Obama’s job-killing policies favor unions


Whether one is on the right or left of the political spectrum, one has to admire the Democrat’s propaganda machine.

Mitt Romney was no Ronald Reagan, but he was an adequate candidate who ought to have defeated an incompetent incumbent presiding over an economy with a double-digit unemployment rate. The machine demolished his reputation, turning what should have been a major asset, the fact he was a successful businessman, into the liability that cost him the election.

The Democrats’ propaganda machine portrayed tax cuts as providing breaks for the rich, and emphasizing spending cuts that hurt the poor. Romney did not know how to respond to that ploy, but Margaret Thatcher did, as she taunted the Labor front bench: “You would rather the poor be poorer than see the rich grow richer.”

Because the Democrat machine deliberately overlooked, or denied, the pro-growth aspect of the policy and the resulting increase in employment, making the poor less dependent on federal largesse, the United States is doomed to spend the next years in a slow-growth, high unemployment environment.

Once the scandals involving Benghazi, the IRS and the AP phone records have been settled, the next battle will be over the minimum wage.

In his State of the Union speech, the president advocated increasing it to $9 per hour. This law would say in effect to each worker: If you can produce goods or services worth more than $9 in one hour, you may work, but if you cannot, employment is to be denied you.

Lack of employment will deprive people the opportunity for on-the-job training that would make them more productive, and hence worth more than the minimum wage to employers.

The unskilled work force, featuring teenagers and members of minority groups, already hurt by the last increase in the minimum wage, so ill-timed as to take effect in the depths of the worst recession since World War II, would be hit yet again.

What is behind this discreditable proposal? When wages rise, employers substitute machines for unskilled labor, and those machines are largely produced, operated and maintained by a unionized work force.

Union bosses made immense contributions to the Obama campaign. This is the payoff.

The Democrats’ true motivation and the job-killing effects of the policy will not be mentioned. They will simply say their goal is to ensure that everyone who works receives a living wage, and a large majority of the American people will believe them.

Gordon Philpot

Walla Walla



Igor says...

This is a banner day for the U.B. Letters Section. Steve Singleton and Gordon Philpot in one edition! I don’t know either of these men but I know a little of their backgrounds from reading the U.B. Singleton is a Marine and a retired CIA Officer. Dr. Philpot is retired Whitman Economics Professor and, in his earlier days, was an Officer in the British Army. I always look forward to their thoughtful, well reasoned, intelligent and to-the-point letters.

With respect to Dr. Philpot’s foregoing letter, I could not agree more with his observations on the effects of the minimum wage. Virtually all reputable economists, regardless of their politics, agree that the minimum wage is a drag on our economy. When pay is not allowed to vary with the supply and demand for labor the result is always the same, namely, people lose their jobs or fail to find work when they enter the labor force.

Minimum wage laws are always political because most people lack an understanding of basic economics and consequently tend to believe that a government mandated minimum wage will help the less fortunate members of our society. Sadly, the result is just the opposite. Obama and other politicians on the left are, of course, astute enough to know that the minimum wage hurts our poorest the most, but , sadly, they care more about perpetuating their power than they do the very people they profess to represent.

Posted 26 May 2013, 11:58 a.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment