Enough Said

OK, But You Are Going to Have to Change the Constitution

As I wrote in my blog “Constitution or Bust”:

“The powers granted to Congress are listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  They are limited and enumerated. The list is only 429 words long.  Our Founding Fathers were so fearful of a powerful central government they added the Tenth Amendment, 28 words, to reinforce the concept of a limited federal government with all other powers reserved for the states and the people.  Those 457 words are easy to read and understand. Nowhere in those 457 words does it say the federal government should control healthcare, provide cell phones for the poor, fund television and radio, or perform any other benevolent act.  If we want to expand the role of the federal government then an amendment to the US Constitution is required.”

Today, the front-runner in the Democratic primaries wants to turn the country into a Socialist society.  If that’s what the people want, then they deserve what they get.  Unfortunately for them, they will need to amend the constitution.

I think we can all agree that our founding fathers did not envision America being a socialist country when they adopted the Constitution (read the rest of “Constitution or Bust” here).  So, it is interesting to me that Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, rants on about President Trump “shredding” the Constitution when he chooses to simple ignores that it exists.

The Minimum Wage Inconvenient Truth

MFR: This post was written before candidates were dropping out of the primaries like flies.

I believe all the democratic presidential candidates are pushing a federal minimum of $15.00 an hour.   This is perplexing to me.  States can determine their own minimum wage, yet no state currently has a minimum wage of $15.00 or higher.  Let’s look at Bernie.  The people of Vermont have been sending Bernie to represent them since 2007 yet their state minimum wage is only $10.96.  If the people of Vermont support Bernie and think that a $15.00 minimum is a good idea, why don’t they raise Vermont’s minimum wage?

The same goes for the other Senators and former Senators (Biden/Delaware - $9.25, Klobuchar/Minnesota - $10.00, Warren/Massachusetts - $12.75).

Mayor Pete’s Indiana has a minimum wage of only $7.25 per hour.  But you might say that he is only the Mayor of South Bend and doesn’t have any influence over the state’s minimum wage.  That may be true but local governments can set their own minimum wage.  That means that Mayor Pete could change the minimum wage in South Bend to $15.00 and companies operating in that city would be required to pay their employees $15.00 per hour regardless of the state or federal minimum wage.  Why hasn’t he?

How about Bloomberg and Steyer?  They can set a minimum wage for their employees that is higher than $15.00 per hour tomorrow if they really wanted to but I’m sure they won’t.

So, what is so bad about a federal minimum wage.  Well, in some states $15.00 an hour may not be enough while in other states $15.00 an hour may be too much.  It depends on the cost of living.

When the federal government sends someone on travel, they set per diam rates for each location base on the cost of living in that area.  (Per diam is the specific amount of money the government gives an individual per day to cover living expenses when traveling.)  Makes sense, right?  A hotel in San Diego, California, is a lot more expensive that a hotel in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Why, then, would the government set one minimum wage that every location must follow?  It doesn’t make sense, does it?  Especially when states and local governments can set their own minimum wages higher than that of the federal government.  

In fact, New York has three different minimum wage schedules within the state.  One for New York City, one for Long Island & Westchester, and one for the remainder of the state.  Why?  Because it makes sense.

So next time you hear Bernie shouting about a minimum wage tell him to raise his home state’s minimum wage and leave the rest the rest of us alone.

Schiff's Dramatic Reading

This is Adam Schiff's made up version of President Trump's call to the Ukrainian President:

After hearing Adam Schiff's interpretation of President Trump's call to the Ukrainian President I wondered how Schiff would interpret the letter Democrat Senators sent to the Ukrainian General Prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko. 

Letter from Sens. Menendez, Durbin and Leahy to Lutsenko, May 4, 2018: 
We are writing to express great concern about reports that your office has taken steps to impede cooperation with the investigation of United States Special counsel Robert Mueller. As strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine, we believe that our cooperation should extend to such legal matters, regardless of politics. Ours is a relationship built on a foundation of respect for the rule of law and accountable democratic institutions. In four short years, Ukraine has made significant progress in building these institutions despite ongoing military, economic and political pressure from Moscow. We have supported that capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these principles in order to avoid the ire of President Trump. If these reports are true, we strongly encourage you to reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.

This is how Adam Schiff's would interpret the letter above if he treated dems like he treats the president:
Listen here, tough guy.  We heard that you've been giving our boy Mueller a hard time.  If this is true we have ourselves a problem here.  Now we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way.  See?  We have supported you in the past but don't mistake our kindness for weakness.  Got it?   It would be a shame if anything happened to that 4 years of progress you've made.  So, don't let us hear you've been siding with Trump.  Alright, Sizzle Chest?