Posts Tagged ‘Wages’
Funny how Marxists don’t recognize your unalienable right to keep the fruits of your labor (especially if you happen to be more successful than they think you should be), but they claim that they have a “right” to demand free goodies at the expense of others.
Speaking outside on a sunny day, Harris-Perry says in an ad that aired Wednesday morning:
Americans will always want some level of inequality, because it’s a representation of meritocracy. People who work hard and sacrifice and save their money and make major contributions — we think that they should earn a little more. They should have more resources, and that’s fine. But we also, however, have to have a floor under which nobody falls. And if you’re below that — especially if you’re a child and you’re below that — we are not going to accept that. You do have the the right to health care, and to education, and to decent housing and to quality food at all times. [Emphasis added]
When something is a “right” (your life or conscience, for instance), it means you don’t have to do anything to earn it. You get to have it just for existing. It’s a gift from your Creator.
When you describe goods and services like food and housing as “rights,” you are saying that the people who produce these goods and services are obligated to provide them for you, whether you pay for them or not. There’s a word for this: slavery. Only slaves are forced to produce for others without compensation. TRUE rights come from God, and are unalienable. They cannot be provided by others, who could just as easily take them away.
You have an unalienable right to work and trade for goods and services. You do NOT have a “right” to demand them free of charge from others.
This idea of a second bill of “rights” that government should provide (food, housing, health care, etc.) goes back to FDR. Problem is, TRUE rights come from GOD, not government. Government’s job is merely to protect them (life, liberty, property, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech,etc.).
Any “right” that is granted by government can just as easily be taken away by government. Not only that, but it is done so at the expense of someone else who’s REAL rights are being violated so you can be give the “right” to something you haven’t earned.
Mere hours after Breitbart News published an excerpt from an interview with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in which he speculated that President Barack Obama would “prefer a different kind of constitution,” one with a Bill of Rights based on the South African model, former Obama administration regulatory czar Cass Sunstein published an op-ed making a similar argument: that the president wants a “second Bill of Rights” alongside the existing one.
Sunstein located the source of Obama’s inspiration in Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1944State of the Union address, rather than the South African constitution–though the American academics whose writings inspired South Africa’s ambitious Bill of Rights could well have taken Roosevelt’s proposals as their foundation.
[...] Obama is aiming at achieving a new set of socioeconomic rights, whether through law or through policy. It is the dream of progressives and liberals for the better part of a century–a dream that has resisted the reality that these “rights” are not justiciable; that they degrade the value of other, fundamental, rights; and they create more policy problems than they solve.
From the propagandists who brought you “Julia,” a new and exciting way to bombard your friends with leftist talking points!
This morning, the White House sent an email out to its millions-strong list asking, “Do you support equal pay for women?” Why would the White House ask such a question? Because the Obama administration, in its latest attempt to woo the women’s vote and posit the existence of a conservative “war on women,” is pressing the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would once again restrict business in the name of the supposed pay gap between the sexes.
[...] There’s only one problem with all of this: the wage gap is a myth. In point of fact, women tend to take jobs that are less lucrative, work less hours, and take more time off than men. There are many reasons that women earn less than men on average: men choose more dangerous jobs that pay more, choose uncomfortable jobs that pay more, work weekends and evenings more, specialize in high-stress areas of business.
The Department of Labor has itself pointed out the reasons for the fact that women make less money than men, on average: a greater percentage of women work part-time, leave work to bear children, and value family-friendly jobs. As Charles E. James, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Federal Contract Compliance, wrote back in 2009, “the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and … the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.”
The proof is in the pudding: as Steve Tobek has pointed out, “Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make, which, since they have no boss, means it’s independent of discrimination. The reason for the disparity, according to a Rochester Institute of Technology study, is that money is the primary motivator for 76% of men versus only 29% of women.”
Even more telling, the White House itself is guilty of paying their female staffers less than their male counterparts:
According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).
[...] If the White House’s defense is that women aren’t equally represented in senior positions, let’s see David Axelrod take that case to the public.
