Wednesday, 23 August 2006

Local Democrats Want Minimum Wage Increase

No surprise that Democrats want an increase in the minimum wage. They know that their bread and butter supporters, the unions, wages in many cases are tied to the value of the minimum wage. If the minimum wage increases so do the union's wages. So it is no shock to see Democrats "rallying" to talk about a minimum wage increase. Here is my favorite quote from the news story.

Opponents of raising the wage say it would have the undesirable effect of increasing prices and unemployment. Jenkins said she thinks it would boost the economy.

"People who make the minimum wage put money back into the economy, by buying gas, groceries and other typical goods", she said. "They're not buying stocks and bonds."

First it is silly to state that buying gas, groceries, and other goods puts money into the economy while buying stocks and bonds doesn't. What do you think happens when you buy a stock? You are investing money in a company. That money is given to the company so they can produce a profit and bring greater returns to the investor. In this case the money is put into the economy by directly funding a company. Secondly, the profit the company makes gets recirculated back into the economy when the purchaser either receives a dividend or sells the stock for a profit. So it actually does more for the economy than just buying goods directly.

Secondly, it will reduce the number of laborers. The amount a company can spend on employees in many cases is fixed. Thus by increasing the cost of labor, one of two things must happen. The company can employ less people, or they can raise prices to increase the amount of money available to spend of labor. Neither of which are good for low income people. There will be either less jobs available or the cost of goods will increase lessening everyone's buying power. In effect, nullifying the "artificial" raise mandated by government's minimum wage laws.

Unfortunately, I don't see the political will to stop an increase in the minimum wage. Regardless of how much sense it makes economically.

Posted by elendil at 1:23 AM in Kentucky Politics
Responses (0)

We Now Know the Real Culprit Behind Child Obesity!

I want to thank the drive by media at CNN for today's hit piece on the Bush administration. This is good stuff. First they talk about the current weight condition of our kids.

The number of kids considered overweight has more than tripled since 1980, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Among those between ages 6 to 19, over 9 million kids -- 16 percent -- are considered overweight.

OK, no big surprise that kids today are overweight. So what is the cause for this weight gain? Is it kids eating more? Is it parents not paying attention to what their kids eat? Is it the fact that kids spend their time at home playing video games instead of going outside to play? No, the real culprit is President Bush! I am not kidding.

Critics contend that the very legislation meant to bolster national academic standards -- the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 -- may be a culprit in the diminishing P.E. curriculum, unintentionally sapping schools of time and resources for exercise as educators focus more and more on test scores and rigorous academic coursework.

The NCLB Act is President Bush's centerpiece education law that, among other things, requires virtually all students to test at their grade level for math and reading. Schools that do not measure up to the standards two years in a row have to provide more tutoring or let students transfer to better schools.

Yup, child obesity is because of Bush's "No Child Left Behind" law that is forcing kids away from PE. Because we all know that kids would be bean poles if they got to burn a few hundred calories a week during PE. Give me a break!

This is nothing more than an editorial in the form of a "news" story. But hey, there is not bias in the main stream media!

Posted by elendil at 1:02 AM in National Politics
Responses (0)

Teacher Burns Flag in Grade School

Dan Holden, a teacher at Stuart Middle School has been reassigned to a "non-instructional" role for burning the American flag during class. Holden, who teaches social studies to seventh graders burned flags in two different classes as part of a "discussion" on the the freedom of speech. An investigation is underway to find out what happened in the classroom so the school board can determine the fate of Holden.

A number of people will say big deal. He has a first amendment right to burn the flag and he was teaching the kids to think critically. Therefore nothing should be done in this case. I have to disagree for a number of reasons all of which center around poor judgment.

  • He started a fire in the classroom. Granted there is a 99.9% chance that what he did was safe. But, there is a chance no matter how small that the fire could have gotten out of control. How many kids would have been injured or killed if the school had caught fire.
  • He choose to use "flag burning" as his freedom of speech topic. Whether he likes it or not, the flag is a symbol of America. Burning the flag can only be seen as an anti-American demonstration. Why would you bring such blatant anti-Americanism into a grade school classroom? Isn't there a better way to talk about the first amendment?
  • Why didn't he inform either the parents or the administration before doing such a controversial activity? Did he not think that this would stir a bit of a controversy among parents?

Since this is an attempt to educate our kids, I think we should finish the lesson by firing this guy. That way we can teach them that although they have the freedom of speech, the state or private industry doesn't have to pay for that speech. It could also be an object lesson in accepting responsibility for one's first amendment rights.

Posted by elendil at 12:47 AM in Kentucky Politics
Responses (0)