I plan on submitting this to the KC Star tonight.

Re: Change in minimum wage statute.

Cities and other government agencies are figuring out that the increased minimum wage is going to cost them more money. They want to get the law changed to exempt them.

The citizens of Missouri clearly carefully examined the exquisitely crafted ballot initiative and voted overwhelmingly to approve it. The local governments should not usurp the will of voters throughout the state by daring to exempt thousands of workers from its provisions. Why should only governments be exempt from the new law?

These governments are complaining about the same thing that every other business is going through. Higher wages cost business and force them to make the same choices; cuts in service, cuts in labor hours worked, or raising prices to make it work. Are not these public servants and their services worth the increased wages?

Shame on any judge who grants an injunction in favor of only local governments. Shame on any legislator that votes to exempt any workers. The people have spoken. They want to pay higher taxes, pay higher prices and have less government and private services available.

Power to the people!

With Senator Tim Johnson, Democrat South Dakota laying in a hospital bed recovering from bleeding of the brain,  I will be watching carefully how the party handles this situation.

Let me begin with a sincere hope of recovery for Senator Johnson and prayers for his family.

It will be interesting to see if the phrase "quality of life" crops up.  This is the phrase that people bring up when people reach the end of what someone sees as their "useful" portion of life.  This can be a different age based on different circumstances. 

For example a person that it is in a "persistent vegetative state" (supposedly Terry Schiavo) is fodder to be starved to death even when someone is willing to love and nurture that person for years if necessary.

A person that is old and in ill health should be willing to go quietly.

A baby with Spinabifida should not even be born.  Neither should babies whose Mom may have a valid health exception.  Head aches count.

With that said, it will be painful to watch how the talk turns to Tim Johnson and how many people recover from this type of illness and go on to lead happy productive lives.  At least strong enough to remain a Senator in office through say December 31, 2008.  There will be no talk by Democrats of him stepping down as long as there is a heart beat.  This situation will be worse than Terry Schiavo and it will expose the hypocrisy of the left.

I very much hope that Senator Johnson recovers extremely quickly so that we can avoid the side show that will surely happen if he is anything less than 100% recovered.

If he is not well enough to complete his duties, I hope that he decides quickly to resign, so that we can get on with the peoples business.  His job is too important to let partisanship keep the seat from being truly filled.

 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

1.	to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.

How many political topics that are in the forefront today are directly opposed to the commandment of not coveting? Virtually any discussion regarding taxes, wages, or benefits touches on this commandment.

"Keeping up with the Jones" is just one outgrowth of coveting.  You see someone else driving a nice car, building a nice home, or wearing nice, clothes, and you think to yourself "I want that." 

Some people at this point find a way to go out and buy  the item.  Is this coveting?  Maybe or maybe not.
It would be obvious if you went and stole the item from the person.

I would argue that both probably are.  God knows that if we covet things, it is more likely that we will do something stupid like stealing.  God is warning us "Don't even think about it!"  He is helping us to avoid the temptation of taking others blessings.

Would this change if the person coveting others things, made a law that made it legal to take the item from someone else?  Would this be wrong?  I think it is.  Welcome to politics 2006 style.

Tax the rich!  I am going to pay for this program with a tax the top 1% of taxpayers.  We are going to mandate employer paid health care.  We are going to raise the minimum wage.  People need to be paid a living wage.

Do you find yourself saying things like this?  Then you are coveting.  Your are seeing someone else that God has blessed and are taking those blessing by force of law.

Taxes should be something that is spread out among the masses, not the few.  It is not a good thing to have so many people not paying taxes and receiving benefits in the form of legalized theft.  Graduated tax rates are not the solution, they are a problem. 

By taxing people a higher percentage if you make more money, you are discouraging people from making more money.  As a society, do we want people to try to succeed or should we give away money for making poor choices? Wouldn't this argument lead to a reverse graduated tax as the solution?  I bet that would go over well!

That brings up the question; Should we tax income at all?  I think not.  I think that a consumption tax such as the well promoted "fair tax" proposal would be a great thing.  For a good look at this awesome plan goto www.fairtax.org. 

Would this solve the issue of coveting? No.  But it would stop some taking money from people and giving it to others through the tax code.
People would still be able to buy things.  In fact they would all have more money to buy things.  There would be less of a need to covet.  That could help to make us all better people.

Not me!  While I may be afraid of Nancy Pelosi as far as picking committee assignments and setting the agenda in the house of representatives, I no longer fear Nancy.

Prior to the election, I was convinced that was evil incarnate.  However, the devil is not be as inept as Nancy Pelosi.  Nancy took the house majority party elections that should have been a shining moment for the Democratic party and turned it into a comic tragedy. 

Traditionally the house leader stays out of these elections altogether.  Now we know why.  If Nancy had simply stayed out of the fray, the party would have maintained the appearance of unity.  This has been one of the strong points in an otherwise weak Democratic party.

However, Nancy had to jump in and support Murtha.  He theory was that Jack could end the Iraq war.  What she forgot or (ignored) was that Murtha has a past in the culture of corruption with Abscam.  This combined with the fact the Hoyer was in line for the job and that he actually was liked and respected by most of the delegation. ( This bodes well for the Democrats - they have seen that character matters.)  Ms. Pelosi had a long term grudge against Hoyer and she saw an opportunity to get back at him.  Nancy used the most of her new office to alienate a large portion of her own party by threatening people with loss of committee assignments and chairmanships. 

So where does that leave us?  Nancy has shown her true character in a very short time.  She will do anything to get her way and will never forget if you vote against her.  She is no better than a junior high clique leader.  If she were a person with the whole willing force of the Democratic party behind her, she would be a threat.  Dictators have far less true power than respected rulers.  The party is now weaker with her as leader.

Nancy; you promised  a lot of things in your  first 100 hours.  The clock is about to start ticking and you have 146 members that just voted against your pick.

The Republicans job just got easier.

 Wow! Was I wrong or what?  Well that election stunk.
USA Today had a cool graph that showed what counties switched parties.  Not as many as you would think.
Find it here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/countymap.htm

I will write more on my thoughts later.

Good night!

During the 2000 election cycle, I lived in a predominantly liberal representative district. Unbeknownst to me the area I lived within the district was unusually conservative. During the campaign I was pleased with the number of Republican yard signs in the region. I was fairly confident that the conservative candidate would win the election. When the results came in on election night, I was disappointed.

How does this story relate to the current election? Information. The information that I had at the time told me that my candidate would win. He did not. Now look at how the media has portrayed the next election. It is commonly held on almost all levels and across medias that the Republicans are about to get shellacked. This is the information that everybody is being fed. Does this mean that this is what will happen? No.

Remember that the make of my district was predominantly liberal. That is how the election turned out. The national elections are made up of many districts that have their own histories and natural biases. Of course some of the districts swing naturally with political winds, but not all of them. Incumbents have an incredible success rate in elections.

The “media” has been presenting a lot of evidence in the way of polls recently. Need I remind you of the fact that in the last election, even the exit polls wrongly predicted the presidential winner? Those polls are taken on Election Day! They can not be more accurate this far in advance of the actual election.

Republicans traditionally turn out to vote. Democrats need a reason to turn out. The Democrats have tried to manufacture reasons for their base; “The culture of corruption”, “Bush Lied – People died”, “no blood for oil” etc. The Republicans on the other hand have delivered a great economy with the odds unbelievably stacked against them, had two good Supreme Court appointments, produced tax cuts and started real change in the middle east.

In short the Republicans have winning issues. The democrats have whining issues. Winners vote. Losers whine.

Look for Republicans to maintain control.

This post is the beginning of my posts about the 2008 general election.  I want to convey to election illiterate, what the differences are between Democrats and Republicans.  I wish to tackle it in a broad sense, and on an issue by issue level.  I would like to talk about local and national elections and the stereotypes of both parties.  I would like to show how voting is important and what should drive people to vote and to get involved in the electoral process.  I want to develop a kind of handbook to help people see past the general election propaganda and see what is really important.

Thanks,

Eric

Here in Missouri, and Nationwide, there has been a major move to get the minimum wage increased.  This is the work of an obviously orchestrated effort by the unions of America.  In Missouri a ballot referendum has been approved to be on the November ballot that would raise the State minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.50 per hour. 

The group behind the initiative is called "Give Missouri a raise" (givemissouriaraise.com).  Many of the groups behind this effort are unions.  The think tank that they get their statistics from (economic policy institute) was formed by union executives.

The campaign has started to include letters in the major newspapers in support of the ballet initiative.  In the Kansas City Star the head of the Kansas City Area AFL-CIO chapter wrote a supporting letter.  While it was mentioned who she worked for, it was never brought up that unions are the primary impetus behind the whole effort.

I do not mind when group promote a particular cause, however the should not be hiding agendas.  My feeling is that the unions are trying to increase the minimum wage as a way gain a bargaining position for higher wage contracts.  A 20% increase in the minimum wage should convert to much more than the usual cost of living increases that their contracts are currently getting them.

The general tone of their letters has been to shape the issue as one of fairness to poor families.  This is bunk.  If you check with the Bureau of Labor statistics, it clearly shows that families are not working for the minimum wage.

The issue needs to be reframed as what it is.  The minimum wage is tax increase plain and simple.  Help stop the madness.  Write your own opinion letters.  Defeat the minimum wage increase!