At the complete other end of the spectrum (at least on the drug issue) is the Netherlands. Unlike almost all other countries in Europe, and even the world, the Netherlands has legalized drug use. As a result, drug use has decreased, as has related crime. Roughly 10% of Americans have used marijuana in the last year, while only 5% of Dutch have. Heroine use is about 1/3 as prevalent in the Netherlands as it is in America. There are also 1/7 as many prisoners (per 100,000), and 1/5 as many homicides (per 100,000).

How can both nations have low drug use rates, both less than America, but have such wildly different policies? It is because of the risk/reward ratio. Whatever the action, to reduce it, the risk must be great OR the reward must be little. In Singapore, the risk of importing drugs is as high as it can be. No one would be stupid enough to try to import drugs; the risk is too great.

The Netherlands, by legalizing drugs, have made it far less profitable. Competition has brought prices down, and drug-gang monopolies don’t exist. By legalizing drugs, the reward has been diminished. The result is not only that there is less crime, but also that there is less drug use.

In America, on the other hand, our risk/reward ratio is completely reversed. Drugs are illegal, so dealers can make a lot of money selling them. Its a profitable business because drug cartels have a monopoly on the supply of drugs. Our criminal justice system is also pretty lax. Many drug dealers get multiple slaps on the wrist before they are ever sent to prison. And once they get to prison, chances are that they won’t serve their full time and will get out early on probation.

The way to fix this is obvious. To get rid of drug crime we either have to lower the reward by legalizing drugs, or increase the risk by having a stricter justice system. America has done neither, and the results are painfully clear. Considering the fact that we can’t manage to close our borders, and can’t even keep drugs out of our prisons, the only option is the pro-liberty option of legalizing the use and sale of drugs. This would end the cartel monopoly on drugs, increase competition, decrease profitability, and decrease the reward.

Online retailers are much like the catalog sellers of the past. Back in 1992, in the Supreme Court case of Quill vs North Dakota, the Supreme Court rightly found that a state cannot force out-of-state catalog businesses to collect sales taxes for them. Although the federal government has the power to “regulate” interstate commerce, the commerce clause was put in place to keep states from applying taxes and regulations on out of state businesses. The Marketplace Fairness Act does just that; requiring retailers to collect taxes for states they do not operate in, clearly violating state sovereignty.

Far from evening the playing field, this bill places an enormous burden on small online retailers. The bill is aimed at internet giants like Amazon, but the majority of retailers are NOT Amazon, and can not easily absorb the costs associated with collecting taxes for 10,000 different taxing jurisdictions. The law is simply unworkable, and the costs are unimaginable for small online sellers. A woman who sells arts and crafts online should not be put out of business so that “brick and mortar” stores can compete with Amazon.

The tax is not just laid on consumers. It costs businesses a lot of money to worry about paying taxes;  hiring accountants, lawyers, etc. and going through different audits for each of the 10,000 taxing jurisdictions. Come on! The sales tax is more than a tax on consumers; it is a tax on businesses. In this case, out of state businesses – and that is called taxation without representation.

In fact, the unknown reason behind this bill is not that it will help small brick and mortar stores compete with Amazon, but that it will hurt small online retailers and help Amazon. That’s right – guess who is supporting the bill – Amazon! That is because Amazon can absorb the costs associated with the Marketplace Fairness Act, but their smaller online competitors can’t.

The bill will likely not help traditional sellers anyway. If brick and mortar stores believe that the sole reason people shop online is because of sales taxes (or the lack thereof), they need a reality check. Better selection – better prices – more convenient. Unfortunately, many small business owners favor this bill because they think it will “hurt their competition”. In reality, it doesn’t, and will help big online retailers push small online retailers out of the market. The way to win the race isn’t by slowing the other guy down; its by speeding yourself up. Passing laws to hurt the competition is called crony capitalism, folks.

Perhaps the worst thing about this bill is all the people only looking out for themselves. Regardless of who the bill “helps” or “hurts”, (because it is clear that it is anything but “fair”), first ask – does this bill help the country as a whole? Is this a good thing for business, or a bad thing? Will this help government grow, or shrink? Will people end up paying more in taxes or less, and have less disposable income or more? The point of having different taxes for different places is competition – but this system does away with that. If states want to compete with online sales, they should do away with their sales tax altogether.

There is a supposed $11 billion in sales taxes left out there uncollected because of internet sales. When this bill becomes law, as it likely will, that means that $11 billion will leave the private sector, and end up in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, where it will be spent much less wisely than it would have been otherwise. Call it fairness, but this bill forces consumers to pay, which means less money all around. When the government takes a piece of the pie, it hurts online and traditional retailers alike.

