Saturday, March 01, 2014
Vote Buying And The Minimum Wage Gambit
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction – Newton’s Third Law of Motion
The best way to persuade someone in Connecticut to vote for you is to buy their vote. Progressives, who nowadays take money from the middle class and give it to one-percenters, do this with a certain reckless abandon: Does anyone truly believe that that Aetna Insurance Company really needed the money given to it by Governor Dannel Malloy to survive?
Of course there are problems when the money to purchase a vote in Connecticut is taken from taxpayers who, given the parlous state of the economy after the Democratic hegemon has taken its share, are drowning in high taxes and liberty strangulating regulations.
To be sure, the debts of the average Connecticut taxpayer are considerably less than those of national taxpayers following four years on President Barack Obama’s economic death row. But almost always the state taxpayer and the national taxpayer are one and the same person, since federal and state taxes are paid out of the same pockets.
On the date of Mr. Obama’s inauguration, the debt held by the public stood at roughly $6.307 trillion, according to the Treasury Department’s "Debt to the Penny" calculator. The gross federal debt was about $10.627 trillion. Currently, the debt held by the public is $12.425 trillion, double the Bush figure, and gross federal debt is $17.410, a great leap forward in indebtedness.
Mr. Obama and the resourceful Governor Dannel Malloy together have discovered a means of purchasing votes without raising taxes to liquidate a debt that has doubled since Mr. Obama took office. You simply raise the minimum wage and, hesto-presto, you have purchased the woman’s vote. As represented by the figures above, the debt, like the gentle rain, evenly falls on both the just and the unjust, on both men and women in the workforce.
“Male voters,” according to one commentator, “generally speaking, are easy to figure out: raise my taxes I punch you in the nose. Malloy has raised taxes. Female voters, however, process information through a different filter. What’s my future with you in charge? What’s my standard of living? Is my kid safe in school? I’m a single mom with kids to feed, are you helping me?”
Of course, if you are a single WORKING mom attempting to bring up your child as best you might in Connecticut’s one party state, you may be inclined to wrinkle your nose at the prospect of a higher minimum wage.
Why so? Because you will find yourself in the male boat, generally speaking, casting about for noses to smash.
Why so? Because an increase in the minimum wage artificially raises the cost of labor, and politically induced increases in the costs of labor are either sustainable or not. If small businesses cannot sustain the cost increase, they will throw workers on the unemployment rolls, which could be costly to you, if you are a WORKING WOMAN who pays taxes and are not a welfare recipient.
Artificial – which is to say, political – increases in the cost of labor also drive up prices. And increases in prices cut into household budgets. Political increases in the costs of labor have the same effect on prices as taxes. If you tax a product and increase its price, you are driving nails into Connecticut’s coffin lid. People flee taxes like the plague, which is why Mr. Malloy is offering tax deals to large companies whenever they appear to be gazing longingly at the exit signs. United Technologies is only the latest recipient of middle class taxpayer largess. According to a story in a Hartford paper, “Tax Breaks Encourage United Technologies To Stay In State,” UTC might bolt Connecticut if it is not fortified by Mr. Malloy’s crony capitalist tax breaks, a measure that will permit the international multi-billion dollar company to maintain its headquarters in the state for the next fifteen years.
In the progressive crony capitalist bubble, where Newton’s Second Law of Motion has been permanently repealed, only ONE consequence per action is permitted – the consequence you desire. Do you want people making a minimum wage, some of whom are women, to vote for you? Increase the minimum wage and never fear deleterious unintended consequences. But for non-progressives who live in the real world, the unintended consequence occasionally is worse than the political solution designed to solve the problem.
The most serious problem in the United States for the last few decades has been the acceleration in spending, as indicated by the debt figures cited above. And that problem cannot be settled by politically popular expedients offered by progressive politicians whose chief – and some would say ONLY -- concern involves election to office.
If a man who has burned my house down appears at my charred doorway to offer me a free couch lost in the fire, I might be grateful for the couch, but I would still punch him in the nose – especially if I were a woman the arsonist might take advantage of because he thought I was less able than a man to calculate gain and loss.
The headline in the Hartford Courant is, or perhaps should be, a blow to the solar plexus: “ Catholic couple say (sic) daughter’s removal ...
Dave Walker, who is running for Lieutenant Governor on the Republican Party ticket, is recognized by most credible political observers as...
Some time ago, a Connecticut Trumpeter confessed to this political writer that he had been having a recurrent nightmare. Military pr...