What’s next?

Pilosi who is a hard left democrat is claiming that they are going to work to be bipartisan. That is harder from her position than if she were a moderate. So in order to be bipartisan, that means she is going to have to change her views and become a more moderate person. We’ll see, I tend not to see many tigers change their stripes.

She stated that the 3 things the Democrats were going to address first were “raising the minimum wage”, “providing a better prescription drug program”, and “lifting the ban on stem cell research”. I found those very interesting; two were pork rewards for electing them, and a lie.

1) Raising the minimum wage

I’ve mentioned this before. There’s a huge difference between regions of the country and what the minimum wage means. In major U.S. cities, using salary calculators, I could get a 3:1 ratio between some cities. If you go rural versus urban, it is even more dramatic. 17 of the 50 States have their own minimum wages higher than the Fed (including Nancy Pilosi’s).

State based minimum wages are dumb, because cost of living varies so much across the State. Federal Minimum wage laws are dumber, because the cost of living varies even more across the nation. Really a Federal Minimum Wage is a way to attack smaller developing states and rural areas by artificially driving up their costs of labor in those communities; so they have less of a competitive advantage to attract more business investment and growth. Thus basic business logic says it is a way for the expensive and rich states (and areas) to ATTACK the poorer and less developed one, not to help them. Which is probably why Californians, New Yorkers, Taxachussets, etc., are always for raising the minimum wage for everyone ELSE, even though they have already raised it locally.

Think about it. They get the bonus of convincing people that they did some good thing by pretending to help the poor, while actually driving up the cost of goods for everyone and making it harder for the poor, especially all the other states. It does nothing to hurt them, since they already have higher wages and cost of living. It is a way to yank control and power from communities and states, and hand that over to the centralized/socialized proletariat, as if that somehow makes the world a better place. And it lets the most populous states bully and bureaucratize the more agile, competitive and smaller states, all in the name of the greater good. Wow! No wonder Nancy loves it.

Only 6 States currently don’t have minimum wage laws, and they think they don’t need them because the Fed has them for them, plus they are the poorer states that need development and jobs and new business that a LOWER minimum wage means. But we’ll let the Democrats payoff their constituents by being limosine liberals; making dumb fiscal policies and creating a new tax on rural and less-developed areas of country like Alabama, in order to help out those poor people living in New York and California.

2) Better prescription drug program

Or in better words, we’d like to increase the youth tax. Basically that’s what it is. We tax the young people, those starting out, trying to buy their own homes and raise their own families — and subsidize the rich elderly people that usually own their own homes and have had their whole lives to save up.

The Republicans were able to get a plan passed that was more modest than the Democrats one, but still helped millions. In polls like 75% of people that were in the new program felt it greatly helped them. Premiums were actually better than expected at $25/month instead of the $37/month originally estimated (partly because of greater than expected participation). Yes, initially there was a lot of confusion and propaganda against the program that confused people, but now that they’ve gotten over that hurdle, the democrats want to change it. They can’t stand to see something working that they didn’t create/control — so they want to take away something that is working and replace it with something that they can take credit for. I can’t say whether theirs will be better or worse yet, and I’m sure there are areas where the current program can be improved. But of all the things that need immediate attention, this is no where near #2 on the list, and I suspect that the solutions will create at least as many problems as they fix. Really, this is a way for democrats to try to pay-off elderly constituents and pretend that they care — even if it means years more haggling, confusions, and adjustments by the market to the new solution. I’m less convinced.

3) Lifting the ban on stem cell research

Once again, Nancy is either the dumbest person holding office, or a liar. We do not have a ban on stem cell research; what we have is a qualification that we won’t force people to pay taxes to federally subsidize stem cell research. HUGE HUGE difference between the truth, and what Nancy Pilosi says. She either knows that, and is a liar (and I think she does), or is a complete uninformed idiot. OK, maybe she can be a little of both.

Another way to word #3, which is more accurate than her way, “To create a new tax to force religious people to fund something that it completely antithetical to their beliefs, in the name of liberal tolerance”. We have a ton of research in these areas. States are free to do it. Privately it is being done. And most of the breakthroughs were coming in other areas anyways. This isn’t about stopping a ban, but a complete intolerance from coastal liberals towards anyone else’s views. They’re going to make you pay for their causes at gunpoint; like it or not!

So in the same speech that Nancy said she was going to work to be more bipartisan and tolerant, she attacked the red states with new tax to hold them down, she attacked a successful republican program (as well as increased a tax on our youth), and she attacked all the moderates and conservatives with a new federal tax (wrapped in a lie) to make them pay for something she knows they are morally opposed to. Talk about a candy-coated turd? Candy on the outside for the Democrats, and a chewy center for the Republicans. Nice. All in the name of “working together with the administration and the Republicans in Congress in partnership – not in partisanship”. Wow, that she thinks that isn’t partisanship shows how partisan she is. Her idea of partnership includes lying, cheating and unequally dividing the pie for her advantage. And that was just her first speech. Just wait until she gains steam.

—
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm