the minimum wage is the problem the OP brought to this discussion.
There is no reason which I can see for me to assume for DaDoktuh that inflation was the cause for a failure of Congress and the President to act on this given issue. If DaDoktuh want's to change the subject under discussion to address inflation it needs to say inflation is the new topic.
So Seeker this is an occasion where a statement was so ill-defined that it can be seen as udder nonsense. If one can somehow see past the nonsense by filling in the weaknesses of that statement, and apply inflation as the cause of what may have been meant.
Then as a fallacy a proposition which requires proof, is assumed without proof. It's begging the question.
But I'm not going to fix DaDoktuh's nonsensical verbiage babble to get it to the point where it can run aground on a fallacy. I'll allow it to sink on it's own to the bottom of the deep blue sea.