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 |
Home
Classified
Ads
Template Design by:
|