to the editor from this week's Chronicle:
To the Editor,
Here we go again! Another blatant call for a higher minimum wage,
this time a casual call from Eugene Robinson in the LMT, Sunday, Dec. 8.
He blithely counsels President Obama to lobby for a minimum of $10/hour,
implying in the article that it would solve a bunch of problems.
But why not really do the worker a better favor and raise it to $20 or
$25/hour! After all, that would give every one over $40,000/year,
in-stead of the $20,800/year that would result from the proposed $10/hour
minimum! Everyone certainly would agree that a $40,000+ income per
year would be far more desirable than the mere $20,000 one!
But a problem or two! Would that include every wage earner, including
your babysitter and your lawn mower? Or where would you draw the
line if any?
Yet a far more serious problem.... would you force a small store owner
or small farmer to pay someone more than they are worth, or can return
to your business? Would you hire a young and inexperienced applicant
who you know will be a drain
on your already financially stressed business? Would you keep
on a new apprentice who someday may be worth far more to you, but in the
meantime, is already a negative cost to your operation?
The answer to all of the above is an emphatic NO!
The obvious and historical result of requiring wages higher than one
is worth is UNEMPLOYMENT! Not you, not me, not any small or large
operation can afford to pay anyone more than they are worth! So the
minimum requirement results in beginning laborers denied a chance to even
break into the labor market.
Better off all such individuals would be if given a chance to start
at a wage the employer can afford, and then prove by his or her effort
and performance that a higher wage is warranted! Honesty, hard work,
and education is the ladder that one climbs to incomes far above any minimum
set. So lets continue to keep the lowest rung down where all can
get a start!
To the Editor
A response to the recent Cottonwood Chronicle article concerning Idaho
Common Core State Standards.
Tom Luna extolls Kentucky as the sterling example for education reform!
Kentucky was the first state to implement Goals 2000, Outcome Based
Education, and the first to implement Kentucky Common Core standards three
years ago. Mr. Luna is leading Idaho Schools in the same direction
as Kentucky. Let’s take a closer look at Kentucky. Kentucky
Schools were in such bad shape after their foray with Goals 2000 they had
no choice but to compete for Race to the Top grant money, which required
a plan to “voluntarily” implement Common Core State Standards (CCSS).
Mr. Luna would have you believe that CCSS has been the panacea for
phenomenal student achievement results in Kentucky. After three years
of implementation of CCSS, which are “tied to international benchmarks”
(benchmarks which no one can give a citation) and guaranteed to better
prepare students for college, what are the actual results?
The Kentucky student achievement results he is lauding amounts to statewide
only about 40 percent of students proficient in math and about 50 percent
in reading. The gap has increased between the percentage of white students
who are proficient and the percentage of African Americans to barely 30%
passing basic performance in Reading, and 50% passing basic performance
of math skills. The rest of Kentucky’s students are not proficient!
Thank you Mr. Luna! With this kind of leadership it is fairly certain that
the same Idaho citizens, who overturned your illustrious “Students Come
First” plan with Proposition 1, 2, & 3, will “benchmark” your unqualified
leadership as motivation to find a qualified candidate for the office of
Idaho State Superintendent of Schools in 2014.
Template Design by: