More and more the left side reveals its mission to undercut the principles within the Republican Party
Needless to say, if I were to write a response that is in any way appropriate to this nonsense, it would almost assuredly result in a lawsuit.
A guy who has (as far as I know) never held a REAL private sector job, never owned a business, seems to travel the world on pixie dust, and is a persistent cancer within the Republican party has now hit the pancreas. When Dennis Lennox says:
Instead of falling into the left’s trap, Republicans should go on the offensive with a bold manifesto focused on creating opportunities that not only raises the minimum wage — an increase to $12 would impact 40 percent of working Americans — but reforms welfare and reduces taxes on main street innovators, entrepreneurs and job creators.
It has to be a trap itself.
It has to be a “let’s see if the real conservatives in Michigan will stand up and call me what I am; an imbecile of the first order” kind of trap. Such that If one were to fall for it, would certainly have one making bold statements of appropriate resolve. One that invites such slanderous invective, that if used, could be a fax copy away to a judge for summary ‘stare decisis.’
Fortunately, its a lot simpler and less costly to declare the idea a bone headed socialist reach around of the most despicable type. Its the kind of idea that gives lead paint eating compulsiveness a good name. The kind that confuses the weaker minds in a righteous movement, and emboldens the diseased minds in that which is not. Indeed, the ‘manifesto’ he promotes might better be copied directly from here:
“The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes.”
So certainly, we MUST reduce those collisions in order to build the party comrades!
From the Bourgeois to the Proletariat and very, very soon! For the Party exists only to grow itself didn’t you know? Isn’t that what he says? His screed continues:
“Yet increasingly it seems to be the right who has lost touch with reality by failing to understand that the sole purpose of a political party is to win elections.”
The ‘right’ as he describes those who are [quite obviously] not himself, understand that winning means nothing with no prize.
If the objectives of having the party is to grow the party, then what is the objective of growing the party? If the party were all of a sudden large and as diverse as Mr. Lennox would desire, would it then have a mission to carry out? Or would the leadership of such an organization simply bleat triumphant, and describe their mighty feat?
Certainly it wouldn’t be to control and limit government. That mission would be abandoned if as Lennox suggests, the hammer of government could be used to crush those business owners who don’t have jobs available that could pay for themselves at $12 and hour. As an employer, a raise of the minimum wage beyond what I am willing to pay, means the employees are gone.
Even if the efforts would be made to control and limit as he suggests by reforms on welfare and reducing taxes on “main street innovators, entrepreneurs and job creators,” he forgets that regulatory chains ARE taxes. They cost resources to implement, and have no practical end game, but to equalize and control.
And welfare reform is lost already. The wholly Republican legislature allowed the implementation of the largest welfare and social manipulation program that never would have seen the light of day under the last administration with only a Republican controlled senate.
And Main street innovators? Entrepreneurs?
Who might those folks be? Certainly not Lennox. The only thing he is selling is re-branded redistributive doctrine, sugar coated in political correctness, with a painted elephants tail on it, and a need to feel like he is relevant any longer.
If Republicans even hint at agreeing to an increase in Minimum wage, its all over for the Grand Old Party that already strides the precipice.
And maybe that is what the little donkeys want.
so r u against the minimum wage at any level then?
I am. At Any level.
In fact, I wrote an article that was well received by none other than economist Walter E Williams. http://michigantaxes.com/wordpress/2009/08/one-dollar-an-hour/
Then of course there is also this one: http://michigantaxes.com/wordpress/2009/11/minimum-wage-even-a-200-level-econ-class-can-show-silly/
it pains me to agree with lenny who has called me a tinfoil crackpot (haha) but he's probably right. 12 bucks is too high but it should be raised. Plus I've read it would do.away with need for amnesty. http://www.vdare.com/posts/ron-unzs-latest-a-minimum-wage-hike-as-amnesty-killer
I see where the numbers seem to be an echo. Its still a crappy idea. The shock to the economic system, when half of that 40% becomes laid off immediately, and the resultant catastrophe comes home to roost would be bad.
Anyone who advocates this forgets the additional money the workers would presumably earn must first come from the business owner.
Let me recap my statement in this article:
I would have to lay off every last one of my employees, and run the business minimally out of my home as I did when I started. They wouldn't get an additional $5000 a year, they would be then searching for jobs that would be decreasing rapidly, and the competition for jobs that would actually PAY $12 an hour or more would drive THOSE wages down.
Anyone who knows how to run a business knows that the single biggest expense associated with doing so is that of labor. Artificially-inflated wages balloons the cost of labor, and that cost must be passed on to either the customer or the shareholder (or even to the employee, in the form of reduced hours). In other words, jacking up the minimum wage just makes everything more expensive, which ultimately makes it tougher to keep the working class household budget intact.
FDR signed the Fair Labor Standards Act into law on June 25, 1938, which included a national minimum wage (originally set at 25¢ per hour), defined the standard work-week as five 8-hour days, and capped overtime at 4 hours per week. The intention behind the minimum wage was that an employee who’s either just getting into the job market or is learning a new trade should be protected against “employer exploitation” while they’re learning the ropes and mastering the requisite skill set. The concept makes sense, and if it’d stayed that way, I’d wager that the minimum wage wouldn’t be half the political football that it is now.
Unfortunately, the labor unions got hold of the post-war minimum wage by indexing their labor contract pay scales to a multiple of the minimum wage, giving the union lobby (and their Democrat Party proxies) the incentive to increase the minimum wage as often and as high as popular sentiment would allow. If the original minimum wage were adjusted for inflation, then today the rate would be $4.13 hourly, ± 4¢ depending on who’s doing the math, yet the current national minimum is $3.12 an hour higher than that, artificially inflated to nearly double what it should be. Thinking as a businessman (or perhaps as a classical economist), how many more jobs would become available if the minimum wage were restored to its original purpose, and the rate were deflated to its inflation-adjusted original level?
The current popular argument in favor of raising the minimum wage (to perhaps a “living wage”) is based on the logic that one cannot support a family on $7.25 an hour (or $7.40 hourly in the case of Michigan). Here’s the flaw in that logic: The minimum wage was never intended to be a long-term paycheck. In fact, if you’re still working at minimum wage a year after you’ve started the job, then the problem isn’t your employer; the problem is you. What you should be doing with your first 6-to-12 months on the job is establishing your professional credibility to the point that, at your first annual performance review, your employer is all too happy to give you a reasonable raise, lest he risk losing you to the industry competitor who’s attempting to poach you off of his payroll.
Shoot.. no like button for comments.. Going to have to fix that.
When a government controls a business, the loss of independence is an absolute loss of freedom, which immediately takes the "free" out of the free market, and the fruits of competition and innovation from the bounty of humanity.
Cap Con piece hitting nail on head.
Public Sector Unions will champion Lennox on that (See point #11).
Honestly, if Dennis had a brain, he'd take it out and play with it.