The bill is one more way that Congress can avoid actual tax reform. By pandering to various groups, in this case the National Retail Federation, politicians make promises and try to help this guy or that guy. The right thing to do is lower taxes all around, let people keep more of their money, and lower the burden of doing business. Unlike the Marketplace Fairness Act, this would help ALL businesses, regardless of where their customers find them.

It seems once again that some business owners are really just angry that they are being put out of business by their competitors, but this has been happening since the dawn of time. If one manufacturer manages to build the same product at a lower cost, there is no reason to be angry at customers for buying that product over a more expensive alternative. More so, there is no reason to alienate and demonize the manufacturer who makes good products at a lower price. In the end, it is the customers who benefit, because their own money is able to buy more products, thereby increasing their standard of living.

The same is true with the retail business. The reason online retailers are able to sell the same products for less is because they have devised a business model where costs are lower. Fewer employees (no checkout clerks, shelf stockers), less overhead (no retail location electricity bill, property taxes, lawn care/snow plowing). All of these things add up, and online retailers are able to buy wholesale, and not need to jack up prices to cover extra costs. A profit comes at a lower price to the customer.

The online business model also beats the brick and mortar stores by maximizing their market. While a storefront may only serve those who live in the 10 mile radius, an online retailer’s market is the entire world! Anyone who has an address can have a package shipped to them. A huge market and low costs are the keys to why online sellers are doing so well.

The fear, of course, is that because fewer people are employed by online retailers, if more and more brick and mortar stores go out of business, America will be left with thousands of unemployed workers. But let’s go back a ways in history. It was not long ago that Sears was coming out with its first catalog; offering lower prices, and all available with a check sent through the mail. The same antagonism directed towards online retailers today was directed at Sears decades ago.

This “fear of automation” has been proven wrong many times past, but keeps reappearing. It is the same fear that unions used to try to keep manufacturers from buying machinery that would cause “mass unemployment”. Of course, as machines became more and more prevalent, unemployment did NOT greatly increase and the theory was proven wrong.

But let’s follow this type of thinking to its logical end. If technology, inventions, machines, etc. cause unemployment, then all technological progress should be halted in order to create full employment, right? In fact, going back in time, it could be said that the first man who invented machinery or tools to minimize manual labor did so at the cost of employment. Did using oxen to pull plows cause unemployment in the farming industry? Did breaking weaving machines serve any noble goal for the Luddites?

It may be that as online retailers grow, brick and mortar stores close. They will not disappear altogether, but just occupy a smaller part of the market. But does this mean that all those left unemployed are just out of luck? Of course not! New jobs will open up. Just one example would be the increased demand for jobs at FedEx and UPS who need to ship all of the online purchases. Technologies develop and disappear constantly. It is the way of the world and the way of the free market.

What we don’t need is new laws popping up, attempting to “save” X-industry from extinction. This is exactly what the new “internet tax” is all about. While some say that the law would merely even the playing field, its is important to look again. Do brick and mortar stores collect sales taxes at different rates if a person is from out of state? No? Well, this is what the law requires internet sellers to do. Instead of requiring online sellers to collect taxes for the government, the ideal thing to do would be lower taxes all around. Perhaps THIS would put more cash in people’s pockets, some of which they might spend at brick and mortar stores.

Just recently, it has been reported that Congress, both democrats and republicans, have been working on getting themselves exempted from the rules of Obamacare. Not just members of Congress themselves, but also high ranking officials, as well as Congressional assistants. While these actions seem to prove that not only were opponents of the bill right from the beginning, that Obamacare is a train wreck, and that even democrat politicians who voted for it now agree; these actions should leave you with a bitter taste in your mouth.

When the government exempts itself from a law that most Americans still hate (and that number is growing), it says to the American people, “There are different laws for you than there are for us.” These actions show that politicians are not looking out for you, your tax dollar, or the economy. Their main objective is keeping themselves safe, regardless of whether it is morally right, or best for the country. The politicians serving in Washington DC today are not statesmen.

Economist Thomas Sowell once said, “No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems – of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.” It is time to recognize this and throw crummy politicians our of office, and especially out of powerful positions – Speaker of the House, for instance.

While John Boehner has been trying to exempt himself from Obamacare, he still signed a budget that provided funding for it. The way to destroy Obamacare is simple – Congress has the power to defund it. John Boehner, however, is a spineless wimp, who is not concerned with doing that. He is the classic example of a Washington establishment politician, looking out for his own re-election, making sure his friends get what they want, screwing the country to get what he wants. Who could blame him. The Speaker’s salary is $223,500 a year.

I’m not into class warfare, but I feel like there is something truly wrong when a Congressman makes $174,000 a year, but the median income is $52,000, meanwhile there are completely different sets of rules for government and private citizens. What is illegal for one is perfectly fine for the other. Take for instance, pollution. While democrats have been screaming about the negative effects of an iron mine in northern Wisconsin, recently the city of Milwaukee dumped 2.1 billion gallons of untreated sewage into Lake Michigan. That is more than the BP oil spill! One thing, pollution, would be illegal for a citizen to do (yes, you can get a ticket for urinating in a lake), but its perfectly fine for the government to do. Double standard?

I really wish people would take the time to read and understand the Constitution. The Constitution was set in place for be rules for the government, not rules for the people. The Bill of Rights said to the government, “These are things you can’t touch!”. The Constitition laid out the jobs for various parts of government and said, “This is you job! Do it!”. But every year government ignores the rules we have for them, and what do we do about it? While the Congressional approval rating is at 10%, America re-elects 90% of Congress.

Politcal correctness and the insider rules for DC have crippled the voice of the American people. “Never attack your own party.” What is that garbage? No matter the party, if a politician does something wrong, we need to call them out for it. And if we need to replace them, we shouldn’t be afraid to do so. If that means removing John Boehner from office, so be it. And yes – if that means removing Paul Ryan from office, so be it. I hate to break it to you Wisconsinites, but Paul Ryan is a big government, big tax, big spending fraud. Look at his voting record – it tells a very different story than his rhetoric.

The Republican party does not stand in the way of government tyranny. Either the party must drastically change or we are left with a de facto one party system. The American people have two options – vote for more government, or vote for more government. I for one, will vote to change the Republican party, eliminating RINOs who raise taxes and grow their own power, and replacing them with people who actually share the values I have as a voter; smaller government, more liberty, less spending, lower taxes. And if my options are limited to either more government or more government, then I’ll either sit out or…. (wait for it…) go third party.

But Sowell isn’t alone. There are countless great conservative, libertarian, and classical liberal minds that have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other – John Locke, Friedrich Hayek, and (if I’m not mistaken) even Adam Smith, just to name a few. The transformation these men went through can be inspirational. A man who once thought the only way to achieve prosperity was through authoritarian rule (Locke) is now considered the father of classical liberalism.

Sowell’s story might offer a clue on how to get the message across to those who deem themselves liberal and consistently vote democrat, but occasionally, even if only by accident, agree with conservatives that government is just plain screwed up. If there was only a way to make them realize it! If we could just have them work in government for a month, maybe then they’d realize how messed up it is.

In times past, it was best selling books like Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged that got young people interested in the idea of liberty. Most recently it has been Texas Representative and Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul, who struck a chord with young voters, starting the “Ron Paul Revolution”. Even Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose 10 episode special that ran on PBS in 1980 gave uninformed Americans a basic overview of how the free market works.

Are there new up and coming people that can deliver the message of limited government, individual sovereignty, property rights, and personal liberty? As technology changes, so does the way people accept information. Long interview shows like William Buckley’s Firing Line, just aren’t what its about any more. Unfortunately, the yelling heads on Hannity or O’Reilly are what passes for conservative media. (Not that I have anything personal against Sean Hannity, but he’s no William Buckley or Russel Kirk. Just saying.)

There are other media outlets that are available. Talk radio, often seen as a safe-haven for conservative hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, is a growing medium for information. At a time when FM stations are rebranding, going online, or closing all together, AM radio, “news & talk”, is doing perfectly fine. This is simply because there is a demand for the product. People want to hear what Rush Limbaugh thinks. Not only is talk radio informative and entertaining, but it also offers listeners a chance for their own views and beliefs to be validated. “There are other people out there who feel the same way I do!”

Just as democrats have been trotting out celebrities to make their cause, conservatives should be doing the same. Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller) is an outspoken libertarian. Other libertarian celebrities include Howard Stern, Drew Carrey, and Denis Leary. Not exactly what young people would think of when they hear “republican”. But this is also part of the problem. Too many people associate the GOP with Bush, McCain, and Romney. (It’s been said before – W Bush has done an enormous amount of harm to the republican party with his wild deficit spending. There’s no excuse for it.) It is up to conservatives to spread the word that the Republican party is the party of small government, lower taxes, and more freedom. This is a message the resonates.

Atlas Shrugged was turned into a 2 part movie. Ron Paul still sells best selling books. Even NBC’s Parks and Recreation pokes fun at the failures of government with the libertarian character, Ron Swanson. Is there hope for the future of liberty minded politics? One can only hope. On one hand, nothing is inevitable until it happens. Any law passed can be repealed. On the other hand, there is such a thing as a point of no return. Some already think we are past that point (Sowell, for instance), while others hold a more optimistic view.

I tend to think that an out of control central banking system, a fiat currency, a growing dependency class, schools ditching American history for “social studies”, and trillion dollar deficits will all lead us down a bad road. Even if things turn around, it will be painful, and it is at those times when politicians vote for the path of least resistance and kick the can down the road. If Americans continue to put their faith in politicians and government, there is no hope.

It may offend some of you who are passionate about “marriage equality” for me to refer to it as a mere distraction, but in the grand scheme of things, that’s really all it is. In the 5 days since the Supreme Court took up the cases of DOMA and Proposition 8, the federal government has added over $15 billion to our national debt. The national debt now stands at $16.75 trillion; quietly working its way to the next big number – $17 trillion. Oh joy!

At the same time, Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, is set to keep up with QE3 (Quantitative Easing 3) until unemployment recedes to 6.5%. This means he’ll be printing $85 billion each month, used to buy up government bonds, and flood the market with cheap money. The problem, of course, is that printing money actually does make the rest of money cheaper – when you have more of something it is worth less. If someone said that Bernanke was printing a trillion dollars a year, there would be a scare, but because we divided it up by 12 months – to a measly $85 billion – it doesn’t sound so bad. Continue on, Benny.

And who could forget about the 10,000 drones set to be flying above US cities by 2020. Although Rand Paul’s filibuster did get the Feds to concede that they would not use drones to kill Americans on American soil, there is still something unsettling about 10,000 drones just flying around. What exactly are they looking for? These are the drones that are used to survey and kill terrorists in the middle east; why is our government using them in America? Seems like the set up of a 21 century totalitarian state.

Speaking of totalitarian states, the North Koreans are at it again. North Koreans nix their agreement to be peaceful with South Koreans; Americans and South Koreans get together and publicly display their military might; North Koreans shut down their military hotline with South Koreans; America sends a couple B-2 bombers to South Korea; North Korea tells everyone that their preparing a plan for bombing the US – namely Hawaii, Washington, Los Angeles, and Austin. Didn’t hear about that, did you?

Then there’s Planned Parenthood, who defended killing babies after they’ve already been born, but hey – let’s get real. What’s the difference between 9 months pre-born and 2 minutes born – only 2 minutes. That’s hardly a life, right? Where exactly is the line? Most people, even those who call themselves “pro-choice” would admit that once a baby is out of its mother, it is a human life. Do the circumstances make a difference? If the baby was born accidentally due to a botched abortion, apparently it isn’t really a life, and therefore can be killed. What if a mother just has her baby at home, and then 5 minutes after its born, decides to kill it – what’s the difference? Sickening to know that every year Planned Parenthood receives millions of dollars from state and federal government.

While the assault weapons ban has stalled in Congress, Barack Obama (and Piers Morgan, by the way) aren’t done with the issue. They still want guns out of the hands of legal owners. Obama and New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, still want “universal” background checks. This of course means that if a father wants to give his son a gun, he has to go check it in to the police department and have them legally transfer the gun to his son. By no means will this limit the guns criminals buy, because criminals aren’t going to get a background check. This is really just a way to get more information on legal gun owners.

Perhaps the real solution to gun crime isn’t to go after law abiding gun owners, but to prosecute gun criminals. Interestingly enough, the district that is the worst at prosecuting these crimes is also a haven of criminal behavior – Chicago. Out of 90 districts in the US, Chicago ranked dead last for how many federal gun crimes its attorneys have prosecuted. Number 2 was Central California (Los Angeles) and number 3 was Eastern New York (New York City). Wait a minute – isn’t that Bloomberg’s city? Why is he calling for new laws, when he came in 3rd to last place for enforcing the ones already on the books?

All this has happened and nothing was said about it on my personal Facebook news feed. Instead, everyone was too busy hopping on board the “gay rights” issue by posting pictures of a red equals (=) sign. I sure wish there was this much enthusiasm about balancing the budget, national security, the outrageous hypocrisy over the gun control issue, or 10,000 drones flying over our heads, spying on us from every angle. But debt isn’t an emotional issue; its a thinking issue, and thinking just isn’t what the left does.

Prop 8, to me, is simply a state voting on an issue, and because people didn’t like the outcome, they’re taking it to the Supreme Court. It was surprising to me when the amendment was passed, because… well – this is California we’re talking about! I had assumed that along with the de facto-amnesty, sanctuary cities, legalized “medical” marijuana, high tax rates, heavy regulations, extreme land use laws, and everything else, that Californians were in favor of same sex marriage. I guess not. And since that is the case, my belief is that same-sex marriage advocates have the liberty to work hard and campaign for their beliefs, and try to repeal the amendment. Work to gain the support that wasn’t there in for the initial vote, but don’t disregard the democratic process just because you didn’t like the outcome.

DOMA is a bit trickier in my mind, because it limits federal benefits to only traditionally married couples, even if a same-sex marriage is done legally in a state that allows it. This means that legally married same sex couples who are federal employees do not receive the health benefits that a traditionally married couple would. It also means that same-sex couples cannot file joint federal tax returns, and that they are not eligible for social security survivors benefits (kind of like life insurance, but run by the government.) DOMA also says that states that do not allow same sex marriage do not have to respect marriages done legally in other states.

I’m not an expert on Constitutional law, so I’m not entirely sure where the DOMA case will stand. The federal government has managed to finagle around the 10th amendment by giving money to states with strings attached. It would be easy enough for me to say that there should be no tax breaks for married couples, traditional or same-sex. I’d prefer a flat-tax that would eliminate deductions for marriage, no matter who you are, who you married, and what state you live in. The argument that tax breaks are needed as an incentive to marry is a little bizarre for me. The benefits of marriage are already there when people live together, split the bills, and split the responsibility of raising children - those are the incentives for marriage; not taxation.

Why exactly is the government involved in life insurance, either? Wouldn’t it be easier to just let actual life insurance companies deal with this? Some companies may choose to offer their services only to certain couples, but by doing so, they will miss out on business. The same way businesses’ behavior was changing before the Civil Rights Act, it will change here, regardless of laws. Like Peter Griffin once said, “The only color that matters is green.” Free markets naturally move toward less racial, gender, and orientational discrimination, because businesses really just want to make money, no matter who the customers are.

I tend to think that this whole issue should be left to the states, and that if there wasn’t so much government involvement revolving around marriage in the first place, it wouldn’t be an issue. If a Methodist church wants to marry two men – let them. If a Catholic church doesn’t want to marry two men – you can’t force them. But once these laws are passed, all of a sudden Catholic churches will be forced to either marry gay couples or get out of the marriage business altogether. Is that right? I don’t think so.

If people in one state are for or against some law that is passed, it is their job to either raise awareness about the issue and move people to their side, or simply move out of that state. The one thing I don’t want is a giant blanket law regarding marriage coming from Washington DC. Federalism works because different states can try different ideas and compete with other states for residents and businesses. Let different states try different laws, and we’ll know soon enough which way works best. Or maybe we won’t have to make that judgement, and we’ll just accept that some states and some people work differently.

I’ll go ahead and break that rule, and also break another – don’t mix religion and politics. That would make sense if the two weren’t already amazingly intertwined. Although I’m no expert on theology, I do try to read the Bible regularly, and I do truly believe that the answers to all of life’s most difficult questions can be found in the Good Book. Not just what is right and wrong, but advice on the best ways to deal with people, and how to address different situations. Perhaps the biggest thing I’ve taken away from the Bible is that there is always more to learn, and some things will forever remain a mystery. There is a plan, but much of this plan is given to us on a “need-to-know” basis.

One pillar of conservatism that separates it from liberalism is how it views government. While liberals tend to welcome government, anticipating relief from problems of the world of scarcity in which we live, conservatives believe otherwise. Our view of the world is the tragic view – there are no solutions; only trade offs. Because no solutions exist, giving anyone power is a bad idea. As Lord Acton said over 100 years ago, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

But warnings against government power have been around for ages, long before Acton spoke his famous line. Around 1100 BC, Samuel was judge over Israel, but when Samuel retires the people do not want another judge. Instead, they want a King – a ruler.

So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.” (1 Samuel 8:4)

Samuel came to God with the request of Israel – to have a king. God, although unhappy with the request, granted it. But it came with a warning.

Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights. (1 Samuel 8:9)

Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.” (1 Samuel 8:10-17)

These verses are a direct parallel to what happens in tyrannical countries around the world. Kings take children and use them for war. Notice that these children are put on chariots in front of the king’s chariots. The king doesn’t fight the battle – the soldiers do. Presidents and Congress don’t fight wars; instead they send young Americans around the world.

The king will take the fruits of your labor, the best of your fields, vineyards, and groves, and give them to his attendants. Sound like crony-capitalism at all? Sound like a president taxing some, and then giving it others – perhaps his own friends?

This post wouldn’t be complete without the most important line regarding kings.

But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. (1 Samuel 8:6-7)

The reason people always want a king, a dictator, a leader, a ruler, is because they are lacking a king in another part of their lives. People need something to have faith in, something to tell them that everything will be okay, something to save them. When there is a lack of God, people turn to something else – government. As Americans reject God, they will cry out for a King.

One proposal he made has people talking once again about the minimum wage. Obama urged Congress to officially raise the federal minimum wage to $9/hour. As I’ve discussed before, the minimum wage law is really only a political tool. It does nothing to help, and much to hurt, those who work at the minimum wage. Before we get into why the law hurts the poor, perhaps we should revisit why the law exists in the first place.

The first “minimum wage” was passed during the Great Depression. Although it was touted by politicians as a way to help the poor, the real advocates behind the program were union bosses. Not just union bosses, but racist union bosses, who wished to keep blacks from undercutting their own workers. Here’s how it works -

• An employer has a preference for white employees, but in the end will employ whoever works for the cheapest.
• Black workers worked for the cheapest, and therefore, were hired over white union workers.
• The minimum wage law made it illegal to hire a black worker for less than a white one.
• Upon realizing that all workers cost the same, employers were allowed to go with their preferences, and hire white union workers.

The origins of the minimum wage law are as simple as that – unions looking to hurt their competition. But the law is always passed as if it was meant to help the poor. The problem is that wage laws are just another version of a price control. As supply and demand change, prices change accordingly. This allows the resource, whether it is wheat, housing, or labor, to be use most efficiently, and avoid shortages and surpluses – “economic equilibrium”. When supply and demand determine the price, it is referred to as the “competitive price”.

A price control sets the price either above or below the competitive price. Now, the competitive price doesn’t change; there is just a difference between the set price, and the competitive price. If the government price of a resource is set above the competitive price, this results in a surplus. If it is set below the competitive price, the result is a shortage. In the case of minimum wage laws, the price of labor is artificially raised, and therefore creates a surplus of labor. What do we call a surplus of labor? Unemployment.

The raising of the minimum wage will see an increase in unemployment. (Let’s not forget, that the real minimum wage is $0/hour.) It seems that people making these laws have little experience making budgets as well. (Congress hasn’t passed a budget in four years!) Businesses, on the other hand, need to make budgets, or they go out of business. Because wages are merely another cost to a business, they will respond accordingly in their budgets.

Let’s say a restaurant owner has a labor budget of $30/hour. With that $30 he is able to hire 4 workers, each at $7.25/hour. When the minimum wage is increased to $9/hour, and the owner is now over budget, and must make some adjustments. No longer will he employ 4 workers; instead he will employ 3, and just work them a little harder. The wages for 3 of those workers were increased, but one of those workers is out of a job.

The people who will be laid off as a result of the minimum wage laws are not people making $20/hour. The people who are laid off are people who worked for the prior minimum wage, but whose labor is not worth the new minimum wage. These are usually people with little education, little experience, and few options in the job market. The poor, the undereducated, the unexperienced – these are the people who have effectively been priced out of a job. Instead of working for a year, gaining experience and skills, and getting a raise later, they are now denied the opportunity to even acquire experience and skills.

Democrats and proponents of raising the minimum wage will speak of a “living wage” and of what people “deserve”. The problem with these kinds of phrases is that a “living wage” is different for different people. A “living wage” for me may be more than a “living wage” for someone else. Rent prices change, food prices change, gas prices change. The word “deserve” is equally deceptive. I think I deserve $100/hour – that doesn’t mean that my boss will pay me that. More than likely he’d laugh in my face if I demanded $100/hour. The market decides what people “deserve”, and this has no relation to what an arbitrary authority deems is a “living wage”.

At a time when unemployment is still high, (7.9% in January. Real unemployment is somewhere around 15%.) and at a time when our economy actually shrank last quarter, raising the minimum wage is a way to hurt the poor, and push people onto welfare, unemployment, and other government programs. There they will reside, and the gap between “rich” and “poor” will grow wider. Ever wonder why the “middle-class is disappearing”. Think big – think government.