It really is baffling that President Obama would make the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act into a campaign issue when his own house is literally not living up to the standards he’s demanding from others. Perhaps the Democratic Party thought the issue would instantly push the GOP into defense mode and the White House’s own failings would never become an issue. Clearly, they miscalculated. While Democrats are trying to win over women voters by claiming Republicans are waging a war on female reproductive rights, the women’s vote tends to be influenced far more by economic issues. Judging from that, the stories today about how women workers are faring under Obama will be very effective messaging points for Republicans.
Hypocrisy in the way the White House treats women? Say it ain’t so!
Say it ain’t so!
Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.
According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).
Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.
The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.
President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House.
“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”
It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act.
Now, I’ll be the first to acknowledge that I believe, as studies have shown, that the pay gap between men and women is usually not due to discrimination, but to their lifestyle choices.
But Democrats don’t hold this view. They automatically divide people and judge them as groups rather than individuals, so therefore any differences relative to the group as a whole are automatically assumed to be “discrimination,” regardless of the unique circumstances and choices of each individual which contributed to the overall number.
They insist that paycheck differences between men and women as a whole reveal inherent discrimination. But if they truly believe that, why do their own leaders practice it?
Another great commentary on how ignorance of basic economics has led to unnecessary class warfare and misled political activism.
I saw a young man carrying a sign that read: “People before profits.” The guy had joined “Occupy Chicago” crowd, chanting passionately against the greed of the wealthiest 1 percent of his fellow Americans. It is unlikely that many of the protestors are foolish enough to claim that Gates and Buffett are guiltier of covetousness than plumber Joe or nurse Jane. But I wish that the Occupy Wall Street supporters were better educated on the functioning of our capitalist society.
If only they would take a few minutes to read a single page in an introductory economics textbook, they could understand that all the comforts of their lives come from many generations of entrepreneurs striving after profits and trying to avoid losses. Once they figure out that the gain of the producer in an unhindered market is a function of his ability to increase the enjoyment of the consumer, they could move their protests to Washington where our elected servants are busy writing rules that reward mediocrity and prevent the adjustment of supply to meet actual demand.
The tragic mistake that keeps the “Occupiers” barking up the wrong tree is that they do not see profits as a result of creation of new wealth but of its redistribution. When you observe some people getting super rich from their investments while others are losing their savings, homes, and jobs, it is tempting to jump to the conclusion that the former comes at the expense of the latter. While this is true for government activities such as warfare and taxation, in a system based on voluntary exchanges, the entrepreneur can only make a profit by making many human beings better off.
When a politician is using the powers delegated to him to go after a company that sells water, food, and gasoline at temporarily obscene profits in a hurricane stricken area, he receives the admiration of the uneducated public. Instead, he should be voted out of office for decreasing the number of companies who choose to take the risks of bringing the necessary supplies to the suffering. As Ludwig Von Mises could point out, the gain of the entrepreneur is not the outcome of the natural disaster, “but the aid he gives to those afflicted.”
Econ 101. These kids are learning more in one conversation with Peter Schiff than in those ripoff college classes they dug themselves into debt for. Good for him to for challenging them to think!
Schiff is no ordinary observer. As the prinicipal of the financial firm Euro Pacific Capital, he’s a full-fledged and unapologetic member of “the 1 Percent.” As an outspoken radio show host (listen online here) and commentator, he not only predicted the housing crash and financial crisis, he railed bank and auto-sector bailouts as they were happening. Schiff believes that capitalism offers the only hope for young, frustrated people to have a vibrant and prosperous future (get information on his latest book, How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes, here). So he went to Occupy Wall Street to engage and debate the protesters.
Touring the Occupy Wall Street scene in New York with a sign that read “I Am the 1%, Let’s Talk,”Schiff spent more than three hours on the scene, explaining the difference between cronyism and capitalism, bailouts and balance sheets, and more.
“The regulation we want is the market,” said Schiff. “That’s what works.”
Schiff describes himself as “sympathetic” to the plight of the OWS protesters, but thinks their anger is misdirected at legitimate business interests and should be better at the White House, Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the crony capitalists they’ve bailed out.
Here’s another clip from the 3-hour discussion:
View on YouTube
Economist Walter Williams gives a little Econ 101 for “Occupiers” (and the rest of America):
The Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are demanding “people before profits” — as if profit motivation were the source of mankind’s troubles — when it’s often the absence of profit motivation that’s the true villain.
First, let’s get both the definition and magnitude of profits out of the way. Profits represent the residual claim earned by entrepreneurs. They’re what are left after other production costs — such as wages, rent and interest — have been paid. Profits are the payment for risk taking, innovation and decision-making. As such, they are a cost of business just as are wages, rent and interest. If those payments are not made, labor, land and capital will not offer their services. Similarly, if profit is not paid, entrepreneurs won’t offer theirs. Historically, corporate profits range between 5 and 8 cents of each dollar, and wages range between 50 and 60 cents of each dollar.
Far more important than simple statistics about the magnitude of profits is the role played by profits, namely that of forcing producers to cater to the wants and desires of the common man. When’s the last time we’ve heard widespread complaints about our clothing stores, supermarkets, computer stores or appliance stores? We are far likelier to hear people complaining about services they receive from the post office, motor vehicle and police departments, boards of education and other government agencies. The fundamental difference between the areas of general satisfaction and dissatisfaction is the pursuit of profits is present in one and not the other.
The pursuit of profits forces producers to be attentive to the will of their customers, simply because the customer of, say, a supermarket can fire it on the spot by taking his business elsewhere. If a state motor vehicle department or post office provides unsatisfactory services, it’s not so easy for dissatisfied customers to take action against it. If a private business had as many dissatisfied customers as our government schools have, it would have long ago been out of business.
Free market capitalism is unforgiving.
Producers please customers, in a cost-minimizing fashion, and make a profit, or they face losses or go bankrupt. It’s this market discipline that some businesses seek to avoid. That’s why they descend upon Washington calling for crony capitalism — government bailouts, subsidies and special privileges. They wish to reduce the power of consumers and stockholders, who hold little sympathy for blunders and will give them the ax on a moment’s notice.
Having Congress on their side means business can be less attentive to the will of consumers. Congress can keep them afloat with bailouts, as it did in the cases of General Motors and Chrysler, with the justification that such companies are “too big to fail.” Nonsense! If General Motors and Chrysler had been allowed to go bankrupt, it wouldn’t have meant that their productive assets, such as assembly lines and tools, would have gone poof and disappeared into thin air. Bankruptcy would have led to a change in ownership of those assets by someone who might have managed them better. The bailout enabled them to avoid the full consequences of their blunders.
By the way, we often hear people say, with a tone of saintliness, “We’re a nonprofit organization,” as if that alone translates into decency, objectivity and selflessness. They want us to think they’re in it for the good of society and not for those “evil” profits. If we gave it just a little thought and asked what kind of organization throughout mankind’s history has accounted for his greatest grief, the answer wouldn’t be a free market, private, profit-making enterprise; it would be government, the largest nonprofit organization.
The Occupy Wall Street protesters are following the path predicted by the great philosopher-economist Frederic Bastiat, who said in “The Law” that “instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general.” In other words, the protesters don’t want to end crony capitalism, with its handouts and government favoritism; they want to participate in it.
In case you’re wondering what their end game is…
@dredeyedick used Twextra to get the word out to that “Occupiers” need to demand a new U.S. Constitution:
“If you talk to young people in America – they’ve already accepted this,” Paul said Wednesday. This shows how out of touch, and deliriously optimistic those in our government really are.
There is no hope of reform. There is no hope of improvement, equity, or social justice under this regime, or under this form of government.
We must rewrite the Constitution of the United States, to eliminate the possibility of these and other egregious crimes against our founding values – corporate “personhood”, the derelict traditions of the Supreme Court, habeas corpus, attorney-client privilege, due process of law, first and fourth amendment guarantees, torture, war crimes, executive privilege, extra-constitutional intelligence activities, arrogant corporate limits on liability that permit crimes against nature and humanity with impunity, and more.
Republicans are a criminal enterprise and will not produce true reform and neither will Democrats. Congress will do nothing substantive to help People, the President will do nothing real to help the People of the United States get an even break, and neither will the Supreme Court who ducks every important issue or tries to defuse and defer other crucial decisions using the dodge of legal technicalities.
Our new United States Constitution will not permit such malfeasance. Moreover, it will ensure the current crop of unindicted criminals, in and out of office, will suffer the accountability of a justice system they can not game.
We will pursue, apprehend, try, convict, and carry out punishment proportional to the immensity of their crimes. Let them make no mistake. We, the People, are coming for them. The needs of the People of this country for jobs and justice and a system of laws that functions are overriding and beyond urgent. Our self-styled leaders have had a chance to fix the system the easy way, and refused, belligerently, to institute reform. But easy way or hard way, these reforms will happen.
Unless I’m mistaken, the American People still have a backbone. This means we shall cast off this pernicious parasite that has come to be the current Constitutional system, and create a new one.
It is oftentimes complained, partially unfairly, that the American lower classes are getting poorer and poorer. But enough has been written, by practically every conservative think-tank, about how the welfare state and anti-discrimination legislation destroy neighborhoods and promote the business interests of those with poor moral constitutions (leftists, primarily) by providing layabouts with an arsenal of unreasonable lawsuits. This article, recognizing the above socioeconomic maxims, will seek instead to show how two-income households have played an equal, if not greater role in impoverishing American lower classes. This aspect of American poverty has not been adequately addressed — perhaps, considering how feminism pushes women into the workplace, because it is now culturally offensive to do so.
When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, he noted that although the wages of the lowest classes were oftentimes determined by the lowest their employers could pay, humankind’s present population acknowledges that at large, even with an imbalance of wealth, employers could not sustainably pay their workers less than would maintain a family of four (Book I, chapter VIII). If employers were to seek to pay less, then populations would shrink until competition over labor would force the wages of even the lowest classes higher. And since the population of the world is now greater than in past years, especially considering that Western societies are generally monogamous in terms of marital structure, then the poorest working classes must have been able, even without minimum wage regulations, to afford families of five and greater. If this was not the case, then wealthy families would have been primarily responsible for the present population — a highly unlikely scenario, considering even Smith acknowledged that wealthier women were less inclined toward childbearing.
But there was a circumstance in which Smith noted that wages could fall below this natural floor. Assuming that a household were to have a second source of income, the worker was likely to compete for employment at a lower price than his neighbors, bringing wages below standards of maintenance. Today, that second income is provided either when welfare payments are received from the state or when two breadwinners exist in the same home. And the natural result of either circumstance is that the once-sustainable wages of the single employment are compromised, and though two breadwinners now occupy one household, their wealth is not greatly augmented.
The U.S. Census Bureau confirms this hypothesis with its 2010 study on household income demographics. The lowest classes, those most likely to be touted by left-wing organizations as oppressed, are the least likely to be dual-income families, while those in wealthier middle-class categories are a minimum of close to four times more likely to have dual incomes. Compared with the bracket with the highest percentage of dual income households, the lowest quintile is somewhere around eleven times less likely to have a second income. If this is the case, then poverty and the number of incomes are absolutely correlated.
The dual income, of course, has an equally disastrous effect upon housing affordability. In past generations, a man could buy a small home with his own savings. Today, not only has the housing market become radically inflated through government-sponsored usury, but since home prices are essentially monopoly prices, selling for the maximum amount the market will bear, having two breadwinners in a majority of homes can only make a landed lower class even less possible. According to the same Census Bureau report above, the quintile most likely to have only one income (the poorest quintile) constitutes one third of all renters.
