Neutering Harry Reid Much Better Than Higher Minimum Wage

Harry Reid SC

The other night, having cut the cable cord, I was watching Slapshot on my Apple TV box via Netflix ($7.99 a month); and a line in the movie hit me particularly hard.

To set the scene, Slapshot is a 1977 Paul Newman film about a minor league hockey team, the mythical Charlestown Chiefs in the mythical town of Charlestown, somewhere in the not so mythical rust belt.

Paul Newman is the player-coach of the Chiefs, and he is walking up the hill past a steel mill with his college educated scoring ace played by Michael Ontkean, telling Ontkean that he doesn’t believe that the rumored mill closing will happen because the company was just “jacking up the workers to make them happy they have a job.”

Ontkean tells Newman that, in fact, the closing had been announced that morning.

“10,000 mill workers placed on waivers.”

For those of you who don’t remember 1977, Jimmy Carter was more or less the President, and the economy was not totally dissimilar to today.

And the point was made that when 10,000 mill workers don’t have jobs, they don’t have the money to buy tickets to follow minor league hockey teams—especially teams with a losing record.

Now back in those days, we were losing our domestic steel industry to the Japanese and the United Steel Workers.

These days, we have lost much of the manufacturing sector to countries where the workers are not unionized and much less expensive than those here in the good old U S of A.

Yet who even Democrats will privately admit only has a passing relationship with intelligence, Harry Reid, is worried about “income inequality” as opposed to just putting people to work.

His solution?  Raise the minimum wage to $10.15 an hour.

Reid (D-Ritz Carleton, Washington DC) genuinely appears to think that you solve income inequality by, in the words of Michael Ontkean, placing them on waivers.

Because that’s exactly what is going to happen if Reid somehow manages to shove this through Congress the way he shoved Obamacare through. (And how’s that working out for him?)

This is from the Department of Labor’s website history of the Carter Administration:

In 1978 Congress passed and the President signed the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act, better known as the Humphrey-Hawkins Act. Drafted with assistance from the Department, this law did not create any specific programs. Rather, it called for government-wide planning and action to achieve reduced unemployment and, eventually, zero inflation. This Act found strong expression in many aspects of the Department’s employment and training program, including: targeting assistance to reduce long-term unemployment; improving coordination with private business; reducing youth unemployment, and; assisting adult workers dislocated because of foreign competition. Occupational safety and health programs were significantly redirected during this period. … Enforcement became much stricter as inspectors cited more and more employers for “serious” and “willful” violations of standards and assessed heavier fines against them.

Just what they needed to fix the economy, right?

For the record, that crap was a complete and utter failure despite what some public school teachers tell their students.  It took President Ronald Reagan’s administration about three years to undo the damage that Carter did and put the economy back on an even keel, mostly by lowering taxes and reducing regulations.

So here we are in 2014.  About 90,000,000 people have been “placed on waivers”.  Many for so long that they have said “the hell with it” and just stopped looking (or, as it might be put in the movies, become free agents.)

And Harry Dimbulb (twisted fluorescent) thinks this can be fixed by the government.

Ronald Reagan has already given us the template.  There is no such thing as “trickle up” economics.  You don’t create jobs by breaking investors and discouraging employment.

Neutering Harry, however, would be a good start.


Snowden Should Be In Prison With The IRS Clowns


I know that there are a lot of people out there who think Edward Snowden is a hero.  They think that under the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” theory.

He’s not.

He’s a traitor who needs to be dealt with as a traitor.

A whistleblower doesn’t go to Red China and then the former Soviet Union to escape “persecution” in the United States.  He first goes to the Inspector General of his agency and, then, if that doesn’t work, to the relevant committee in Congress.

If that doesn’t work, he goes to the media and allows himself to be arrested in public so the Feds cannot bury his existence.

Just because it is noble to be a whistleblower doesn’t mean it is without risk, and that’s part of the deal. Snowden apparently would like to believe in civil disobedience but not take any of the personal risks associated with it.  How millennial.  I question if he can even spell Thoreau and much less if he has actually read the essay.

In a perfect world, you should be able to trust that what your government is telling you happens to be true—that the metadata they are collecting will only be searched if the call is connected up to a bad guy after a judge issues a warrant.

The problem is that nobody trusts the Federal Government to a) tell the truth and; b) not use the data in all sorts of unauthorized ways that would have the effect of taking our rights from us.

It is a sad commentary on the point where we have come to and why, where government is concerned, that which governs least governs best.

All of that said, our modern telecommunications systems are a virtual playground for people who would use them to harm us, both as a nation and individually; and the chances that they will be used in that manner are quite high.  Despite our near universal distrust for the Government, it would be governmental malpractice to ignore the possibility.

What to do?

We need to elect public officials who will a) restore our trust in the Government , and; b) come down hard on individuals and agencies who abuse the information.

That, I can assure you, does not describe the current administration.

A good start would be throwing everybody at the Internal Revenue Service who participated in last year’s scandal into prison.

The sad situation is that until we can trust our government not to abuse the information it probably needs to keep us safe, we can’t trust them with the information.

Think about it.

Do you trust Eric Holder to prosecute those who would abuse that information?  Do you trust his Department of so-called Justice to prosecute the very people who have not yet even been charged (and in all probability will never be charged) in the IRS scandals?

However, all of that distrust doesn’t make Snowden a hero.

Frankly, I’d like some insight into how a little flake like Snowden could get access to our most secret programs.

Or, to put it another way, would you trust a creep like Snowden with that information any more than the NSA?  Or Barack Obama?

I don’t think so.

The truth is that Snowden didn’t really tell us anything new.  Most tech savvy people know that the capability was there because Google, Apple, and Microsoft have it. Not to mention Citicorp, Bank of America, Chase, and Wells Fargo.  It’s just that we seem to trust those guys a hell of a lot more than we trust our Government.  Which is really scary.

If you want to clean this up, Edward Snowden is not your guy.

He should be in prison along with the clowns from the IRS.

Men Having Sex With Men – Not Normal Behavior

Duck Commander

The American firmament has been roiled by an honest guy.  His name is Phil Robertson.  He is the CEO of Duck Commander and the patriarch of the family which stars in the single most successful show on cable TV, Duck Dynasty. It even beats the O’Reilly Factor on a show for show basis.

Mr. Robertson is a plain spoken kind of guy and he told GQ Magazine when the obligatory snarky interviewer asked him what, in his mind constituted sin, “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he said. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

And the queers went crazy.

And then, so did A&E Network, “suspending” the star of their biggest show saying in a statement, “We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series ‘Duck Dynasty.” Apparently, they don’t actually watch the show.

Not a surprising statement, however, coming from a company which is owned by ABC, NBC and Hearst.  Look at the two network television parents.

ABC and NBC spend more time worrying about something less than 3% of America’s population than they do about who’s going to replace Diane Sawyer and Brian Williams on the evening news.  That’s right.  According to a recent UCLA survey, America is about 2.7% homosexual.  But man are they loud.

Now, I don’t have any problem with what these folks do behind closed doors, just as I don’t have any problem with what Phil Robertson said to GQ.  This is, after all, America.

But I need to point out, among all the brouhaha, that Phil Robertson was talking about a group of men who practice sex acts on each other.  If you can read that, retain the visual and still think positively about that sex act, you are definitely not what the vast majority of America considers normal. I don’t need the Gallup organization to tell me that and neither do you.

Despite what many of my pundit colleagues are saying, this is NOT a freedom of speech issue any more than the Dixie Chicks’ foray into politics was.

You remember them.  They did a concert in a foreign country and said on stage that they were ashamed of being from the same state as then President George W. Bush.  People stopped playing their records on the radio and the Chicks hollered about “freedom of speech”.

There’s a difference between freedom of speech and the willingness of someone to play your records.  Same for Robertson.

If ABC, NBC and Hearst are stupid enough to walk away from a major hit show because its star said something which maybe 2% of America even cared about (you have to assume that not all homosexuals even care) then maybe Fox will put the show on their new FoxSports1 network.  But A&E has the right to be stupid.

Although the right to stupidity is not enshrined in the Constitution, it seems to be a default in public discourse.

And Robertson certainly has the right to say out loud what is the mainstream view from the Judeo Christian and even the Muslim folks.

That said, it does appear that homosexuals have a disproportionate influence in the media.  That or they can invoke a disproportionate fear in the people who run the media.

Folks, homosexuality is NOT mainstream behavior despite what you are being told by the media, the hard left and the courts.

If you don’t believe me, ask Americans as a group if they feel comfortable having their kids cared for by a homosexual, male nanny.

I promise you, you ask the right question, you will find that whatever the media tells you is NOT the whole story.

But at base, the real question which needs to be asked is why do men who want to have sex with men have such disproportionate influence in public discourse?

As this is written, Duck Commander merchandise is flying off the shelves of WalMart.

That’s Middle America’s answer to the media elite.  If they’re smart, they’ll pay attention.  Because eventually, they’ll go too far and that same Middle America will turn on them and their hard left buddies.

Photo Credit:  Standard Compliant


One Reason To Raise The Minimum Wage…


Now that the Obama, Reid, Pelosi triumvirate can no longer tout Obamacare as its “signature” achievement, they’re looking for a distraction.  A bad deal with Iran lasted three days in the news cycle.

Where to turn?

Why the minimum wage, of course.

I mean, really.  Who can live on $17,000 a year?  What family of two can live on $34,000 a year?

Here’s an idea.

Let’s make Walmart, McDonalds, and Burger King pay their workers $15 an hour. If we did that, everything would be just fine.

People would make $31,000 a year, and all would be right in the world.  Right?

Not so much.

I’ll bet the immediate effect at Walmart would be robot stockers, self-checkout lanes, and really poor service.  Not to mention higher prices.  Do you really think that the two liter bottle of Diet Cherry Dr. Pepper would continue to retail for $1 at Walmart?  Do you really think that the Burger King French Fry burger would still be $1? Or any size drink at McDonalds would still be $1?

Let me tell you about a business I know intimately, the radio business.

Back in the day—prior to 2008—we hired a lot of high school kids and college kids at minimum wage to do things at the radio station, hoping some of them would stick.  In baseball parlance, they were our farm system.  The developmental league.

Today’s minimum wage of $8.25 an hour places an impossible burden on a small business like most radio stations are.  But we have a solution.  Computers can do most of what the kids used to do. The net effect is that we now hire almost nobody because computers work for free. If you can sell, you can make some money.  If you’re a talented air personality—either local or national—the pay can be reasonable.  But we’ve learned to do without employees who, frankly, cost too much for the return we get on the jobs they do.

Do you really think that the McDonalds, Burger Kings, and Walmarts of the world can’t automate many or even most of what they hire minimum wage people for today?

Go look at today’s warehouse for the answer to that question. You’ll see robots moving material from the start to finish of the process.

Part of it is disruptive technology.

But a big part of it is that the Federal and State governments have made it extremely difficult and expensive to have employees for almost any size business.

The other issue is that raising everybody’s wages simply devalues the currency.

If it’s one thing the Obama Administration should understand, it’s that.

Unfortunately, they seem to think that devaluing the worth of the United States Dollar is a good thing.  All of the printing presses that the Federal Reserve controls won’t devalue the currency as much as doubling the minimum wage.

Making the generous assumption that jobs won’t disappear, a straight doubling of the minimum wage will cause everything from rents to car payments to increase, thus negating the reason the wage was raised in the first place.

Now I want you to think about something.

These are the same people who brought you Obamacare.

I just learned this week that a bunch of prescription drugs I used to be able to buy at Walmart for $4 a month have tripled in price.  The same drug had been on the $4 list for the last six years; and all of a sudden, the month before Obamacare goes into effect, it’s off the list, and the price triples.

That’s known as an unintended consequence.

Do you really think that the same people who created the poster for unintended consequences should be allowed even more control of the job market?

Fixing Immigration Shouldn’t Be Political

Obama Immigration Policy Leave The Light On SC

There are three things certain about our immigration system.

1) It is broken and desperately needs to be fixed.

2) There can be no fix until we are capable of stopping illegal immigration and come to the simultaneous realization that we are NOT going to deport 12 and a half million people.

3) There can be no fix until we whack any politician on any side of the issue who seeks to make a fix that results in a political advantage.

Let’s start with our President, the Senator Majority Leader, and the House Minority Leader.  You would have to go a long way to convince me that Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi have a humanitarian bone in their corrupt bodies.  They see this purely as a political way of ensuring the long-term survival of the Democrat Party.

On the other hand.

There are a whole lot of Republicans who represent constituents who find it very profitable to bring illegal immigrants to America to work for them because they work cheap and they’re scared of being deported.

Those folks are every bit as reprehensible as Harry Reid, whose only concern about illegals is how they might vote if the Democrats were to grant them citizenship.

The ONLY way to solve a problem that has been created by a dithering Congress, four dithering Presidents of both parties, and politicians of both parties seeking political advantage is to simultaneously seal the border, come up with a workable employment visa program, and grant a limited amnesty program to the good citizens among the 12 and a half million people who are already here (the vast majority) because of—let’s face it—our implicit encouragement.

Now is a good time to do it since the economy can only go in one direction from where it is today, taking the numbers of people wishing to emigrate to America in search of jobs with it.

I’ve come a long way on the subject of immigration over the years.

I started at “what part of illegal didn’t you understand?”

And then I realized that my own parents are first generation Americans whose parents came to America because it was a) the land of opportunity and b) an ill wind was blowing through Europe in the early 20th century—especially for Jews in eastern Europe.

Like it or not, there is no Ellis Island on the South edge of San Diego.  Or El Paso or Tucson.

We may not have welcomed the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, and the rest of the Europeans who streamed to this nation in the early part of the 20th century with completely open arms; but we didn’t treat them like we treat Mexicans today.

The truth is that the stream of immigrants—both legal and illegal—bears some resemblance to the stream through Ellis Island in the early 1900s.

Because the other reality is that Mexico is almost irretrievably broken in terms of allowing its own citizens to accomplish with their lives what America allows its citizens to accomplish with theirs.

Simply put, maybe we do need an Ellis Island in San Diego.

Whatever we decide along those lines, we need to gain control of the border if for no other reason than to keep the Mexican equivalent of the La Cosa Nostra out more effectively than we did in 1915 in New York.

And we need an immigration policy that is clear and can be understood by everybody.

Those are bi-partisan objectives.  There is nothing here that a Harry Reid can contribute to because he doesn’t care about anything that isn’t political.

And the folks at La Raza (who keep blathering about ‘taking back the southwest’) should, perhaps, concentrate their efforts on fixing the Mexican side of the equation.  They would have a lot more credibility if Mexico’s government wasn’t controlled by a bunch of mobbed up drug lords.

It would also be nice if the Republicans would stop worrying about a fundamentally conservative group of people (mostly Catholic, pro-life Hispanics) voting Democrat if we give them a path to citizenship.

We are where we are as a result of abject stupidity on the part of both parties.

Don’t you think that it is time for the grown-ups to fix the problem idiots like Reid and Obama are striving to make worse once and for all?