Just the beginning...

If the Republican candidate for president loses. In my opinion, him and the Republican party are unlikely to concede and unlikely to step away from the process, as past losing candidates and parties have. Already a number of Republican Senators have stated that if Hillary Clinton wins, they will block any Supreme Court nomination for the next four years. On the other hand, I am not sure I have heard one Democratic Senator say they would block nominations if Mr. Trump was to win. I am sure Fox News ("Republican News") has multiple reports that suggest otherwise. Of course Republican News and facts do not necessarily go hand in hand, but then again when the candidate the Republican party wants us to elect for President boasts about grabbing woman by the ... and lies vociferously, then we have to give Republican News a pass for their lower standards regarding the truth.

Jokes aside, this election results will likely not bring any closure for the country. Instead if Hilary wins, as most polls suggest, I suspect we will see an even more anti democratic, and anti compromise Republican party. After a long arduous election cycle, we have to remind ourselves to not get complacent going forward. As long as the Republican party continues to cater to the Ted Cruz's, Grover Norquist's, and the Tea Party platform, we have to be aware that Donald Trump is merely the beginning of similar Republican candidates to come. Republicans can scream otherwise till they are "blue" in the face, but Donald Trump is the Republican party of the future... The establishment party that they speak of has long been gone...

I have issues with Hillary Clinton and it is not because she is a woman...

Lots has been written throughout this primary season about people not liking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman. I am sure there is some truth to the sentiment, but I think there is more to it then than. If Elizabeth Warren were running, I am not sure people would have the same reaction. Here are few things that give me pause about Mrs. Clinton:

1. Whitewater
2. Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones…
3. Benghazi
4. Email Server
5. Her coziness with Wall Street
6. Her positions on Iraq
7. Her general stance on defense
8. Her position on Israel (especially in comparison to Bernie Sanders)
9. Her ability to “change” her mind on any position based on the current climate.

I am not saying any one of these things is a detractor, but taken as a whole it just makes me not trust her. Not because she is a woman, but because her past is littered with examples of her shifting positions.

In addition Mrs. Clinton, is a former first lady and in her first time running for President she lost to a no name Senator from Illinois, this time she is in a battle with a no name Senator from Vermont. She has ultimate name recognition but can’t defeat challenges from relative lightweights. That does not instill confidence in me for her to be the parties nominee.

I will support her in the general election because I still prefer her over Ted Cruz, Donald Trump etc… I consider myself a relatively liberal person and if I have so many things about Hillary Clinton that give me pause, what will independents think about her…

Minimum Wage

“How can 22% of the US Children be living in poverty, while we have a 5% unemployment rate, and a federal minimum wage?”

Saw this facebook post earlier, and it just irked me a bit. 

Per the federal poverty guidelines a family of 4, is poor if they make below $24,250. A husband and wife making “federal” minimum wage where one parent works full time and the other works part time (20 hours a week), would make $21,750. So they would be both poor and gainfully employed.

Oh and that is assuming all states pay “federal” minimum wage (yes you guessed it not always  the case). In Georgia the minimum wage is $5.15. There a husband and wife who both work 40 hours a week at a “state” minimum wage job would make $20,600, and would be considered poor per the federal standards. That seems mind boggling. In my opinion, at its baseline two gainfully full-time employed individuals should not be poor.

The question though is why I or anyone else should care.

Moral Argument

First, there is some moral notion that a family of 4 where 2 parents work full time should at least make enough to not be poor. I mean the numbers to be considered not poor are $24,250 a year for a family of 4… 

Even if the moral point does not persuade you, there is also the economic piece.

Economic Argument

Second there is the economic piece. In today’s system, the employer who pays them $5.15 an hour, is in essence getting a subsidized employee, paid for by federal and state taxes, which are of course paid for by you and me. To make up for the shortfall you and I (tax payers) pay for the minimum wage employees healthcare subsidies, food subsidies, etc… while the employer is rewarded with greater profits. Here is one example of how that would work...

Food Stamp Subsidy - cost to Employer ($0) cost to taxpayer ($6,230 per year) 

Average per month per person food stamp subsidy in Georgia is $129.78. Multiply that by four (family of four) and then by 12 (annual) and you get $6,230 per year for a family of four.

Medicare Spending - cost to Employer ($0) cost to taxpayer ($12,404)

Estimated Medicaid spending per adult in Georgia in 2011(likely higher now) per year was $4174 and per child was $2,028. In our scenario annually that would be $12,404 (2 adults and 2 kids).

Not taking other subsidies into account that means that per family of four you and I provide subsidies of $18,634 per year. This I would argue is providing a subsidized work force to those employers that pay such a low wage. 

There are an estimated 103,000 people in Georgia that get paid at or below minimum wage. Assuming that a meager 5% of the 103,000 fit the scenario we have described above of two working adults with two kids, we can take the number down to 5,150. Based on two working adults per family we could cut that number in half to 2,575 families. For the 2,575 families with an annual family subsidy of $18,634, we provide $47,982,550 in profits to the shareholders of those employers by way of subsidies. That is of course only for the people that fit the four person family model, that live in Georgia and does not take into account the other subsidized employees in Georgia or nationwide, that we provide for these employers.