Letters to the editor from this week's Chronicle:

Redneck Review
No. 51 4/11/2016
Last week, two arguments were presented challenging the logic of the current politically correct "minimum wage rage!" And since that time, more news items have hit the daily papers, first, that more states are considering the $15/hour rate currently adopted by California and a couple of other states, and second, a call for a national wage minimum at that level has been made by certain candidates for the U.S. presidency!
Argued first last week was that in potential hiring situations, common sense demands that the party doing the hiring must have the right to make the decision of who is hired and what wage can be paid. This seems obvious when looked at locally, when small companies are concerned, and when the pressure of competition threatens bankruptcy if the owner does not operate as efficiently as possible! Not an idle threat, as Forbes magazine last year reported that 90% of all new business startups fail!
So the bottom line, locally for sure, is that NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO PAY a potential employee more than he is worth! And an argument can be easily made that the same logic applies for larger entities, all the way up to the largest corporation. So, the higher minimum wage requirement simply means that marginal workers at the lower rate will be unemployable at the higher rate, and lower-skilled applicants not worth the higher rate will not be hired! So, raise the rate, UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASES!
And consider again, what is a legitimate increase, and what cannot be defended! As was claimed last week, if the minimum wage advocate shies away from giving a really healthy wage of $20, or why not even $30 an hour, can that person logically defend a bit less of a raise, say $19, or maybe $17, or the proposed $15/hr? And does not the reasons given for not raising it to those higher amounts apply even to a modest 10 cents or 25 cents minimum?  Again the bottom line is, at no level can an employer afford to pay an employee more than he or she is worth! So DUMP the entire minimum wage requirement!!
So the second thing to consider when discussing this issue is simply this... that a person who by education, by experience, by a work ethic, or by reputation, can make a convincing case that his worth far exceeds any current legal minimum often starts at hourly rates far above any of the proposed minimums! $100/hr is not uncommon in some environments!
So, DROP the entire notion of forced minimums, and allow the situation mentioned last week, a young applicant, desperate for work, offers to work at a rate no one else would accept... just to get a foot in the door! Then arriving early, working late, amazing all with an efficiency  unmatched by others in the firm, slowly builds a reputation for being the most valuable employee in the business! Soon, not only is that person earning more than the average, but is offered management positions, or is lured away by competing firms who are in need of that kind of efficiency! This does happen, and is happening currently!
A closing thought! Is not the entire idea of a "minimum this," or a "must do that" regulation imposed by "experts" from above on the masses below a predictable result of the slow evolution going on over the past several hundred years replacing God and the value of the individual with the inflated confidence in man? The idea that "God is Dead" prevails in far to many of our universities today, hyped constantly by a liberal press that pushes hard for Keynes in economics and socialism in government, all in the tragic belief that mankind itself has all the answers, and that a utopia on earth is possible, let experts lead the way!
Jake Wren
 
To the Editor
Those of us who realize the value of Christian history in American society are disappointed Governor Otter vetoed SB 1342. This bill validated appropriate use of the Bible as a reference in public schools. Although 81% of Idaho’s legislators supported the bill, and a resolution affirming its’ content passed the GOP convention with a near unanimous vote, Governor Otter chose to say “no” anyway. 
A prosperous civilization needs a foundation.  People with last names like Washington, Adams, and Madison blatantly identified the Bible as that reference point.  They feared not having it would result in corruption and misuse of taxpayer funds.  Are they right?.

Bill is constitutionally sound
S1342 Bible Bill is constitutionally sound.  According to Constitutional attorneys  1. ) Matt Sharp with Alliance Defending Freedom,  2.) Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, and 3.) Christ Troupis, Idaho attorney, they have all stated in their opinions that the bill is sound in both Idaho and federal court.   The Governor relied on our Attorney General and his attorney to say that S1342 is unconstitutional.   
The Governor says that our schools are already using religious texts for reference, which they are doing.  But how can they be protected if it is unconstitutional to use religious texts, including the Bible, for reference purposes?  Either we need a statute like S1342 to protect us, or we need a Constitutional amendment to provide the protection and certainty that our public schools need.
Did you know that Idaho is the only state in the union to declare that teaching the Bible for secular purposes is unconstitutional?
State Senator Sheryl Nuxoll

To the Editor
Curt McKenzie is my choice for Idaho Supreme Court Justice.   I know him well since I have worked with him in the Senate.  He sponsored the constitutional carry bill. He is conservative and common sensed and just.  Although he will follow the law, he really places the Idaho citizen in priority over legalism.    If I went to court, I would definitely want him.    
Sheryl Nuxoll


Cottonwood, Idaho 83522
 

Home

Classified Ads
 

COTTONWOOD
CHRONICLE
503 King St.
P.O. Box 157
Cottonwood, ID 83522-0157
editor@cottonwoodchronicle.com
or cotchron@qwestoffice.net
208-962-3851
Fax 208-962-7131
Template Design by: