Sunday Editorial

Loaves For The Poor


In New Mexico there is a proposal to raise the minimum wage to 7.50. Of course this will raise all the normal questions and debate. It already has. We had an interesting debate about midweek on it. It brought up a number of others also.
I found it interesting that the caller seemed to be making the argument that raising the minimum wage was tantamount to welfare and that they really weren't "earning" it. He said they should "go work for it". In some respects I understand his argument. I think he felt that you should strive to "move up" in the world and not just accept whatever you could get. I understand and accept that. My question is move up from what!? To have any respectable chance to "move up" you are likely to need a car, a home with running water and food and some clothes. Not at 5.15 an hour.
I am fine with debating questionable points. Should we have a different minimum for under 18? ..With additional income comes additional tax revenues. Should we offset some of the cost to small business with some of this additional income? I am amenable to both of those possibilities. The idea that we leave the least among us as far down as possible does not fit in my "moral" compass. For someone to think that raising the minimum wage is tantamount to welfare means someone just hates the poor. Hates em when they aren't working, hates them when they are.

We also discussed the bill out of Maryland that effectively forced Wal-mart to use 8% of their profits to provide health care for their employees. This is where the man had obviously not thought past the doctrine. He of course uttered government interferce in private business and government control. Let's think through this. People here basically making 6-10 dollars an hour. They can't afford health insurance. They may be on medicade/medicare. That means tax payers are paying for their health insurance. They may have none at all. That means any big hospital bill will be borne by the other insurees with 5 dollar aspirin etc. Either that or Wal-mart provides for it's employees like other companies do. Do you want Wal-mart to pay for it or do you want to pay for it? I think Wal-mart has far better resources to do that than you or I.
Hell they could start clinics inside their stores and let the employees go for free with low priced medications etc. That would mean they would only need catastrophic coverage. Big savings. But no one wants to think like a progressive. They just want to spew doctrine.
I honestly think that burdening the business sector with the responsibility for health care is wrong. It costs way to much and inhibits the free enterprise system to a significant degree. The answer is universal health care. As socialist/commie as it may sound it still seems the most common sensical move to make. It would assure that everyone pays something. The additional tax just needs to be kept below your monthly premiums to have a positive effect on the economy. We have systems in many other countries to study before we come out with our own brand. That gives us a huge leg up. We can do this! Do we need to make it a federal program administered by the states? I'm up for creating whatever will work the best for Americans.