If Yogi Berra were in politics, he’d be going nuts right now, and not for the equivalent of back-to-back home runs by Maris and Mantle.
Congressional leaders are faced with another government shutdown. If they do not reach consensus on the 1,603 page, monstrous $1 trillion-plus spending package nicknamed “#CROmnibus” or some sort of Continuing Resolution to keep the government funded after midnight tonight, the government will be closed tomorrow.
Nobody really wants the government to shutdown, ever. Federal employees and American businesses deserve certainty that comes with government operating efficiently and effectively, and not being subject to the political whims of The White House.
Unfortunately, vast differences over public policy, and the nation’s fiscal policies coupled with strong-arm veto threats from the White House are political realities that over time have turned the traditional budget process of vetting 12 separate spending bills before October first into Congress’ last-minute, pre-holiday cram session on a trillion dollars of government spending.
The massive “#CROmnibus,” pork-laden budget package has something for everyone, of course, adding spending here and cutting some spending there to make it attractive for all.
Passing a gigantic spending-spree, however, at the eleventh hour, without much accountability and vetting isn’t the only fiscal problem vexing Capitol Hill. Last week, the House voted 378-46 for the “tax extenders package,” a critical piece of legislation that provides much needed fiscal relief to businesses and employers large and small.
Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated he might not take up the tax breaks in the Senate before the end of the year. That’s outrageous, and not passing the tax break package holds hard working American families and businesses of all sizes hostage.
Almost blindly spend a trillion dollars, and waiver in the U.S. Senate on a favorable tax package, which helps entrepreneurs create jobs?
Stop the insanity.
The new Congress needs to take up an honest, annual budget process and tax code reform that delivers immediate, permanent, across-the-board tax relief post haste, because we all know as the famed Yankee catcher once said, “a nickel is not worth a dime anymore.”
The federal and state election season is now fully in the rear view mirror and the holiday season is just about to kick-off with a bang.
With the holiday season comes a time of reflection, and thankfulness.
At Market Freedom Alliance there are a few things we are most thankful for, and the first is the results of the recent elections in Arizona and across the country.
For markets to truly work freely, government must not act as a hindrance or an unfair proponent of one industry over another.
Generally speaking, Republicans have adhered to philosophies that enhance free market activity.
Therefore, we are excited about the recent election results, and have the greatest hope that Republican majorities in Arizona and in the U.S. Congress will lead to a greater amount of free market activity.
Additionally, we are thankful for the growth of our free market grassroots organization in Arizona, but we still need your help!
We are preparing to send strong free market messages this coming Legislative session, and we cannot do it without you.
We need volunteers in all areas of Arizona. Contact us directly to be added to our growing list of MFA Captains!
Additionally, we currently have two petitions online that need your signature – one against Communist China’s subsidization of industry and international, world-market dumping policies, and one to stop minimum wage increases.
Free market author and scholar, Thomas Sowell said, “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
Arizona’s street corners seem to support Sowell’s theory. Each holds numerous candidate signs of various shapes and sizes indicating about every political office under the sun, the President and U.S. Senate excluded, is up for grabs.
As we survey the political landscape in Arizona for candidates who we would favor over those we would not, we apply two maxims – will the candidate(s) employ the principles of free market economics in all cases where applicable, and will the candidate not favor or provide incentives via government for one entity over another?
Why are these particular principles important for officials at any level, you ask?
Arizona faces a tough road ahead.
The state’s budget will likely face a large shortfall in FY 2014-2015, which begins just inside six months from the day we swear-in our next Governor.
History has shown that when state leaders cut spending and shift monies from one pot to the other to balance the state’s budget, municipalities feel the pain in order. In turn, cities, towns and counties take action to balance their budgets, and the result is not always favorable for the taxpayer.
Reports show Arizona lags behind other states in the economic recovery effort, and there’s really no sign of an Arizona economic boom on the horizon.
So, why must free market choices prevail in tough times? The answer is because more punitive measures in the form of higher wage mandates, higher taxes, more regulations and favoring one sector over another only act to harm producers, and take off the table more capital that should be up for reinvestment and job creation.
To grow our economy we must have policies at every level that encourage Arizona’s entrepreneurs, small, medium & large to create, grow and re-invest profits in an open and as least-restrictive business environment as possible. We must have free market environments that do not hinder prospective growth, but rather enhance it.
These steps logically lead to greater success for Arizona’s businesses, and in turn greater revenue for Arizona’s governmental needs.
Many public servant positions have no shortage of candidates this election. We encourage you to choose candidates wisely by choosing those who support free markets.
Driving up minimum wage hurts the people it’s supposed to helpJoe Galli 8:45 p.m. MST August 13, 2014
Every time I turn around there’s a new study out about the impacts of minimum wage on an economy.
Two months ago, minimum-wage proponents were crowing because, allegedly, a handful of states whose economy had improved in the first quarter were states that had just recently raised their minimum wage, Arizona included.
A Sunday article in The Arizona Republic said Arizona saw a 4.7percent job decrease between 2006 and 2013, years the state was increasing its minimum wage (“An elusive tipping point,” AZ Economy).
The article focuses on the restaurant industry, a thin-margin, private business sector, which, rightfully so, should be concerned about increased labor costs, as should diners-out.
People like Tomas Robles Jr., executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona, argue that business owners should pay more for labor so people can meet their “basic” needs, all while his labor increases drive up the basic costs of goods and services, unfairly penalizing the very people he’s arguing need help — those with low incomes.
Let’s be honest. Our economy and workers would all be better off when individuals compete and are rewarded for their ability and effort, without artificial, arbitrary and punitive wage mandates.
—Joe Galli, Scottsdale The writer is executive director of the Market Freedom Alliance.
In February, the Congressional Budget Office reported its estimates of the effects of raising the federal minimum wage. According to the CBO, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour – as advocated by President Barack Obama – would cost the economy 500,000 jobs. However, it would also raise wages for those who keep their jobs, lifting 900,000 people out of poverty. A more modest increase to $9.00 per hour would reduce employment by 100,000 workers and lift 300,000 people out of poverty.
The CBO report sparked controversy, with opponents of minimum wage increases highlighting the lost jobs and supporters focusing on the reductions in poverty. In determining how to weigh these factors, policy makers need to know something about both the short- and long-term social costs of the lost jobs.
It turns out that these costs could be greater than previously thought because higher youth unemployment can have lasting consequences for young workers and previous empirical estimates may understate the effect of further minimum wage increases. Indeed, a new study by one of us suggests that most of the job losses from a minimum wage increase will occur among younger workers. Such job losses harm these workers’ ability to gain valuable experience at a critical time in their careers and permanently damage their future employment prospects.
The research suggests that the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which increased the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 between 2007 and 2009, resulted in a 2.8 percentage point increase in youth (under age 25) unemployment. During the great recession youth unemployment increased by 11.2 percentage points, so the increase in the minimum wage can account for about 25 percent of that increase.
The harm done by minimum wage increases gets compounded for young workers because it prevents them from gaining experience, thus increasing their chances of being unemployed in the future. Taking this effect into account, the study finds that the minimum wage increases that occurred between 2007 and 2009 will ultimately generate a 0.8 percentage point increase in the overall unemployment rate for high school educated workers.
In addition, past empirical estimates may be unreliable indicators of the effect of further increases. In particular, raising the minimum wage to $9.00 or $10.10 is likely to have a larger effect than previous increases. This is the case because wages have remained stagnant since the previous minimum wage increases during the great recession. Therefore, a large fraction of young workers earn wages close to the current minimum wage. Also, the proposed minimum wage changes are large, representing a 24 (for $9.00 per hour) or 39 (for $10.10 per hour) percent increase over the current level. Hence, these increases affect more young workers than prior increases.
The second column in each of the two tables indicates the fraction of workers, by age, who are likely to be affected by the proposed minimum wage increases. This group consists of workers earning below the proposed minimum wage. They will either need to be paid more or lose their job as a result of the policy change. The third column in each table shows the fraction of workers in each age group who are less affected by the new minimum wages because they are either salaried or earn at least the proposed minimum wage.
Table 2 shows that hiking the minimum wage to $10.10 affects more than three quarters of 18-19 year old workers and more than half of 20-24 year old workers. In contrast, less than 15 percent of workers aged 25 and older would be affected. Thus, job losses from the minimum wage increase are likely to be concentrated among younger workers. And the large number of workers affected increases the prospect of the policy doing serious harm.
Much of the harm done to younger workers could be avoided by exempting individuals under the age of 25 from the minimum wage, as a number of other countries do. For example, the Netherlands has separate minimum wage levels for each age between 15 and 23, at which point workers are eligible for the full minimum wage. At least partially as a result of this policy, the Netherlands has experienced relatively low rates of youth unemployment compared to other OECD countries.
The CBO appropriately acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding its employment estimates, stating that the drop in employment resulting from a $10.10 minimum wage could range from “very slight” to 1 million workers. The uncertainty surrounding the minimum wage’s effect on employment, as well as the strong possibility that further increases could be more damaging than those in the past, suggests that policymakers should be cautious about using the minimum wage as a policy to alleviate poverty.
Recent Comments