Recently the Democrat Mayor of Chicago (Richard Daley) vetoed the higher minimum wage law proposed by the (Democrat) city council and they have failed to overturn his veto.
The proposal was quite wrong headed, both because it discriminated against large employers (such as Walmart) who were the only employers who were to pay the new ‘living wage’, and on the general grounds that (all other factors being equal) increases in minimum wage law (over the amount of money already being paid) levels cost jobs (in accordance with the law of demand).
However, the Democrats are making great play in the mid-term elections with both Walmart bashing and with minimum wage level law increases generally (if they get their way, most States will have higher minimum wage level laws than the Federal level) and for the best known Democrat Mayor in the country to veto such an increase (and an increase linked to Walmart bashing) both points to the absurdity of Democrat policies and shows the Democrats to be disunited as well.
Meanwhile in California the Democrats are pressing for universal government health-care (basically a version of the plan Mrs Clinton proposed in the early 1990’s) and the Republican Governor is pledged to veto the proposal.
This may seem to be a winner for the Democrats, but people who support universal government health-care (with all the increase in taxes, health rationing and the decline in the quality of health care that it means) would vote Democrat anyway. Whereas many Republicans were considering not voting for ‘Arnie’ on the grounds of his wild spending on building projects. The Democrats in California have given the Republicans (and independents and moderate Democrats) a reason to turn out and vote – vote against the Democrats.
Also by beating the drum for more government health care (on top of Medicare, Medicaid, and all the rest of it) the Democrats risk turning attention to places where it has already been tried. Such as Louisiana (where the long established system of government hospitals are a terrible mess) or Tennessee where even the Democratic party Governor has admitted that ‘TennCare’ did not turn out too well.
If they go on like this the Democrats could well save the Republican House of Representatives. Otherwise the Republicans’ wild spending (on the ‘entitlement programs’ and other such) might well have led to many pro-liberty voters staying at home (giving the Democrats the House, if not the Senate).
Or turning attention to the great government healthcare fiasco that is the “beloved” NHS.
Actually they should look at the NHS in some detail, it should turn them off state run health care for ever.
Is this sort of thing due to people like those at DailyKOS?
It sounds like the sort of thing which would have them salivating…
What I find fascinating is how Democrats want to use the State’s power as a purchaser to force drugs manufacturers to accept artificially low prices — this is the sort of thing Wal-Mart is excoriated for.
Midterms never draw huge turnout and that favors Republicans — this brilliant article’s observations make the case even more.
Here in Ohio, we have a brilliant Ivy League PhD running for governor as a Libertarian to counter the Republican Party that in power for the last 12-years raised Ohio to the 3rd most taxes state in the union.
What to do?
It has been estimated that poor people save $217 billion annually shopping at Wal-Mart. In contrast, the goverment’s food stamp program gives poor people $18 billion annually. So why don’t the Democrats like Wal-Mart.
The Democrats go after Wal-mart because it’s not unionized.
If Wal-Mart was unionized, unions would receive $500 million of annual dues from Wal-Mart employees. Since the Democrats get a percentage of anything a union collects, they see untold riches in an unionized Wal-Mart.
It’s all about greed folks. All the other reasons are way down the list.
Easy, vote Libertarian. It is essential to always punish the Republicans for being no different than the Democrats or you’ve only yourself to blame when you end up with two indistinguishable tax-‘n’-regulate parties. That point is made frequently by articles on this very blog and the argument makes such sense to me that it has helped harden my views on not always voting for the GOP even if it allows a Democratic victory. In the long run rewarding left wing GOP policies is more damaging than short term Democrat victories.
Another Expat:
Actually, people are continually warned that the government health care system in the US would give us a system like NHS.
I don’t think government health care is a winning issue for Democrats. In 2002, the citizens of Oregon, a very liberal state, voted down a state run system by 79%.
“Whereas many Republicans were considering not voting for ‘Arnie’ on the grounds of his wild spending on building projects. The Democrats in California have given the Republicans (and independents and moderate Democrats) a reason to turn out and vote – vote against the Democrats.”
Uh. No.
Many Republicans in California don’t like “Arnie” because in ANY other state he’d be running as a liberal Democrat. They only reason he isn’t in this state is that he isn’t a big fan of raising taxes.
He was all for raising the minimum wage, and has proven himself to be a big-government liberal in a bunch of other areas.
If only the rest of the democrats weren’t worse.
“What to do in Ohio” – well as a man from Kettering England (“sister city” of Kettering Ohio) here is my contribution.
Vote Libertarian for Governor – if the Republican candidate is one of the Taft family or a friend of these people (I know that Robert Taft was good – but he died back in 1953). Sure the Democrat will win the Governship – but a Democrat would be no worse (as Governor) than a Taft type Republican (and it sends the Ohio Republican party a message).
And vote Republican for the United States House of Representatives (otherwise you will get a gun control freak as Speaker of the House and a lot of other stuff). At least the Republican leadership in the House are still in favour of lower taxes and against “gun control” laws – if the Democrats take over all hell will break lose.
[The greatest Governor of Ohio was John Brickner (I apologize for my spelling) – things have certainly changed from his day.]
Lastly I am not sure that the normal Republican turnout advantage will be strong this year. Pro freedom voters are angry with the Republicans failure to control spending (although the Democrats wanted to spend even more) and the left are salivating at the idea of the sort of people who would take over key leadership positions in the House if the Democrats were to win.
Make no mistake, the left will pull out all the stops to win the House (the Senate would be a bonus) this year – although they may still trip themselves up.
Just to put a little meat on the bones, the Chicago law would have mandated $10/hr in cash wages and a minimum of $3/hr in benefits for big box retailers. The sponsor is now gathering support for his “less discriminatory” version which will put even more businesses under this regime.
Thank you Mr Lutas.
Interesting to hear that the sponser is now targeting small shop keepers (and so on) as well.
Hopefully, Mayor Richard Daley (who rightly said that the law would cost Chicago jobs) will veto this proposal as well.
Corrupt statists though they may be, I have a soft spot for the Daley family – setting the police on the Communists at the Democratic party Convention in Chicago in 1968 may have violated the non aggression principle, but you know…….
Good feedback all. I’ve ordered my Peirce for Governor lawn sign and feature him on my blog site. With any luck my ten readers a day will vote Libertarian!
PurpleThink and Faith: In general:
When a Green runs, it splits the left’s vote and the Republican wins.
When a Libertarian runs, it splits the right’s vote and the Democrat wins.
So if you want the Democrat candidate to win in Ohio, vote Libertarian and have fun doing it.
Well, we’ve got both a Green and a Lib running so I’ll vote my conscience.
It’s odd: there are actually Republicans whose positions are profoundly libertarian-friendly. Without Coburn and Flake, for instance, the current party would probably be a total loss.
But their crowd is doing things that have *never* been done in Congressional history to bring the power back away from the pigs in suits.
So I think it’s not party-oriented. If you think an “R” vote will help that faction of the Elephants that should be encouraged, vote “R.” If your local elephant is old-school, vote “L” so that they know precisely why they lost to a “D.”
my $.02, ymmv
The problem with saying “this Republican Congressman is a statist, so I will vote Libertarian” is that such activity (in a tight year like this) produces Democrat control of the House.
And remember the Democrat leadership in the House make the Republicans (statist though they are) look like libertarians in comparison.
If the Republicans produce a statist for an office like Governor then one should vote Libertarian (as a Democrat Governor is no worse than a statist Republican).
But for a House seat one has to look beyond the candidate to the overall balance of the parties in the House.
Ditto the Senate.