Increasing Minimum Wage

Written By Patrick Fritz 

Recently President Barack Obama proposed the idea of increase minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9.00 in stages by the end of 2015. It would also rise to the inflation rate if it were to increase. This bill according to Obama would allow consumer spending to pick up a little, and help the economy. If this bill were put into place it would help and estimated 15 million workers who have minimum wage jobs. Raising minimum wage would also have big effect on students that are working to pay off college. If this were to be approved it would help out thousands of students help pay for their college tuition, which is extremely expensive. People with lower income jobs would increase the yearly income to $18,720 for a full-time minimum wage worker. Even with an increase it would still leave a family of four short of the poverty level of $23,050 a year.

I feel that this bill needs to be passed as it would not only help the lower income workers, but it would also help boost the economy and increase consumer spending. Economists at the Chicago Federal Reserve estimated that a $1 increase in the minimum wage would raise consumer spending of low income families by an average of nearly $5,000 a year. This is one way that it could help boost the economy as it would add an estimated 70 billion dollars in consumer spending. If people have a little extra money they would be more willing to spend it which would help the economy. Barack Obama said, “It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank, rent or eviction, scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets…” This is a perfect quote to describe the positives of increasing the minimum wage.

Although I believe that increasing minimum wage should be increased there are some facts that support the people who don’t want it to increase. One major issue that comes up is the fact that it could increase the unemployment rate. The reason this is thought to happen is that many companies who are based on minimum wage workers such as Pick n Save or Wal-Mart won’t want to have to pay all their workers more money. So in order to keep the profits from going down they will not hire as many people and let some people go.

Despite a few cons that come with increasing the minimum wage, the immense amount of pros is something that can’t be passed up. This bill would help out the economy and give hard, deserving workers a bit of a raise to make their life a little easier. Students would also be personally affected by this because the majority is working minimum wage jobs to pay off college tuition. Also because of inflation the minimum wage has lost some ground that peaked at $10.41 in 1968. If the minimum wage was ties to inflation since then the minimum wage would now be at $16.50 an hour. This is shows how little some workers are getting paid and why the 15 million people who are receiving minimum wage deserve a raise.

Sources:

• "Obama Pushes for Increase in Federal Minimum Wage - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/us/politics/obama-pushes-for-increase-in-federal-minimum-wage.html?_r=0>.
• "Obama's latest stimulus plan: raise the minimum wage - Economy Watch on NBCNews.com." Breaking News & Top Stories - World News, US & Local | NBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. <http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/obamas-latest-stimulus-plan-raise-minimum-wage-1C8350755>.
• "Stand with President Obama: Raise the Minimum Wage | LeftAction." Home | LeftAction. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2013. <http://leftaction.com/action/raise-minimum-wage>.
• "Obama proposes $9/hour minimum wage. OK, says business owner. - CSMonitor.com." The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2013. <http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-economy/2013/0213/Obama-proposes-9-hour-minimum-wage.-OK-says-business-owner.>.

Gun Control

By: Nicole N. 

The idea of a four-year-old boy committing murder with a firearm is mind-blowing. The idea of two young boys killing with guns within days of each other is tragic.

On Saturday, April 6^th 2013, a four-year-old boy in Lebanon, Tennessee shot forty-eight-year-old Josephine Fanning. Apparently the group of citizens had been enjoying a nice, relaxing cookout. It wasn’t until Josephine’s husband, Wilson County Sheriff's Deputy Daniel Fanning, went into his bedroom to show off an array of firearms that chaos broke out. Deputy Daniel Fanning claims that the bedroom normally remains locked unless he or his wife are inside. It was solely unlocked to show a relative a couple guns. Deputy Fanning explains that within seconds the young boy (Deputy Daniels Fanning’s nephew) must have picked up the loaded pistol and shot Josephine through the head. He also made a point of emailing CNN to explain that the gun was not his duty weapon, which remains locked away at all times. Besides that, Deputy Fanning would like everyone to know that he never usually has loaded guns lying around; however, the reasoning for that particular gun being loaded at a family cookout remains unknown. Now it lies in the State Bureau’s hands to investigate, give autopsies, and later determine if any charges will be filed.

Josephine Fanning pictured above

Only days later, another gun tragedy with a young child occurred. Around 7pm on Monday, April 9^th, 2013 in New Jersey, a four-year-old boy killed his 6-year-old playmate. The young murdered boy, Brandon Holt, was pronounced dead the very next day. The two children had been playing in the yard earlier in the day until they decided to go inside. "The 4-year-old ... retrieved a rifle within the house, a .22-caliber rifle, came outside... A shot went out and the 6-year-old was struck in the head" states the city’s police Chief Michael Mastronardy. Neighbor, Debi Coto, is outraged at the incident claiming, “I'm sad for the children involved and their families, but I'm angry with whoever owns that gun and allowed a little child to get hold of it. A 4-year-old can't load a gun.” Investigators refuse to announce whom the gun belongs to, but state that the four-year-olds mother was “very upset” with the entire incident. The Atlantic County prosecutor’s office is taking the investigation head on to decide what charges will be filed and whom they will be filed against.

Pictured above is the late Brandon Holt

These recent events clearly cause the gun debate to resurface. On Wednesday, April10th 2013, a Republican senator and a Democratic senator decided to increase background checks on citizens looking to get their hands on a firearm. There is a good chance that this new compromise will create a large debate starting Thursday on gun legislation. Due to this, the idea of filibusters being used is rumored around Washington. A filibuster is “an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures.” However, many people continue to wonder if a background check will decrease the amount of murders in the United States. Is it the actual firearm and gun salesmen’s fault or will murder precede after all these new rules have been created?

Works Cited:

-          http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/us/new-jersey-child-shooting/index.html

-          http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/us/tennessee-gun-death/index.html

-            http://guardianlv.com/2013/04/josephine-fanning-shot-and-killed-by-4-year-old/

-          http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_jersey&id=9057965

-          http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/congress-gun-laws/index.html

-          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/filibuster

Too Much Spending on Presidential Campaign

By: Molly W.

As of October 17 2012, our nation’s debt was over $16 trillion and going up each day. That’s $16 trillion that we need to pay back. That is $16 trillion that is being taken out of our wallets. What makes it even worse is that our country continues to spend money that we don’t have. The 2012 presidential campaign has reached a record of $5.8 billion. Our country cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on the presidential election when that money could help pay off our countries detrimental debt, instead we need to cut the cost of campaign spending.  

Lately, a person turns on the television at night and commercial after commercial is about the presidential race, or the phone constantly rings trying to persuade a person to vote for a certain candidate. After while the advertisements and phone calls get real annoying. But it also makes you wonder, how much is all this costing? According to U.S. Today “Center for Responsive Politics estimates the total cost of the 2012 elections will jump 7% from $5.4 billion four years ago and could "come close" this year to reaching $6 billion.” That seems way too much money to spend on a presidential election. Compare that number to 32 years ago when presidential candidates Jimmy Carter and Ronald Regan received a $29.4 million that they were allowed to spend on their campaign. From 1980-2012 that’s a $5.7 billion dollar increase. The presidential campaign should still have a set limit that they can spend so they don’t further put our country into more debt.

Back in June of 2012, Wisconsin went through something similar through the recall election, costing our state millions. In the article, The Cost of Recall Elections: Another Reason for Change says, Wisconsin's long recall season surely had a considerable cost to the state's civility - but there was a real, bottom-line cost, too: $125 million to $130 million in campaign spending.” In the long run, the recall election was a waste of time and money because Scott Walker is still our governor. It makes me mad that $130 million was spent out of our pockets to support the recall election, when it didn’t even have to happen in the first place. That money could have gone to things that we need to improve in our state. For example schools in Milwaukee, roads, and public funding. This is just another example of foolish spending done by government.

