[Working title]

Does anyone see what's wrong with this paragraphlet:

Others say the effect on the economy will be negligible. A PNC Economic Outlook survey done in April reported that three out of four small- and middle-market business owners said raising the minimum wage would have little or no impact on their businesses. "In a tighter labor market, they already raised wages to be competitive," said Stuart Hoffman, the chief economist for PNC Financial Services Group.

If you said that an author shouldn't gloss over a drop in employment at one out of four small- and middle-market businesses, you might have what it takes to be a capitalist. If you follow the link that I preserved in the quotation, you'll see that the report goes on to paint the numbers a different way than the pro-minimum wage author who quoted it.

35 percent of retail and wholesale business owners say the federal minimum wage hike would "greatly or somewhat adversely impact" their business within its first six months. Among the concerned owners in these two industry sectors, the impact would be felt by customers and employees alike: 34 percent of these owners would raise selling prices and 29 percent would reduce hiring.

As always, businesses cut employment costs or pass them on to their customers as necessary and as much as possible. Is that wrong? I don't think it would be even if they were fabulously wealthy, but some of them are middle-class folk struggling to provide for their families. There's nothing immoral about them starting a business instead of working for someone else's existing business. But back to my original point: politicians (and the irresponsible writers who laud their worst acts) never look at all of the consequences of minimum wage laws (or any other law), they just look at the people it will help or the people they imagine it will help, and pat themselves and each other on the back. Meanwhile, 29% of retail and wholesale business owners reduce hiring. (Hiring whom? The poor.)

I don't mean to imply that the government should look only at the consequences when it chooses its course of action. I'm just saying that what it should do (protect private property rights and allow the citzenry their freedom) happens to have better consequences.

SRS

P.S. Even the author of the sleight of hand piece admits that the only reason three out of four employers will be unaffected by the minimum wage hike is because they already pay their employees more. That is, to the extent that a minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment, it was unnecessary and redundant anyway.

P.P.S. All wages in America would be a lot higher if it weren't for the high cost of OSHA compliance, EEOC liability protection, and accounting-intensive, labyrinthine tax law. That is, except OSHA and EEOC bureaucrat wages, and tax accountant/lawyer wages. Those would be lower because of lower demand.

Close Gitmo!

I think there are only two reasons my fellow conservatives defend Guantanamo Bay's detention facility.

1) They instinctively defend anything American that is attacked by dozens of Democratic congressmen and senators.

2) They are afraid to say what they really believe: that Gitmo should be shut down and its detainees moved somewhere that Amnesty International and other left-wing wackos can't find them--and where they aren't coddled so much.

At the very least we should put price caps on the food and health care we provide them. (Is gruel halal?) And interrogators should be given leeway to the extent of anything not reasonably expected to cause permanent injury, serious illness, or death. After all, these enemy combatants were not in uniform, are not under Geneva protections, and are associated with an enemy that will not stop torturing and beheading our guys, regardless of what we do or do not.

If detainees get hurt during interrogation, taxpayer-funded doctors can rush to their rescue, assuming the procedure is covered by the detainees' HMO.

SRS