Americans do not often consider that such a trend toward dual full-time incomes — and subsequently, toward the impracticability of properly raising a traditional family with two children — has already harmed this country substantially. Conservatives complain of the unfathered children of the most criminal classes, yet they often neglect to propose that a missing mother could harm the family as well. They complain about a public school system’s advocacy for increasingly bankrupt leftist causes, but they will not encourage mothers to fulfill their duty to raise their children. They complain of theincredible burden associated with an aging population without wondering whether it is actually affordable anymore for traditional families to properly raise more than one to two children. Simply put, the economic (and thus reproductive) power of the individual household is vital to a host of conservative causes, and yet, for reasons neither logical nor moral, the sacred cow of feminism takes precedence over all of them.
It may perhaps be complained that the woman’s worth is not realized when she remains at home, that she is disempowered in her motherly duty. But the wise know — not just with their minds, but also with their hearts — that a mother’s value is not reflected solely in the peace of the home and in the stability of nations. On the contrary, if a society of women arise to their honorable calling, they are amply rewarded in the fortified paychecks of their husbands, and in the affordability of their homes. This was yesterday’s America, steeped in the honor which accompanies the dutiful. Yet today, the husband depends upon his wife to sustain a wealth they once had without her leaving the home — a deteriorating financial and reproductive state of the American household for which leftists, of course, propose “remedies.”
Toward such a solution, leftists remove capital from the American economy, destroying the growth of industry — a growth which Adam Smith recognized alone as the poor man’s insurance of equitable pay — only to distribute that money in welfare programs well-known by all studious men to destroy the household further. This, as well-documented, results in more illegitimate childbirth, more crime, and perhaps most offensively, more cries for more government programs to further the cycle of plunder.
The Job-Killing Impact of Minimum Wage Laws
View on YouTube
Here’s the concept that “compassionate” liberals just don’t seem to understand: starting wages are just that – STARTING wages. Entry level jobs aren’t SUPPOSED to support a family. They’re supposed to help unskilled and inexperienced workers start at the bottom rung so they can climb the economic ladder as their skills and experience increase to meet the demands of higher-paying jobs. If you keep raising the bottom rung out of reach, you make it harder for them to lift themselves out of poverty.
The cost of living is going up because of government-caused inflation (thanks, Federal Reserve), and forcing employers to pay higher-than-market wages for unskilled work that isn’t worth the price is going to mean fewer hires and more unemployment – making the lives of entry-level workers WORSE, not better!
Many people entering the job market (especially young people) are being priced out of entry-level jobs by the minimum wage. Government is essentially moving the starting line away from them so that they can’t even join the race.
Oregon’s minimum-wage workers will get an extra 30 cents an hour next year.
Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian announced Thursday that the minimum wage will rise to $8.80 per hour on Jan. 1.
Oregon voters approved a ballot measure in 2002 that requires a minimum wage adjustment each year based on changes in inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index. Avakian says the index rose 3.77 percent over the past year.
Oregon and Washington are among 10 states that adjust the minimum wage based on the index. Washington is expected to announce its next adjustment later this month.
Labor Day [is] the unofficial end of the summer and a celebration of America’s working men and women. Americans will relax and enjoy themselves on their day off, but this will come as little consolation for the 14 million Americans currently unemployed.
Unfortunately, President Obama still hasn’t provided an effective plan to restore our economic dynamism and put these people back to work. Instead, he has focussed his labor policies on the few Americans (one of every 14 in the private sector) who still belong to unions, largely ignoring the 90 percent of workers who don’t. That’s because those unions — in many cases against their members’ desires — provide massive, poorly disclosed campaign expenditures on behalf of Democrats. The result has been panoply of policies that are sapping America’s economic vigor while enshrining privileges for a fortunate few.
Obama’s National Labor Relations Board, far from serving as a mediator and peacekeeper between labor and industry, has become an advocate for a specific Democratic interest group. In addition to its punitive prosecution of Boeing — which made the mistake of expanding its nonunion labor force in a right-to-work state — Obama’s NLRB has been busily staving off the inevitable demise of private-sector unions with a slew of decisions that will further weaken the businesses that employ most Americans. These latest rulings were made just as liberal Chairwoman Wilma Liebman’s term expired last Saturday.
Despite lacking any statutory authority, the board has now decreed that employers must advertise to workers their right to form unions, using very large posters and electronic communications. The NLRB also issued pro-union rulings in a handful of critical cases. In one, they decided that when unions cannot win over a majority of employees in a workplace, they can still replenish their diminishing ranks by targeting small groups of employees who might be more receptive to unionization. In another case, Obama’s NLRB stripped from workers the right to challenge immediately the results of card-check drives by unions. The ruling applies in cases where employers collude with unions, letting them organize their workplaces without secret-ballot elections. In a third case, the NLRB abolished workers’ right to change unions or get rid of their union in a timely manner when a company changes hands.
Obama never hid from voters his fealty to union bosses. He promised the Service Employees International Union that as president, he would make the union’s agenda his own. And since Obama’s inauguration, top union bosses have had more access to the White House than most of Obama’s Cabinet secretaries. American workers, the vast majority of whom have nothing to gain from unionization, can only wish they had a president who cared for their interests, and for broader prosperity, as much as he cares for this single, dying institution.
The one our founders gave us stands too much in the way of their agenda.
At least three White House advisers and officials, including President Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, have ties to an effort funded by billionaire George Soros to push for a new, “progressive” U.S. Constitution.
WND first reported last week that Sunstein’s wife, Samantha Power, has been a champion of a Soros-funded doctrine, entitled “responsibility to protect,” which was used by Obama to justify engaging in an international military alliance to bomb Libya. As the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, Power reportedly influenced Obama in his decision.
Now it has emerged that Sunstein has maintained extensive ties to Soros’ funding, particularly with regard to a movement that openly seeks to create a “progressive” consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020.
Also, Attorney General Eric Holder sat on the board of a Soros-funded group pushing the same “progressive” constitution.
WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled, “The Constitution in 2020,” which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.
That event was sponsored by Soros’ Open Society Institute as well as by the Center for American Progress, which is led by John Podesta, who served as co-chair of Obama’s presidential transition team. Podesta’s Center is said to be highly influential in helping to craft White House policy.
The Yale event on the Constitution was also sponsored by the American Constitution Society, or ACS, which has been described as a group meant to counter the work of the Federalist Society, which has been at the forefront of the push for a more conservative judiciary since its launch in 1982.
The ACS is the main organization behind the movement to ensure a more “progressive” constitution, having received more that $2,201,500 from Soros’ Open Society since 2002.
Attorney General Holder served on the ACS board of directors. [...]
The Constitution 2020 movement has plotted a strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.
Just before his appearance at the Yale conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he “will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party.”
Sunstein has also been pushing for a new socialist-style U.S. bill of rights that, among other things, would constitutionally require the government to offer each citizen a “useful” job in the farms or industries of the nation.
According to Sunstein’s new bill of rights, the U.S. government can also intercede to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return while the government is granted power to act against “unfair competition” and monopolies in business.
All this and more is contained in Sunstein’s 2004 book, “The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever.”
In the work, Sunstein advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. His inspiration for a new bill of rights came from President Roosevelt’s 1944 proposal of a different, new set of rights.
In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:
His mandates include the following:
- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return that will give him and his family a decent living;
- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
- The right of every family to a decent home;
- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
- The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;
- The right to a good education.
On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is “not seriously arguing” his bill of rights be “encompassed by anything in the Constitution,” but on the next page he states that “if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself.”
Later in the book, Sunstein argues that “at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America’s constitutive commitments.”
This is insane!
Government payouts—including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance—make up more than a third of total wages and salaries of the U.S. population, a record figure that will only increase if action isn’t taken before the majority of Baby Boomers enter retirement.
Even as the economy has recovered, social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960, according to TrimTabs Investment Research using Bureau of Economic Analysis data.
“The U.S. economy has become alarmingly dependent on government stimulus,” said Madeline Schnapp, director of Macroeconomic Research at TrimTabs, in a note to clients. “Consumption supported by wages and salaries is a much stronger foundation for economic growth than consumption based on social welfare benefits.”
The economist gives the country two stark choices. In order to get welfare back to its pre-recession ratio of 26 percent of pay, “either wages and salaries would have to increase $2.3 trillion, or 35 percent, to $8.8 trillion, or social welfare benefits would have to decline $500 billion, or 23 percent, to $1.7 trillion,” she said.
Last month, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a $61 billion federal spending cut, but Senate Democratic leaders and the White House made it clear that had no chance of becoming law. Short-term resolutions passed have averted a government shutdown that could have occurred this month, as Vice President Biden leads negotiations with Republican leaders on some sort of long-term compromise.
As the nation seriously examines the role of government and the extent to which we should increase the debt as opposed to cutting spending, the President this past week submitted his financial blueprint for the nation in his budget.
Workers and small businesses have been heartened as of late by President Obama’s rhetoric concerning harmful regulations and the impact they have on job creation and economic development.
In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal last month, the President wrote “small firms drive growth and create most new jobs in this country. We need to make sure nothing stands in their way.”
Therefore, many expected his budget to reflect this new commitment to small businesses by curtailing burdensome and onerous rules by cutting or not increasing funding to regulatory agencies like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and National Mediation Board (NMB).
The President’s words were not matched with action. At a time when American families are tightening their belts, the White House’s budget actually increased funding to the NLRB and NMB by $4,797,000. In fact, this comes after a $21,276,000 increase last year.
These agencies are not focused on helping small businesses turn around our economy. Instead, they are committed to putting in place policies that hurt job creators and reward Big Labor bosses by eliminating worker rights.
The NLRB has spent its time attempting to enact rules that shorten the election window in union-organizing drives, implement card check, institute electronic voting and create various bargaining units in one workplace, none of which creates a single job and only serve to produce uncertainty for job providers.
And as the NLRB has been leading an assault against employees and employers, the NMB has reversed a rule in place for nearly a century that required a majority of workers to select a collective bargaining unit, and instituted a policy that allows a small minority to determine the fate of an entire workforce.
These highly provocative and damaging actions have been enacted by bureaucrats that are Big Labor’s cronies.
Like every other “blue” state, Oregon doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a SPENDING problem!
Did your paycheck shrink in January? For many, it did.
Part of the reason is the state has upped the withholding tables a bit, to make sure fewer taxpayers will have to pay more at the end of the year, and more will get refunds.
Though the state is taking more money from you every pay period, depending on your income, you should get most of it back later.
“I live paycheck to paycheck,” Austin Marsh of Bend said Wednesday. “So by them taking more out of my paycheck, $10 to $15 a week doesn’t really bug me at all.”
“I work hard for my money and I’ll get it back in the long run” said Marsh.
Like many Central Oregonians, Marsh has noticed a little less money on his paycheck this year. Marsh says it’s fine, just as long as he gets most of it back come tax time.
After voters passed Measure 66, those earning more than $125,000 saw an increase in their taxes. Taxes didn’t increase for those earning less, but the Department of Revenue withheld more from everyone, saying too many Oregonians owed money above what was withheld when it came time to pay their taxes.
The result? The state gets more money sooner.
“The value of having all that cash for the course of the year, actually allows them for the compound of interest as well,” said financial analyst Bill Valentine of Valentine Ventures, LLC.
“So we’re both playing the cat-and-mouse game,” said Valentine. “But the state has it set up such that the state wants to and has set the withholding levels so that they come out with more refundings than collections on the last tax payment of the year.”
Valentine says in general, the state wants to make sure its refunding a lot more money at the end of the year than it is collecting in the final tax payments from its citizens. They’re trying to hit a certain ratio of taxpayers owing more taxes, getting a refund, and owing nothing.
“The state shoots to refund 70 percent of tax payers returns, said Valentine. “And only wants to collect payments from as few as 20 percent at the end of the year.”