Over at Hit & Run, Matt Welch writes of John Edwards and his ranting against “evil” corporations. He sums up last night’s results:
With the one-day Hucka-BOO-yah on the GOP side, the big winner in Iowa tonight seems to be illiberal economic populism.
Agreed. It may be an historic night for the United States, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good night for us.
Radley Balko provides reason number one why I will not consider voting for John Edwards.
CNN had a clip of John Edwards earlier this afternoon. He was responding to a question about what we should do about oil closing at over $100 a barrel today.
First, Edwards said, we should launch an immediate investigation into whether the oil companies are price gouging. If they’re coming “right up to the line of the law” without violating it, he said, then we should change the law.
I’m more ashamed of my vote for Kerry/Edwards in 2004. I would still cast it, but only because we needed to get President Bush out of the White House.
I’ve seen one too many blog entries this morning praising white Iowans for being courageous enough to vote for a black man in large enough numbers to earn him a Caucus victory. That we’re having these kinds of conversations demonstrates that too many people making the comments have not moved on. I’m not arguing they’re racists; they’re not. But they’ve clearly not moved beyond race consciousness as a storyline.
Sen. Obama is black. (And white.) Big. Fucking. Deal. Is he competent to be President of the United States? That’s the bottom line. Many Iowans are saying yes. Why can’t that be enough? Why do we have to imagine that white voters in Iowa thought, “Hmm, he’s black, but I think I can actually vote for him”?
Before I appear as a Pollyanna, I get the significance. It hasn’t happened before. I’m content to read those stories. I accept that some voters won’t vote for Sen. Obama because he’s black. And some white voters will praise themselves for voting for a black man. But I’m not willing to accept the “lily white Iowa voted for a black man” as a universal explanation. That’s a flawed angle. Is it really so hard to believe that maybe voters in the past didn’t pass on candidates like Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes because of skin color, but because they were crazy and unfit to be president?
I already said I think Sen. Obama is probably the least bad option among the candidates. But he’s still promoting a moronic slate of economic populism that will do more to further burden Americans with taxes, debt, and hampered economic growth than is remotely sane. That’s why I will not vote for him. The color of his skin has nothing to do with it. Why should it be any different for his supporters.
I’m reminded of a story I heard years ago. I can’t find a copy, but I remember it well enough to give the condensed moral. The enlightened man does not walk into a room full of differences and praise himself for overlooking them. The enlightened man does not notice the differences. Perhaps the voters in Iowa are enlightened, as opposed to the appearance of enlightenment we’re ascribing to them.
The reality that neither winning candidate’s politics satisfies the moral of my story is not lost on me. I’m a libertarian partly because I believe all men are created equally, not that a man can be more or less equal than others according to politically favored circumstances as Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee so clearly believe.
I ripped Ron Paul (in a footnote) because of his rejection of evolution. It seemed pretty obvious, although I didn’t note it, that the clip was edited. From Lew Rockwell, here’s a transcript of the unedited version:
“‘Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it’s a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [it probably doesn’t bother me. It’s not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don’t…if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it’s an interesting discussion, I think it’s a theological discussion, and I think it’s fine, and we can have our…if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn’t be running for public office.’]
To me that isn’t substantially different than the edited clip. The message is still the same. Rep. Paul accepts faith-based explanation with no evidence to support it and rejects evidence-based science with reams of evidence to demonstrate that the commonly offered story Rep. Paul accepts instead is a fairy tale. I don’t understand how so many libertarians are willing to defend this. Rejecting the evidence-based fact of Rep. Paul’s positions in favor of a preferred explanation is no less faith-based.
To the defense of Rep. Paul offered at Lew Rockwell, I already didn’t believe that Rep. Paul wants to put creationism at the front of the campaign. Some of his non-libertarian “libertarian” ideas (i.e., opposition to same-sex civil marriage) seem centered on religion, but one must extrapolate to argue that he’s pushing fully religious positions ahead of all other claims. I oppose Rep. Paul’s campaign, but I’m not willing to do that.
The basic problem remains. Not believing in the evidence-based truth of evolution demonstrates a mind willing to reject fact when it’s inconsistent with a preferred opinion. I think we’ve already had more than enough of that in the last seven years. I will not vote for another term of such irrationality.
Link via Andrew Sullivan.
Given his recent anti-immigration ad, how Rep. Paul is anything more than a pandering politician? If you support Rep. Paul, defend this. Explain to me how this is the mark of a change in our political discourse. Rationalize how this is a libertarian stance.
Having hammered away at Ron Paul over the last three days, in the interest of fairness, I’ll comment on the non-story story that won’t die. Rep. Paul’s campaign accepted a $500 donation from a white supremacist. Some people, for irrational reasons, want him to give the money back as a repudiation of white supremacist ideas. Please. As if accepting $500 dollars is going to influence a campaign, or that the campaign could possibly screen every donations for ideological problems.
Yes, he could’ve returned the money after it was brought to his attention. But why should he? I agree with this logic:
“Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he’s wasted his money,” Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. “Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom.
“And that’s $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does,” Benton added.
There’s already too much credit given to irrational, feel-good nonsense in politics. Logic requires we always give credence to sanity alone, but sometimes, when reason fails, it must be delivered as a “suck it”. Kudos to Rep. Paul’s campaign for telling relentless opponents looking to score cheap points on a non-issue to suck it, even if it harms him.
Following on yesterday’s theme, Mike Huckabee is the only national candidate (that I know of) currently advocating the FairTax. With friends like him, who needs enemies?
Instead we will have the FairTax, a simple tax based on wealth. When the FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness.
That quote is taken from Huckabee’s campaign site. I’m not about to claim that FairTax advocates and Huckabee supporters are the same group. Overlapping, yes. The same¹, no.
I can accept a claim that a plan is better than what we have. I want evidence, of course, and I’ve stated that evidence from the FairTax leaves me against the plan. But to pretend that anything short of eliminating taxes completely will be “like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness”? Huh? No thanks. Even if I supported the FairTax, that kind of lie would turn me off of Huckabee².
¹ First, obligatory dig at Rep. Ron Paul. Why do people claim that Ron Paul is a libertarian because many of his supporters are libertarians? Overlapping, yes maybe. The same, no.
² Second Obligatory dig at Rep. Paul. There are other issues that disqualified him from my vote long before I got to this issue. But like Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul does not believe in evolution. I think Rep. Paul is leaving himself wiggle room in there as a politician, but I will not accept the pandering of wiggle room. Rejecting evolution despite clear evidence is irrational. Neither Paul or Huckabee could earn my vote based on that (among many objections).
Remaining from a September debate, I owe regular commenter Scott my analysis and opinion of a national sales tax. To be upfront, I began my search against the idea. Not because I wanted to hate it, although I do hate it. Yet, as I’ve thought about my 15-year support for a flat tax plan – and I acknowledge that it has its problems – I’ve considered some of the basics of a national sales/consumption tax. The economics and politics of a national sales tax fail miserably.
From Americans for Fair Taxation, I roamed through some of the finer points of what is now under consideration. I used this recent editorial to focus mostly on the ideas. For example:
What emerged from this research is that a national retail sales tax is a preferred method of taxation among most Americans surveyed.
A majority of Americans supported slavery at our nation’s beginning. Segregation was hunky-dory for most well into the 20th century. Even today, a majority of Americans believe that surgically altering the healthy genitals of their male children is reasonable. Of course income versus sales tax is not comparable to those sorts of oppression, but forgive me if I fail to be swayed by such arguments in favor of any position. Mob desire is irrelevant because good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes. The details matter.
Research on the price of consumer goods reveals that up to 20% of all prices today represent hidden income taxes and payroll taxes. Once these taxes are repealed and replaced with the FairTax, it is likely that market pressure would force retail prices to fall.
This is either ignorant or dishonest. The FairTax will not eliminate embedded taxes; it will merely change the source of which businesses collect taxes from individuals. Even something as simple as an apple will have embedded taxes.
The apple will require a seed to create an apple tree. That seed will have a sales tax. The tree will require fertilizer to make grow. That fertilizer will face a sales tax. The fertilizer will need to be transported from producer to apple grower. That fuel will face a sales tax. The distributor needs a truck to haul the fertilizer. That truck will face a sales tax. The truck will require gas to operate from A to B. That fuel will face a sales tax. And so on, all the way to my cupboard.
Now, imagine something more complicated, with multiple ingredient raw materials. Think that iPod that Americans love doesn’t consist of parts purchased from vendors with an “s” for plural who all require inputs to make their products? The disappearance of embedded taxes is a myth, unless we assume that someone who currently fails to absorb hidden costs will suddenly absorb non-hidden costs. I will not assume something quite that silly.
Which leads to this, perhaps the boldest claim:
The FairTax would collect revenue from the underground economy.
How, exactly, when basic logic suggests the FairTax would push more of the U.S. economy underground, not less? There would be evasion everywhere. Need to get your hair cut? Here’s $20 cash. Need your lawn mowed? Here’s $40 cash. Never doubt the human capacity to subvert rules. Simplicity is important, but reducing the burden of complying is much more effective. Absent that, reducing the ability to bypass the system is important. I don’t have to believe that taxes are good to push the idea that collecting as close to the assumed amount is wise. Otherwise, reality will be destroyed by the theoretical estimate and actual receipts. The rate would increase more the greater those two figures differ.
As the FairTax advocates own figures indicate, the sales tax is not 23 percent. That’s only the tax-inclusive rate offered because it looks better² than the tax-exclusive – the common metric – rate of 30%. Dividing 30¢ sales tax by the final price of $1 and 30¢ gives a 23% tax-inclusive rate. But in Virginia, if I go into the store and buy a bottle of water, I see the price of the water as 99¢ and the final price as $1.01 after the 2% sales tax is added. No one pretends that the rate is 1.98%.
In the end of the editorial, this:
Significantly, the FairTax eliminates all loopholes, gimmicks, exemptions and deductions from the federal tax system.
The “prebate” is certainly an exemption, and given the details, I’d call it a gimmick. The details:
Another benefit of the FairTax is that, unlike other sales taxes, it would not hit the poorest Americans the hardest. The FairTax proposal calls for sending every American a “prebate” check to offset the cost of the national sales taxes paid by those living in poverty. This feature would effectively exempt those living below the poverty line from paying taxes to the federal government, and provide all taxpayers with a reimbursement of a portion of taxes paid.
Who’s administering this “prebate”? How are differences in regional cost of living factored into the “prebate”? Are the differences factored in? According to the following document, “The Prebate Explained” (pdf):
Poverty level spending represents what it costs families of varying household size and composition to buy their necessities.
All consumers are alike. Every central planner believes that and the “prebate” requires the adoption of central planning. You need four chickens, two gallons of milk, one dozen eggs, and eight ounces of cheese. That’s normal. Except it’s not, because the government can’t know everyone. It can only assume and expect you to fit that mold. Some people will receive a larger “prebate” than they should and some will not receive enough. It’s inevitable.
And what about those people who spend their “prebate” on lottery tickets, for example? I’m not offering that as an expectation of what “the poor” will spend their “prebate” on or as a judgment on lottery tickets. I think people should be able to spend their money on whatever they want. But this plan specifically relies on government-managed handouts, in advance and tied to no actual spending, to make the plan plausible and not regressive. How do we prevent such wastefulness among citizens when it leads to further reliance on the government to pay for necessities? There will be people who waste their “prebate”, just as there are now millions of Americans who believe that their tax refund is found money rather than an interest-free repayment of excess taxes paid as many as 16 months prior. There will be a call to further assist these people through government resources. The loopholes, gimmicks, exemptions, and deductions aren’t going anywhere.
Neither is the intrusion of government into each person’s privacy. To get the “prebate”, Americans must do the following (according to the pdf above):
The registration form requires only the following information:
- The name of each family member who shares the residence;
- the Social Security number of each family member;
- the family member to whom the monthly prebate check should be paid;
- a sworn statement that all listed family members are lawful residents, that all family members sharing the common residence are listed, and that no listed family members are incarcerated;
- the address of the shared residence; and
- the signature of all family members 21 years of age and older.
Failure (unwillingness) to adhere to those instructions results in no “prebate”. And again, who will be managing this information and
distributing monthly checks to millions of households? Maybe the IRS goes away, but why should I believe its replacement will be any better? (Who validates that my claim of 6 children is correct? Fraud and waste, anyone?)
The effect of eliminating regressive payroll taxes is commonly overlooked when analyzing the FairTax, but it would have a very significant impact, as these taxes represent the single largest tax burden on these income earners.
I agree with fixing the burden of payroll taxes. It is inherently regressive. Making it “fair” would be a huge tax increase on higher earners, but it wouldn’t help our economy. So what to do?
Eliminating the tax is a great idea, but the FairTax only seeks to fund the underlying flawed entitlement through a sales tax without addressing the fundamental flaw in seeking to be revenue neutral to maintain ineffective programs. And since when has Congress been expenditure-neutral? Why should I believe it will suddenly find fiscal responsibility? Taxes are bad¹ and should be lowered as much and as soon as possible, but we need to cut expenditures first. Without that measure, we’re engaging in diversionary games³.
Finally, and most damning from a practical path, how do we transition from an income tax to a sales tax? The Y2K nonsense was overblown. Flipping the switch from Income Tax on December 31, 20xx to Sales Tax on January 1, 20xx would be a realized nightmare, but I’ve seen nothing other than that simplistic transition implied. That’s foolish.
I also used this chain of entries from Kip at A Stitch in Haste as research.
¹ We have a $9,124,016,501,555.91 national debt, as of today. That has to be repaid.
² For another example of this sleight-of-hand marketing, read this.
³ There is one final caveat looming large. We’d have to repeal the 16th Amendment.
When I’ve looked at our candidates for president, I find little to be happy about. The only candidate I can moderately stand is Sen. Obama, and I’ve already discussed more than enough issues (no means yes, school “reform”, economic illiteracy, and catering to special interests) with his candidacy to demonstrate that I will not vote for him. That said, I suspect he’s the least bad choice out there. That should not be construed as anything as complimentary as back-handed praise. A vote for Sen. Obama is a vote for little more than more of the same, but with a smiley stamped on the decree.
As we approach the real beginning of the election process in Iowa, it’s important to focus on the lack of change offered in promises of change. Sen. Obama spoke in Iowa yesterday. (Text via Andrew Sullivan) A few highlights:
At this defining moment, we cannot wait any longer for universal health care. We cannot wait to fix our schools. We cannot wait for good jobs, and living wages, and pensions we can count on. We cannot wait to halt global warming, and we cannot wait to end this war in Iraq.
…Most of all, I believed in the power of the American people to be the real agents of change in this country – because we are not as divided as our politics suggests; because we are a decent, generous people willing to work hard and sacrifice for future generations; and I was certain that if we could just mobilize our voices to challenge the special interests that dominate Washington and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there was no problem we couldn’t solve – no destiny we couldn’t fulfill.
We know the solution, right? It’s the one we allegedly haven’t tried yet. It involves hope, even though Bill Clinton ran on that in 1992. Hope expressed through government. For example:
I’ve heard from seniors who were betrayed by CEOs who dumped their pensions while pocketing bonuses, and from those who still can’t afford their prescriptions because Congress refused to negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available price.
Please provide examples of the former rather than the same “corporations are evil” rhetoric. Please explain to me how the drug companies would not be a special interest in “negotiations” with Congress. And where in the Constitution does it say that the government is responsible for either of these?
Just two weeks ago, I heard a young woman in Cedar Rapids who told me she only gets three hours of sleep because she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sister with cerebral palsy. She spoke not with self-pity but with determination, and wonders why the government isn’t doing more to help her afford the education that will allow her to live out her dreams.
No one is owed a college education, period, but especially when individual life steps in the way. I sympathize with this woman’s plight and admire her willingness to push through to achieve everything she values. But it is not my responsibility to pay for that. If she can’t afford college and caring for her sister through work, the solution is to drop out of college right now if paying for that interferes with paying for what she must pay for or deems more worthy of receiving her personal financing. Yet, Sen. Obama pushes more government intervention in education, as if the existence of grants and federally-subsidized loans don’t exist, or that they’re not already increasing the cost of education. How is a group of individuals like this woman not a special interest if it leads to more government intervention for a preferred-by-some outcome?
You know that we can’t afford to allow the insurance lobbyists to kill health care reform one more time, …
Who might prevail, then, if not a universal health care lobbyist? Sen. Obama is not against lobbyists if they advocate his government solution. If you want change, run on removing the perverse incentive that ties insurance to employment without creating a perverse incentive that ties insurance to citizenship. One size does not fit all, of course, and being practical, shifting the cost from the individual in some form is never a good idea.
…and the oil lobbyists to keep us addicted to fossil fuels because no one stood up and took their power away when they had the chance.
This is immature and the type of soundbite nonsense that proves Sen. Obama is a politician first. Anyway, who is the lobbyist “keeping us addicted” to <insert government program/subsidy> and why are we not standing up to them, too?
But that’s not what hope is. Hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task before us or the roadblocks that stand in our path. Yes, the lobbyists will fight us. Yes, the Republican attack dogs will go after us in the general election. Yes, the problems of poverty and climate change and failing schools will resist easy repair. I know – I’ve been on the streets, I’ve been in the courts. I’ve watched legislation die because the powerful held sway and good intentions weren’t fortified by political will, and I’ve watched a nation get mislead into war because no one had the judgment or the courage to ask the hard questions before we sent our troops to fight.
Why no mention of Democrats standing in the way? Beyond that, how exactly does Sen. Obama expect to achieve that change in Congress while sitting in the White House? The only tool at his disposal to achieve what he is promising is the veto. Yet, he ignores that and pretends as though he can make all of this magically appear. Can he not grasp that government involvement always leads to special interests, favored and non-favored? He’s engaged in enough of it in this speech to convince me that he grasps the concept quite well. He’s not selling change, only his chosen winners and losers. And we know who “wins”. The same person who always win in this collectivist idiocy.
If you believe, then we can stop making promises to America’s workers and start delivering – jobs that pay, health care that’s affordable, pensions you can count on, and a tax cut for working Americans instead of the companies who send their jobs overseas.
I am part of America, too. I do not want promises. I do not want the government to “deliver” me a job, health care, pensions, targeted tax cuts, or any other illegitimate present. That is the current way of doing things. Wrapping them in bromides is not change.
I’m still not voting for Sen. Obama.
The article I cite here is from the 19th. I wrote this entry last week, but left it to marinate in my brain because I wasn’t sure I said anything worth publishing. This needs to be fleshed out more, and I’m not sure I’ve convinced even myself. I’m posting it raw for future possibilities to build on the idea.
Megan McArdle asks a question:
Assume, for the nonce, that come January 2009, there will be a Democrat taking the oath of office. What will the blogosphere look like?
Compared to the netroots, right now, the rest of the political blogosphere is a demoralized and listless place. Libertarians are abandoning their mild preference in favor of Republicans, not for the Democrats, but for despair. On the conservative side, even ardent supporters of the president have tired of him. Everyone is out of plausible policy proposals. What is there to be in favor of? More tax cuts? An even more aggressive foreign policy?
Her answer is good and worth reading. Blogging is mostly a response, so it’ll morph into something new and interesting as the world changes. I think mostly is the key, though. What will blogging do to politics.
If nothing else, blogging has better shown how ridiculous political debates are, how unprincipled the arguments and, particularly, how despicable the players are as leaders. There is no audience that won’t be sold to a higher bidder. Only the most rabidly blind partisan doesn’t know that. (Admittedly, that’s a large-ish group, but the point is basic.)
What is there to be in favor of? This concerns me. I think we’re already seeing the future of this problem, represented by Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Barack Obama. Not all of this is bad, probably, but the potential is dangerous.
Candidate Huckabee is a creation of the blogosphere. Without a swell from whatever corner his support crawled¹ out of, his candidacy wouldn’t be news. He’d still be a no-name governor from a bottom-ranked state who pedals too much Jesus and too much nanny-state socialism. In the end this will probably be his undoing, as the blogoshpere invokes some of the corrective potential inherent in the American readiness to knock down those it builds up. A little extra light shows him to be the calculating politician he clearly is. And there’s a large segment of the population that hasn’t seen his shtick up close yet. (The blogosphere giveth, the nation taketh away?)
Ron Paul is a more compelling example. He is selling a set of solutions, which too much of the blogosphere is buying without sufficient skepticism and investigation. Too many of his ideas are simply wrong (gold standard) or worse, morally indefensible (immigration). The blogosphere is not as good at delayed, thought-out responses as it is at offering immediate, emotional defensiveness. The latter builds short-term momentum.
Carried on for too long, this becomes a phenomenon. I don’t think we’re there yet in the blogosphere’s influence, but it could happen. Support for the candidate centers on what his supporters claim he represents, not what he offers. With Ron Paul, he is the libertarian candidate while holding very few libertarian positions. His appeal rests on a dream of what might result that is neither claimed nor implied by what he’s saying. Unintended consequences fall on non-sober, well-intentioned dreams as easily as they fall on sober pandering.
Barack Obama is the most compelling example of what might happen, although compelling does not necessarily mean good. He’s changing the rhetoric of our current political climate by focusing more on optimism and change. That’s a winning formula, as the blogosphere’s reaction seems to embrace his effectiveness at speech-making with little-to-no concern for the sense of what he’s actually saying. His policies are little different from any of the other Democratic candidates, yet he gets a free pass on dumb. The search for the appearance of leadership explains this, I fear.
What is there to be in favor of? Huckabee’s supporters look to his faith in Jesus. They do not worry that saving people from themselves and for Jesus isn’t the job coming open next November. Paul’s supporters look to his lack of faith in the federal government. They do not worrying that he’s not against the states violating the rights the federal government violates. Obama’s supporters look to his faith that government can help people if it has the right leaders willing to solve the problems. They do not worry about how much this will cost or that it be the most efficient solution as long as the leader makes the government appear to care more. None of these approaches is good for us.
I admit I’m cynical about politicians and what they promise. But I can still react to what they say with a fair analysis of each proposal. On solving the issues, every candidate is awful. Of course I’m biased in thinking that the government shouldn’t be involved, but supporters of the government intervention every candidate promotes² should explain why each solution is the best solution, with details that do not rely on moral platitudes involving the poor, the rich, public health, family values, or our children. How will each solution help individuals without doing so at the expense of another?
Instead, each part of the blogosphere is promoting an atmosphere of unquestioning built on receiving from the Dear Leader it chooses. As I mentioned, I think there’s a corrective built into the American psyche. But I’d be happier if we engaged pro-actively in solutions rather than reactive adaptations to flawed ideas after they’ve come into ugly, morphed reality.
¹ Maybe I shouldn’t use a term that implies evolution. Without a wave of His finger from the entirety of Heaven that God created Huckabee’s support in His universe, to enable the Huckabee/Christ ticket…
² Spare me the rhetoric about how Rep. Paul is not promoting government intervention.
Consider this another reason I neither live in the District of Columbia nor have my business registered there.
The District could become the second U.S. city to require employers to provide paid sick leave to all workers, a move advocates say could protect employees from having to choose between keeping themselves healthy and keeping their job. Opponents say such a law could prompt businesses to reduce benefits and lay off workers.
The D.C. Council is scheduled to vote on the measure Jan. 8 after several months of negotiations.
Under the bill, large businesses, defined as having 51 employees or more, would have to provide up to seven days of paid leave. Small businesses — those with 10 or fewer workers — would have to offer up to three days. Two other categories of employers would fall in between, and part-time workers would get half the number of days.
What makes the D.C. city council so confident that it knows better how to run the businesses in its borders than the owners of those businesses? More importantly, what makes it believe that it has the right to dictate its opinions on proper compensation packages?
Employers would pay an average of $10.35 more a week per employee to be in compliance, said Ed Lazere, executive director of the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, which studies the District’s finances. “It’s not nothing, but it’s not huge,” he said. “It’s not as big and scary as they think.”
Does the business owner think $10.35 more per week per employee, with no increase in productivity or revenue, is not huge? She bears the cost. Her opinion should matter exclusively, in anticipation and response to what her employees demand.
To put this in perspective, we must consider what that $10.35 means in practice, not in subjectively judged theory. Assume the minimum business required for full compliance, 51 employees. The cost is expressed as $10.35 because it appears insignificant. But the first thing the business owner will do is multiply $10.35 times 51 employees times 52 weeks. The result is a $27,448.20 increase in expenses for the employer. What could $27,448.20 buy instead? I’ll guess employee number 51 in my scenario, although the logic holds whether we’re talking about employee number 51 or employee number 63.
The first city to engage in this:
The D.C. measure falls short of a law on sick leave in San Francisco, which became a pioneer when 61 percent of voters approved a 2006 ballot initiative to require that employers of 10 or fewer workers provide five days of paid leave and that larger employers give nine days. The law went into effect in February.
How many of those 61 percent of voters malcontents run a business? Mob rule (allegedly) seeks to raise everyone up to a higher standard, but serves little purpose other than to bring everyone down to a base level. Aside from its illegitimacy, it is cruel. I doubt seriously that the employee who might’ve earned $27,448.20, or the customers who will now be asked to pay the expense, would prefer the sympathy over the money.
