what if?

The First Time Around

As anyone who reads my blog is aware, I have mixed emotions about Arizona's new immigration law.  I have deep sympathy for those who must live with all the varied difficulties and dangers of having criminal behavior in their community coming over illegally across the borders.  Still - I hear what those on the left and the right are saying about civil rights, racial profiling, logistic difficulties and the like vis a vis the law.

Ed Morrissey has an excellent post on this topic this morning.  Ed also points out what should be clear to all politicians, irrespective of their political philosophies:

I agree that this issues of this passage got exaggerated, but it points out some sloppiness on the part of legislators as they passed this into law. Did they somehow think that opponents would not parse the language carefully?  After all, it wasn’t just people on the Left who objected to the vague notion of “lawful contact” in this passage.  Plenty of people on the Right also expressed concern about the potential for police to assume expansive powers to stop and question people with no probable cause other than assumptions about immigration status.  Even some of the police in Arizona objected to it.

The Arizona legislature could have saved everyone the trouble by defining the parameters from the beginning.  Governor Jan Brewer more or less had the same criticism, signing the bill but issuing an executive order to clear up the ambiguity by establishing rules for “lawful contact” simultaneous to the bill signing.  The change now makes plain the intent to have Arizona law enforcement check residency status while enforcing the other laws of the state, a common-sense approach that other states should also adopt — since the federal government stubbornly refuses to enforce their own existing laws.

The new clarifications are welcome indeed, and should defuse the controversy that threatened to distract the GOP from the larger issues of economic crisis and government encroachment.  But just as with the surprises that we keep finding in the ObamaCare bill, the entire problem could have been avoided had the legislature paid more attention to the details before voting it into law.

How It Works in the Real World

Is $7.25 an hour very much to earn for work?  Nope; it is not.

If you were a low-skilled or entry level worker, however, what would your preference be?  To earn $7.25 an hour - or perhaps somewhat less?  Or, to have no job, because the employers in your area for the sort of work you can do aren't able to pay $7.25 an hour and stay in business?

This is how it works in the real world. 

To All Team Members:

The schedule for next week has been posted. You may notice that hours have been cut back on your schedule. This is across the board, not just you. I don’t want anyone to think they’ve done something wrong to deserve a cut in hours, so I wanted to explain why it’s happening.

There are a couple of reasons for this:

1) May and September are very slow months for our business. Anyone who has worked Sundays recently has seen the drop off in traffic. Now that we’re entering May, that drop off will continue on to other days as well, and it will get worse.

2) The recent increase in the minimum wage to $7.25/hour. Since we’ve opened, I’ve had a lot of people ask why they can’t get more hours, and it’s a great question.

I would LOVE to give everyone all the hours they want, and then some. Our customers would be happier across the board, we could accomplish much more every day, our business would grow, I could hire even more people, and on and on. However, we operate on a tight budget just like any other business, and in order to survive, we have to make money. That means our labor cost (the total amount you are all paid) must stay below a certain percentage of our total sales. If it doesn’t, we go broke and everyone loses their jobs.

Our brilliant Congressmen in Washington, D.C. decided a couple years ago that it would be a good idea to raise the minimum wage by about 40% to $7.25/hour. It just took effect last year. That probably sounds like great news for everyone – more money in everyone’s pockets can only be good, right?

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way in the real world. If I’m forced to pay everyone 40% more, I can’t afford to schedule as many employees for as many hours, since our sales aren’t going up by 40%. Remember, I can only afford to pay you guys a certain percentage of all the money coming in the door. That means hours get cut, and everyone ends up poorer.

In a perfect world, it should work the opposite way: you should be free to choose how much you think your skills and time are worth (since you know best), and I should be free to pay you whatever that amount is if I want to hire you. Everyone wins in that case. I get as many good employees as I want that I can afford to pay, and you get valuable job training, references, and relationships to carry into the future.

To prove how bad of a deal minimum wage is for you guys as hard-working job-seekers, just look at this way:

I’m not being forced to pay $7.25/hour; YOU are being forced to accept $7.25/hour no matter what, even if you’d be willing to take less in order to get (or keep) a job.

You can thank our elected officials in Raleigh and Washington for sticking you with such a raw deal.

Decide what you would choose.

Life in Arizona

Is Arizona's new immigration law something very wrong?  Is it something that was necessary for the safety of Arizona's citizens?  Two perspectives; both with valuable insights.

Harvard econ prof Jeffrey Miron's take - and I particularly agree with this:

The only way to reduce illegal immigration is to expand legal immigration; punitive, “supply side” measures will not work so long as the wage gap between Mexico and the U.S. persists.

And a New York Times op-ed detailing what is really in the law.

The Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.

I personally do share Miron's position of having "misgivings" about the law.  Nevertheless, I don't live in a community where I am worried about having my property stolen nor about being shot to death if I am outside my home.  I wonder, as the op-ed states:  why can't our federal government enforce immigration laws already on the books?  Like Miron, I wish that we could overhaul our federal laws so that those who wish to come to our nation in a beneficial manner could do so legally. 

What would you do if you were living in the shadow of drug gang crime and your security was severely threatened?

Iran in Charge of Women's Rights?

Somehow, this seems like Hitler in charge of the Jewish Community Center.

Can anyone tell me why we are still supporting the United Nations? Anyone? Anyone?

And - can anyone tell me why the U.S. did not speak out against this?

I don't think we've just lost our moral compass.  I think it is buried ten thousand leagues under the sea.

Looking in the Mirror

My liberal friends love to rail about George W. Bush:  he lowered taxes, he started the Iraq war, he ruined the economy.  My conservative friends complain incessantly about Barack Obama:  he spends out of control, is raising taxes and is increasing the size of government exponentially.

All my friends are correct that both presidents and both parties had a hand in where we are today.

If they are honest, however, the blame cannot be placed simply at the feet of the politicians.  We need to look in the mirror - all of us.  Steny Hoyer, Democrat Majority leader in the House, explains why.

Both parties must learn: What is politically easy is often fiscally deadly. It's easier to hide the costs of war than to put those costs in front of the public. It's easier to promise 95% of Americans that we won't consider raising their taxes than to have a frank conversation about the realities of our balance sheet.

Voters are demanding that Washington take fiscal responsibility seriously. Democrats agree. But the public has a responsibility, too: To understand that lower taxes and higher spending may be popular, but they are a dangerous combination that leads to exploding deficits.

Recovering from years of borrowing is one of the hardest tasks a nation can face. History is full of great powers brought low by unsustainable debt. Avoiding that fate isn't just the commission's or Congress's work. It's incumbent on all of us to resist easy answers and look reality in the face. Fiscal issues have always been tests of national character, and I trust that we have the character to pass.

For too long, too many of us have thought we could have what we wanted when we wanted it - irrespective of our ability to afford it.  We forgot that no markets go up forever without corrections, be they stock markets, housing markets or job markets.  We forgot the sacrifice and savings of generations before us.  Instead, we shopped and bought, putting it all on credit cards as we paid the minimum every month - or with home mortgages with no down payments.  Now?  We have to pay the piper and face what we have done to ourselves.

As Hoyer says, it can be done.  Do accomplish it, however, we cannot expect politicians to work magic and wash away the mess we have created.  Much can be done by all of us in our own lives.  And some of what needs to be done is at the ballot box.  When a politician tells you that you can have your cake and eat it too, run like the wind.  Only vote for those who you believe will work towards laws and policies that made our nation great.

If we do not, then one of the best experiments in mankind will be history only instead of where we live.

UPDATE: In a similar vein.....

Next November

Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent, you should remember this.

The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama’s health care “reform” law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius’s staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.

“The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote,” says an HHS source. “Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think.”

According to their source, Sebelius wasn’t alone in keeping the information secret:

“We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff,” says the HHS staffer, “and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary’s office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report.”

Ed Morrissey cautions that this story may not be accurate.  Yet, if there is any truth to it - a terrible action against the American people.

Then and Now

Boy, I'd sure want to vote for someone with this viewpoint - wouldn't you?

Even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us--the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of 'anything goes.' Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America--there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America--there's the United States of America."--

From Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, 2004.

President Barack Obama, April, 2010?

"In the video message to his supporters, [President] Obama said his administration's success depends on the outcome of this fall's elections and warned that if Republicans regain control of Congress, they could 'undo all that we have accomplished.' 'This year, the stakes are higher than ever,' he said, according to a transcript of his remarks provided by Democratic officials. 'It will be up to each of you to make sure that young people, African Americans, Latinos and women who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again. . . .'

Whatever it takes - eh?

Red Tape

Go get 'em!

Two Scenarios

Imagine two business scenarios.  In the first, if you take on too much risk or expand too quickly in your business, then you fail.  An inability to pay employees, creditors and borrow to be able to do so means The End.  In the second, if you have engaged in risky actions and have debts and commitments you cannot meet, then the government steps in.  It infuses cash and pays off debts you are unable to do so on your own, in the hopes that down the road, you will be able to run your business once again in a responsible and profitable manner.

Now, let's consider:  which scenario do you think will lead to riskier and less responsible behavior by business owners and management?

If you answered:  scenarior number two - congratulations!  You have now discovered what the heart of Senator Chris Dodd's "regulation" bill is.  It is a bill designed to allow our government to choose who wins and fails, instead of market forces and those who make wise decisions.

Yes; it is a bailout bill.

Farenheit 451

Yesterday, the cinematic adaptation of Ray Bradbury's classic tale, "Farenheit 451" was on the tube. Alas; tuning in late, I only caught the latter half of the film.  Nevertheless, the messages of this great story rang through just fine.

In case you aren't familiar with this story, it is a classic about how pernicious the "Big Brother" power of government can be.  "Firefighters" in Farenheit 451 (the temperature at which paper burns) do not exist to put out fires.  No, instead, the job of these "firefighters" is to burn books.  The government does not want people to have the freedom and expanse of knowledge that one can gain from books; ergo they are deemed dangerous - and destroyed.  A few brave souls strive to protect the wisdom, emotion and knowledge in books; this is their story.

Why am I writing about this now?  I am, because I was reminded by it how much it reminds me of the actions of some on the left today.  No, I am not intimating that anyone I know who is liberal wants to go out and burn books.  Yet, it is clear to me that they want to control and manage much of our behavior to achieve what is "good" for us all.  They want to control what we eat and drink, so we don't embibe in the "bad" foods and beverages.  They want to control what we listen to on the radio, with forced "equal time" and the benevolently named "Fairness Doctrine."  They want regulation up the wazoo for private business, private homes, what we can watch and read and on and on.  All of it they claim is "for our own good." 

Motivated by Love

Few pundits on the right engender passion, hate and anger as Rush Limbaugh does.  Occasionally, I will agree with those on the left who believe that Rush is inflammatory, goes too far - or, even if flat out wrong.  (Think Michael J. Fox and "faking" symptoms of illness.)

Most of the time, however, the lefties are in left field about Rush.  They love to snatch a snippet from three hours of Rush, and herald it as offensive or factually incorrect.  When heard in context, however, anyone with half a brain realizes that the comment is either said in jest, sarcastic - or something that takes on an entirely different meaning when heard in its entirety.  What has been done to Rush for years reminds me of what the left currently is doing to Tea Parties.  Unable to debate on the issues, they resort to innuendo, personal attacks and flat out lies.

Rush had a column in the Wall Street Journal two days ago that addresses how those who are protesting our current government are being slandered.  He well expresses that the movement isn't violent.  It's a movement that rises from love of country, and love for the principles that have made our nation great.

Guarding the Henhouse

Is this like hiring the fox to guard the henhouse?

Lies After All

I knew it.  Most of my conservative and libertarian friends knew it.

Yet the combination of President Obama's smooth and comforting explanations, along with his supports, the mainstream media, managed to convince enough Congressmen and supporters that his healthcare legislation would be our savior.  Extend health care to all?  Yep.  Help us control costs?  Of course.  Reduce Medicare expenses without sacrificing services?  You betcha.

Now we know it was all lies.

As reported by AP:

President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, however, since the report also warned that Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back.

The CBO numbers were rigged, because the CBO was forced to follow unrealistic assumptions in its forecasts.

How long will enough Americans continue to believe the tripe that comes from Washington, until they are ready to vote out our "representatives" there?  I sure am hoping that come November, the blinders will be removed and a lot of folks will be searching for new employment.

A Wet Blanket

Nope.  Not talking about any boring parties I have recently attended.  Talking about what Steve Wynn, billionaire and potential job creator is saying about the United States today.

The governmental policies in the United States of America are a damper, a wet blanket," Wynn said in a separate interview aired today on Bloomberg Television. "They retard investment, they retard job formation, they retard the creation of a better life for the citizens in spite of the rhetoric of the president."

Wynn said he was concentrating his efforts on Macau and would skip potential opportunities in Las Vegas.

"I don't think the Las Vegas market at the moment beckons a large investment," Wynn said. "The economic outlook in the United States, the policies of this administration, which do not favor job formation, do not encourage investment at all."

Wynn reiterated company plans to build a third Macau casino, which would be located on a site on Macau's Cotai Strip.

How do you "create jobs" in our nation, when so many of the people who would do the creating rationally hold views like those of Wynn?

Lost in America

How has our government become lost?  John Hawkins explains.

No Lock on Stupid

No matter what your political leanings, never a very good idea to think that Your Side doesn't screw up or have its collection of idiots.  If you happen to be a conservative and think that this does not apply to you - then read this.

If this law passes and somehow holds up, The One will comply with it by providing the same Certification of Live Birth he produced two years ago. There’s no demand here for anything more specific than that — no request for an “original birth certificate” or attending obstetrician’s affidavit, etc., just “documents” that prove to a “reasonable” degree that the candidate was born in the good ol’ U.S. of A. And since the COLB is an official state document endorsed by Hawaii, there’s no reason why it wouldn’t meet a reasonableness test. Which makes me think this bill is even more purely political than it seems, designed to pander to Arizona Birthers while slyly doing nothing to advance the ball on their behalf.

No Car, But ...

My friend Professor Keith Burgess-Jackson is ready for me to just make up my mind and purchase a new car!

Sorry, Professor.  Still procrastinating away with the vehicle.  I have added something new to my household, however:  the new little buddy-budgie.

Mr Mollo isn't quite certain what to make of this tiny creature.  And he/she seems to be bewildered by the wide, open spaces of Bristol Lane, in contrast to the 7 x 9 x 6 confines of a Tupperware home at the pet store.  But we welcome the new buddy with love, and hope that this is a match made in birdie heaven!

Preacher, Heal Thyself

A trip down memory lane with Peter Wehner. 

George W. Bush was, during his two terms in office, routinely called a war criminal, an international terrorist, and compared to Hitler [see a photo gallery here and here]. Signs with bullet holes in Bush’s forehead, with blood running down his face, were all part of the fun and games. The president was accused of moral cowardice by Al Gore, of being a liar and the anti-Christ, and of being a totalitarian and dictatorial leader. Members of Congress such as Keith Ellison compared the attacks on September 11 to the Reichstag fire.

This was all pretty common fare during the Bush presidency. Yet Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, remained silent, apparently unconcerned that such words would fall on the serious and the delirious, the connected and the unhinged, at the same time. And many of Mr. Clinton’s fellow Democrats, including his vice president, said words that encouraged the worst elements and instincts of the haters and the loons.

The Tea Party protests, in terms of the level of hate speech and the placards and signs used, don’t hold a candle to the anti-war protests we witnessed during the Bush years. Yet for some inexplicable reason — inexplicable because we all know the press and the political class are fantastically free of bias — the hate directed against Bush didn’t receive anything like the scrutiny the Tea Party is receiving.

It’s also worth recalling that the Clinton administration organized, coordinated, and participated in some of the ugliest rhetoric we have seen in recent American politics. I have in mind, for example, the campaign against Judge Ken Starr, who was the independent counsel during the Clinton-Lewinsky investigation. The Clinton team said Starr was a “spineless, gutless weasel” and “engaged in anti-constitutional destructiveness.” He was a “thug” and a “Grand Inquisitor for life.” His tactics were “frightening,” “vicious,” and “lawless.” His investigation was an “inquisition,” “smacks of Gestapo,” and “outstrips McCarthyism.” He was acting “irresponsibility, illegally.” Starr was “undermining the very integrity of the criminal-justice system.” The office of independent counsel was filled with “a crew of prosecutorial pirates” and Starr was using “instruments of intimidation and smear without restraint.”

And now Mr. Clinton is preaching to us about not demonizing our opponents and about the importance of not crossing rhetorical lines. Can a Clinton sermon on the importance of fidelity and the gift of celibacy be far behind?

Why are those on the left continuing to define Tea Parties and criticism of the current administration as something it is not?  James Taranto will also help you to figure it all out.

The Neighbors

This says it all!

I See Black People

Over and over, we are told that Tea Party people are racist, that those who go to rallys are only white and wealthy and well-educated (though I think a few months ago it was white and lower class and uneducated...) - and that they hate the government and hate our president.

Here's a video, however, that seems to contradict what our liberal friends and the MSM spews, day after day.

I liked the guy who said "this is not about color."

He's right.  Can't those on the left admit it, and allow us to start discussing the critical issues that do face our nation and need solutions?