After seeing all these numbers increase daily adding onto the U.S deficit, Michael Toner from BBC news believes that “The sky is the limit here. I don’t think you can spend too much.” I disagree with his statement. Our country has a problem with over spending and it’s things like the election that could be easily fixed and save the country millions of dollars. To continue to raise the price of election is a horrible idea. If we continue with useless spending, our country will never be able to get out of debt.  Also, if the presidential candidates are so concerned about the debt, than why do they continue to spend more and more money on their campaign? For the 2016 election, something needs to be done for campaign spending. Whether it’s putting a set limit of money that the candidates cannot go over, or simply decreasing the amount of the costly advertisement. The answer is not to raise the amount of money like Toner believes.

Is it really worth spending $5.8 million on a political campaign? Or is there other ways to spend that money? Although the presidential race is a big deal in the United States, instead of using all that money for the campaign we should use the money to further improve America and the people in it. 

Bibliography:

·                     Hebblethwaite, Cordelia. "BBC News - US election: How can it cost $6bn?." BBC - Homepage. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19052054>.

·                     {, LineTag. "2012 election costs could reach record $5.8 billion." USA TODAY: Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com . N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/08/2012-election-total-spending-costliest-obama-romney-/1>.

·                     1920, Democrats had all but vanished from the Wisconsin political landscape. The public was weary of the war, 1925, Democrats had one member of the Assembly, between 1923, 1930, and they had no members of the state Senate.. "WPRI Report: The History of the Recall in Wisconsin - by Christian Schneider." The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute: Wisconsin's Free Market Think Tank. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume25/Vol25No3

Is Affirmative Action Still Relevant?

Is Affirmative Action Still Relevant?

By Kayla Ellington 

Need a topic sure to get high school students jumpy? Think college. Most every student seems to love the idea of college living – their real fears come from the application process. After spending so much time collecting letters of recommendation, writing essays and wracking your brain for volunteer hours, most students spend the next few months sweating while waiting for a response as to whether their dreams are about to be made or crushed. After worrying about whether their grades are good enough, students will have to wonder how racially diverse their college is and whether or not they will be accepted because of the “race factor”. Affirmative action, first implemented to increase diversity in university classrooms, may now be inhibiting amply prepared non minority students.

            A New York Times article titled “Class-based vs. Racial-based Admissions” speaks solely on the issue of whether universities are better off selecting students based on class or race in addition to other aspects of their application. They believe that in order “to maintain or build the levels of racial diversity on selective campuses, it is necessary to maintain race-conscious admissions.” The premise of this argument should rather be whether or not it is ethical today – in a more racially accepting society – to continue to focus on affirmative action. Should colleges reject high level students in order to make room for minorities? This touchy subject can easily spark arguments that have valid points in either direction: those who support affirmative action and those who oppose it. Those in support of affirmative action – in the way that it is handled today – would still argue that there is not equal opportunity for many minority groups. They believe the majority of minorities applying to college still reside in inner city areas, and they would also argue that many students wouldn’t have received the same education due to where they were living. They are not wrong, and they are not incorrect to desire an opportunity at college education for inner city minorities, but we must consider the full picture of what is relevant to today. Those minorities who thrive out of a rougher area would receive recognition for their accomplishments without affirmative action because of the racial tolerance of our society today. What is more pertinent to consider is what is done when it comes to minorities that live in well supported suburbs, receiving the same education as non-minorities? Placed side by side, with the same GPA and income status, race seems to be a final decision maker. The online article, “Should race still be a factor in college admissions?” found that in “One study on the subject found that, as of 2004, one-third of public colleges and private institutions claim to consider race in their admissions.” Colleges taking race into consideration, according to the “Should race still be a factor in college admissions?”, claim that they use affirmative action simply “provides a leg-up to some students who might need it.” All in all, we are not the same country in racial tolerance as we were in 1965 when affirmative action was put into motion. Now, more accepting than ever, affirmative action should not be a deciding component in college admissions, because the base of why it was implemented is no longer relevant. If a student has worked hard enough and applies to the standards of the school that they are applying to, they should have an equal chance at acceptance to or rejection from the college without racial consideration.