Newspaper column: Delusional candidates would rob Peter to pay Paul

Vice President Joe Biden breezed through Nevada one afternoon earlier this month, stopping long enough to pitch the idea of increasing the federal minimum wage 40 percent from $7.25 an hour to $10.10, saying this would not cost jobs and would pump $19 billion into the nation’s economy.

“All of this is disposable income, and it gets straight into the economy,” Biden said, which is utter Keynesian nonsense because it is nothing more than redistributionism, taking money from some pockets and putting it in others.

President Obama has called for raising the minimum wage. Nevada Sen. Harry Reid has repeatedly championed a higher minimum, though our junior Sen. Dean Heller has voted against it.

It is an issue in some of the four congressional races on the ballot, as recounted in this week’s newspaper column, available online at The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Bilbray and Heck take opposite stances on raising minimum wage. (R-J photo)

Asked about the minimum wage issue after his Democratic opponent came out in favor of raising it not to $10.10 but to $15, Republican Rep. Joe Heck, whose 3rd Congressional District covers the southernmost reaches of the state, replied, “The last thing our economy needs is another mandate from Washington that will cost us jobs. Raising the minimum wage will not increase jobs, expand opportunity, or be a silver bullet to reduce poverty. Instead, it will cost mainly young and low-skilled workers the chance to get a start in the working world and learn critical job skills that will help them transition to more gainful employment.”

In fact the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 could cost a half a million jobs.

But opponent Erin Bilbray told the Las Vegas newspaper, “I believe this will help the economy and make it stronger. I think when you give the middle class money it helps us all.”

In the 4th Congressional District, covering the southern half of rural Nevada and northern Clark County, Democratic incumbent Steven Horsford has supported the $10.10 minimum pay.

“I don’t support continuing to give corporations and billionaires tax subsidies and tax loop holes when we can’t give minimum wage workers — who make $14,500 — a raise,” Horsford said during a debate with Republican opponent Crescent Hardy.

For his part Hardy shrugged off the issue and replied, “To bring it to $10 an hour — it ain’t no big issue.”

In the 1st Congressional District in urban Las Vegas, incumbent Democrat Dina Titus has issued a statement saying, “I believe that everyone deserves the opportunity to earn a decent wage for a hard day’s work, whether they’re a young worker trying to earn money for college or a single mother supporting a family. In short, the minimum wage is about fairness …”

Republican opponent Dr. Annette Teijeiro replied to an inquiry by saying, “The myth of creating a ‘living wage’ by government fiat is just that, a myth. Artificial government mandates do not create prosperity and in some cases create financial ruin.

“As a small business person, I understand that if my payroll budget is tight then the only way to accommodate a mandated government wage increase is to fire enough workers to afford the increase or to increase the cost of the products and/or services I sell. So the end result of a government mandated minimum wage increase are more payroll taxes paid by the employer and the employee, and less workers to be able to pay for this new expense or higher prices to afford the payroll increase costs.”

In the northernmost part of the state, the 2nd Congressional District, Republican incumbent Mark Amodei in 2013 voted against raising the minimum wage to $10.10 and his Democratic opponent apparently has not made an issue of it.

The facts are on the side of the opponents of raising the minimum wage.

James Sherk, a senior policy analyst in labor economics at the Heritage Foundation, told Congress a year ago that every dollar increase in minimum wage really only raises take-home pay by 20 cents once welfare benefits are reduced and taxes are increased, meaning the $10.10 proposal nets only 57 cents an hour. Sherk noted a number of workers would lose their jobs and go from $7.25 to zero.

Then there are the affects on prices for everyone.

Mark Wilson, writing a policy analysis for Cato Institute, reports that a “comprehensive review of more than 20 minimum wage studies looking at price effects found that a 10 percent increase in the U.S. minimum wage raises food prices by up to 4 percent and overall prices by up to 0.4 percent.”

If raising the minimum wage by 40 percent would pump $19 billion into the nation’s economy, image how the economy would purr like a kitten if Social Security checks next year were raised 40 percent instead of a paltry 1.7 percent. We don’t hear anyone calling for that do we?

 

26 comments on “Newspaper column: Delusional candidates would rob Peter to pay Paul

  1. Rincon says:

    The Economist (3/31/12 p. 83) says that “Profit margins in America are higher than at any time in the past 65 years.”, but somehow, business just “can’t afford” to grant their lowest echelon the same minimum wage that they had in 1968. Out of the workers’ pockets into the wallets of the owners. Redistribution is clearly not done only through governmental means.

  2. nyp says:

    I see that we are having another Second Amendment Moment today at a Seattle high school.

    Two children shot.

  3. Winston Smith says:

    That’s right, rincon, thanks for expressing your standard leftist view that all evil companies are created equal and if some can “afford” a large increase in the federal minimum wage then all can, by definition.

    Perhaps if we just imbed a government informer in every company in the country, and then those agents can report back how much those companies can afford to be forced to raise their wages.

    We’ll call the new agency the Kompany Growth Bureau…

  4. Steve says:

    “I believe this will help the economy and make it stronger. I think when you give the middle class money it helps us all.”

    There it is. Lefty libby’s think the Middle Class is comprised of minimum wage earners and the rest of us are all pumped up with so much money we must have no idea what to do with it and it should be taken away from us!

    Nyp, your “second Amendment” even it a kid who was bullied and took revenge on the specific kids who did the bullying….would you prefer he have used a baseball bat? Or an axe? Maybe a chainsaw?

  5. Steve says:

    That should read:
    …”Second Amendment” event is a kid who was bullied….

  6. Rincon says:

    A guy that produces more than twice as much as his grandfather did shouldn’t be paid the same amount for his work.

  7. Rincon says:

    Interesting foot in the mouth Winston. Poorly phrased, but to stretch a point ever so slightly, she’s actually right. Demand creates jobs and corporations fulfill demand. Without demand, the corporations are useless. Demand without corporations however, will create jobs anyway because there are always plenty of entrepreneurs to satisfy it. Also interesting that no one said much about her next sentence – that trickle down economics is a complete failure. So Hillary made an awkward comment while the Republicans screwed over the entire middle class with a half baked economic theory. WHO should be embarrassed?

    They compared it to Obama’s famous remark that if you have a business, “you didn’t build that”. The remark never stuck to him because it was clear that though awkwardly phrased, he was correct when the rest of the speech was included. I think the same will apply to Hillary. The Republicans will try to make a lot out of it, but the American people will see through it.

  8. Steve says:

    She’s too high strung.
    “at this point, what difference does it make”
    That reads well but to get the full effect I prefer to watch, and listen to, the video.
    She lost her cool and that is a bad thing to have in the position of commander in chief.
    People get on Obama for being “wishy-washy”. I think he is actually holding on to his calm or gathering it up before going public, because (early on) he made some very bad public statements that hurt him. So now he is gone off in the other direction. We need someone that can find the balance and at least appear to be acting right away while holding on to that public calm and professionalism so important to that office.

    Hillary doesn’t have it.

  9. Rincon says:

    I can’t say I’m thrilled with her myself, but I don’t plan to look at it closely until she becomes a candidate. She is right on target though, about trickle down economics.

  10. Athos says:

    thus speaks his royal highness, Rincon. Ignoring truth, and boldly going where the elite 1% tell him to go!

    All hail the mighty and powerful Rincon! Of course Hellary is right! She’s ALL WAYS right!!

  11. Rincon says:

    Ah grasshopper, your enthusiasm is a joy to see, but you have neglected to focus on the wisdom of the massive Hillary’s comments on trickle down. Maintain your focus on rationality and the truth shall come to you.

    A small correction, if you please: It is the Conservative that follows the teachings of the 1%, not the Moderate.

  12. Athos says:

    Rin who’s economic policies have we been following for the last 6 years? When are you going to wake up and realize that Pinocchio’s QE policies, anti business, health care takeover commie leanings are destroying the middle class?

    He WANTS us poor. Then we can join the 49million on food stamps, and look to DC to tell us what to do.

    Get it?

  13. Rincon says:

    We’re much better off than in 2008 when Bush left office. QE is not under Obama’s control.

    The destruction of the middle class began in 1980 or so and Obama has done no better or worse than his predecessors in that regard – except for Obamacare. The Democrats at least talk the talk about this. The Republicans have said over and over that they are quite happy with the destruction of the middle class, e.g., Romney’s 47% comment, perpetuation of the myth that a rising tide lifts all boats, and their adamant refusal to tax the rich at a greater rate than the middle class.

  14. Steve says:

    1980? Rincon!

    You REALLY expect us to forget the Seventies? Gweat rock and lousy economy…under Carter….sheesh.

  15. Rincon says:

    OK, if you say so, the destruction of the middle class began in 1974. That doesn’t impact on my point anyway.

  16. Steve says:

    So.

    Carter is in no way the reason Reagan took the White House….conversely Dubya is in no way the reason the current OJT prez is in the White House?

    Yah. Right.

  17. Rincon says:

    Hillary’s point stands. Trickle down economics is a Republican failure that did a lot of damage. Now you’re putting words in my mouth. Of course the events of Carter’s administration are the greatest reason Reagan won. Same with Bush and Obama. Are Presidents in complete or even substantial control of the events of their administration? No way, although their actions have profound consequences, some of which are obvious, others which are delayed and subtle. Trickle down economics were delayed and subtle, but eventually became overwhelming.

  18. Steve says:

    I think it goes much further back…

  19. Rincon says:

    Do you have evidence or is this from the seat of your pants?

  20. Steve says:

    No, the seat of YOUR pants!

    IT goes further back babe…way back. EVERY economy has suffered from mistakes made by the banking systems created at the time.
    Laws and legislation only makes people react and put money where they think they will lose less to their government leaders.

  21. Rincon says:

    Why is it that we ascribe every problem to a failure by our leaders? Normal human psychology explains why financial crises have always been with us and always will. The information age can be expected to exacerbate problems because of the speed with which things can get out of control. It used to take months.

    As for the latest weakening of the middle class, it’s simple. The Conservative revolution reduced taxes on the rich and it stayed that way. The great increase of income for the 1% began at that time. Try this one. There are plenty of others. All you have to do is look.http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/a-giant-statistical-round-up-of-the-income-inequality-crisis-in-16-charts/266074/

    Rich people are fine, but after the first 100 million or so, they’re no longer making a living. They’re indulging in the world’s most expensive hobby. At the expense of the rest of us.

  22. Steve says:

    Those leaders claim they can “fix” it….that is why.

    Let it go back to the market, where it belongs…including unionization. Get the regulators out of the game. they can only really react to incidents after the fact anyway, lets accept the fact that things have to go the way they will and we can only respond when they go south, or north….we cannot prevent any of them. We can only try to repair the effects after they occur.

  23. Rincon says:

    Great. Which ones should we get rid of first? I say the first to go should be all tax deductions, along with reducing the present base rates.

  24. Athos says:

    “Hillary’s point stands. Trickle down economics is a Republican failure that did a lot of damage.”

    Wow. I guess when you’re indoctrinated into a socialist mindset, reality no longer exists. Or maybe it’s living near the epicenter of liberal control (Chicago) that has that affect on once freedom loving Americans. I don’t know, but Rincon, you’re wrong.

    First, consider the source. Hillary Clinton? The magic woman that turned $1000 in cattle futures into $100,000…. on her FIRST TRADE? Bringer of Benghazi? Woman’s rights champion that road into power on the back of her two-timing husband?

    Yea. There’s a paragon of virtue that I want to follow (not!)

    2. Having worked in a factory in the late 70s, early 80s, and subject to massive taxation when I worked overtime (because it jumped me into the next tax bracket), Reaganomics (otherwise known as “trickle down”) worked out nicely for me and my fellow work-a-holics. And of course, Reagan was the catalyst for the fall of the evil Soviet Union. Is that why you lefties distort his record? Cause he defeated your Marxist model?

    You want a real bad anti-freedom president to hate? Try LBJ. Or go way back (as Steve suggested) to Woodrow Wilson.

  25. Rincon says:

    Yes, taxes were higher before Reagan. The deficit though, was miniscule until Reagan took over. That’s when it began to skyrocket. It more than doubled in his 8 years. He bought good times with debt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s