About Me

Name:PoliCzar
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

Minimum wage increase a good idea, but with provisions

Posted by PoliCzar on Thursday, December 21, 2006 3:51:46 PM
According to a news report today:
President Bush called Wednesday for a $2.10-per-hour increase in the minimum wage over the next two years "with targeted tax and regulatory relief" for small businesses, but Democratic leaders, including Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, replied by demanding "a clean bill" that boosts wages "and is free of any baggage."

We should not be surprised that Ted Kennedy wants the minimum wage hike to exclude some relief on small businesses. After all, Teddy is not exactly pro-small business. He certainly doesn’t realize that small businesses in this country drive the economy. They also employ more minimum wage earners than big businesses by percentage.

The news report contained, According to Kennedy's statement, his Fair Minimum Wage Act would raise the minimum wage from its present level of $5.15 per hour to $7.25 an hour in three steps: to $5.85 three months after enactment; to $6.55 one year later; and to $7.25 one year after that.

Now, it may seem to you that this is fair, it does to me, but we must understand the total impact of these pay increases on a small business who can only afford to pay certain valued employees minimum wage. Many cleaning crews, restaurant workers and temporary employees make the minimum.

A study published in October, as reported by CNS News, indicated that prices tend to surge as unemployment rises in municipalities that require employers to pay more than the federal or state minimum wages.

Let’s remember, the higher the pay rate, the more tax the employer is paying on the state and federal level. Kennedy disagrees with a proven fact. He of course, is an economics wizard and has years upon years of experience in running countless small businesses. Right? Wrong. He cannot even cite the source of his own statistics saying that raising the minimum wage would not harm the economy. Most of his bills in the past did just that, harm the economy.

This may not generate a sudden impact on the job market or inflation, but there will be one on the small business themselves, which as noted above, ultimately drive the economy in this country. By taxing them more, by making them pay out more in payroll, without some sort of relief, many businesses will be hurt, and forced to evaluate their payroll, possibly cutting jobs or working hours of their employees to generate extra cash to pay their higher paid minimum wage workers that are needed for day to day operations. This change may not be noticeable at first, but over the course of this 2-3 year period, this country will see a surge in unemployment, naturally due to the smaller businesses lacking money to pay their employees the higher wage and the taxes they bring with them. Remember, there is always job creation with unemployment. The jobs created may not be ‘minimum wage’ jobs, hence unemployment levels may rise for lower wage workers who may have trouble finding jobs that pay that wage.

Kennedy pointed out that Congress took a $3,100 pay raise recently. I find it funny that he mentions this. Nowhere could I find information stating that Kennedy himself refused the pay increase as many other congressmen and senators did at the time. But I do agree with him on that issue, why should Congress get a pay increase? If they are civil servants, they should work for less to give more money to the wages of their constituency. But we all know that will never happen.

Ultimately, Bush must compromise and pass the law. However, he must not compromise on the tax relief portion of an edited proposal. No legislation will be passed without ‘baggage’, be it good or bad, Kennedy knows this. After all he has earmarked thousands of bills in the past, so why should Republicans give him a free pass on this one?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Christmas is no longer P.C. in America

Posted by PoliCzar on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:45:00 PM
Why is it that every year around this time certain people have problems with Christmas decorations?
If you look back over the last 5 or 6 years you will see that every year there is always a story of someone or some group against Christmas. Last year it was the Wal-Mart Happy Holidays pledge. No Merry Christmas was allowed to be said! Other years it was the nativity scenes on public land. You are allowed to have the scene but you can’t have Jesus in the crib. What is the point of the scene then? Of course the media eats this up because they think that showing these stories will enrage Christians and make them act ‘un-Christian-like’. Sorry to say they are wrong. This year we had 2 issues. One was the wreath that was made into a peace symbol on the side of a home. People in that complex said it was a satanic symbol. I have never seen a satanic symbol in the shape of a peace sign. Perhaps they were thinking it was a pentagram without the star? Naturally, the lady received an apology and was allowed to keep her wreath. And why not, isn’t that was the holiday season is all about. Peace on Earth and good will toward men?

Now we have the SeaTac airport story. This, of course, was blown way out of proportion. The airport took down 15 Christmas trees because they said that a rabbi, Elazar Bogomilsky, said he was offended by them and also that there were no menorahs in the airport. Again, the media made the mistake. Reporters said that the rabbi was planning on suing the airport, that he was outraged that Christmas took precedence over Hanukkah. The reporters were wrong, as usual. The rabbi never sued, in fact, he never made an objection to the display of the Christmas trees. He said he never wanted them to remove the trees. He felt that a menorah along with the trees would symbolize the holiday season much better. It was a suggestion. I think the media would find that most rational Jews appreciate Christmas trees, lights and the decorations much like their own Hanukkah decorations. Jews and Christians appreciate each other’s religion. The media does not.

Companies are so worried about being P.C., because of the threat of being sued, that they will go to extremes. Even when they are given a suggestion, they immediately think someone is offended. This country has gone too far with the whole P.C. ‘thing’. It is time to understand that it takes a great deal to offend most Americans. Those who are easily offended are certainly not in the majority. Most of them are out for their own gratification or monetary gain, by filing frivolous law suits.

Our country’s cities and towns are trying hard not to offend anyone, but at the same time they are offending the good citizens of this country who would like to see a menorah or a nativity seen with the baby Jesus in the crib. After all it is that time of year isn’t it? Next they will try to ban jack-o-lanterns on Halloween.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ISG report: good ideas or bad?

Posted by PoliCzar on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:37:59 PM
The Iraq Study Group report has been released and with it, as usual, a bunch of bickering from people on both sides.  It does provide us with important facts, and what could occur in the future, what should occur and what we should do ultimately, in Iraq.  If anything, many sections of this report should shut up democrats such as Carl Levin and Jack Murtha who wish to have a symbolic departure or retreat if you will, from Iraq.  It sets down guidelines as to what must be accomplished before we turn security over the Iraqis.  The report does not set a timetable for re-deployment (or withdrawal) of troops.  It sets no dates.  It does state, however, that if conditions on the ground improve within the next 2 years that there could be a basis for a gradual withdrawal.

It also mentions the need for more training of Iraqi forces so that they can take over security faster.  It recommends diplomatic discussions with 2 countries we do not have diplomatic ties with, Iran and Syria, this, they believe, will help with the Sunni and Shiite conflict.

 
There are problems with their suggestions.  Much of what the report says is fact, however, their suggestions on how to handle certain situations are not the appropriate ones.  This panel was non-partisan, but it did not include anyone with a military background.  No retired generals were on the panel, no former pentagon chiefs, no current army commanders.  Instead the panel was made up of politicians.  Granted they offer no real tactical solutions to problems, but to discuss a military operation without a military leader on your panel is very difficult.  James Baker’s failed foreign policies during his tenure as secretary of state does not help matters either.  In fact, they are beginning to resurface in this report. 

 
Yes, we must train more Iraqi soldiers.  The problem here is that we only have 1 base in the US that trains our training officers, Fort Riley.  Without increasing the amount of these training officers we will not be able to train the Iraqis any quicker than we are doing now.  The report does say we must act now on this issue. 

 
The problems with this report are very apparent.  Why are we to compromise or negotiate with Iran or Syria as the report suggests? How will this make us look to the international community when we sit down to talk with 2 states which, if given the chance, would blow Israel off the map, and try to destroy the US any way they can.  Syria is trying to destroy the Lebanese government via assassinations.  Iran is training and equipping not only Hezbollah, but the insurgents that our soldiers fight in Iraq.    Are we to meet with Iran and Syria, and beg them to stop so we can pull our soldiers out quicker?  We do not have similar interests with these countries.  Iran wants us out so that they can take over Iraq.  Iran is trying to become a nuclear power, yet we are to sit down and talk about Iraq with them, not their nuclear ambitions.  How can you talk with a country that will not listen or follow UN instructions?  Somehow the ISG believes you can.  They’re wrong.

 
The conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites has been around for a thousand years.  There is no proof that the US is responsible for the sectarian violence that is occurring.  Iran is responsible for this much more so than the United States.  They are encouraging this conflict between the two so that the public will view it as a civil war caused by the US occupancy.  The media, of course, eats it up.

 
Many analysts believe that by adding 20-40,000 more troops to Iraq we could squash the insurgents.  Many Democrats and Republicans agree.  The problem is, they seem to be silent when it comes to expressing their opinions.  By increasing troop levels and going on the offensive instead of sitting in a defensive position waiting to get attacked by snipers, our troops could potentially hurt the insurgency enough that it would clear the way for a quicker turnover of security to the Iraqis. 

 
People forget that we are in a war.  There will be death and destruction.  We need to use all of our strength to demoralize the insurgency and sustain security first before handing over full control to the Iraqis.  We have tried handing parts of the country over, we see how well that worked out.

 
If we are losing this war, it is only because we are playing defense with no offense.  A good defense can certainly win you the game in football, but without a decent offense you cannot score.  We are behind in Iraq.  We need more offensive power to even the score.

 

Read the Iraq Study Group's full report:

http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What constitutes a 'Holy Book'

Posted by PoliCzar on Monday, December 04, 2006 4:14:56 PM
As we all know, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, Keith Ellison, wishes to take his oath of office with his hand on a Koran as opposed to the customary Bible. Many conservatives in Congress are trying to block these proceedings. The irony here is that these conservatives, who are rather well known and respected, are not following the Constitution they have already sworn to uphold. We know that our Constitution allows freedom of religion. Not allowing Mr. Ellison to use his religion’s book for the oath is a direct violation of the rights that are given to every American in the First Amendment. The oath does not require you to pledge allegiance to any God or deity. You are pledging to upload the Constitution of the United States.
Why should it matter what book he puts his hand on? Since when do someone’s religious views affect their ability to make decisions on behalf of the community that elected him or her? It would be the same thing as if you would not allow an atheist or agnostic to take the oath if they refused to use any book at all. Why wouldn’t they just put their hand on a copy of the Constitution and swear to uphold it? I understand that the Bible is an important part of these ceremonies. It is not as if he is being asked to quote from it. It is hard to say why there is so much emphasis placed on what book you use. There are many different editions of the Bible and different people use different ones, Catholics, Protestants, and even Jews select their own version. Why should it be a problem for Mr. Ellison to use his religion’s holy book?


The problem here is that these conservatives are trying to decide what is and what is not a ‘holy book’ and are using religion as a basis to discredit an obvious qualified individual. It also helps that he is a democrat apparently. As a conservative and as an American, I am rather disappointed with their actions. This proves yet another point, certain Republicans cannot seem to grasp the concept that the election is over and that they must work with the other side of the aisle if they wish to gain respect among their fellow Americans. By disregarding a man’s Constitutional right to religious freedom, they are proving their own ambitions and personal beliefs are more important than the laws of our country.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »