Minimum Wage Job Better For Society Than No Job

Working at minimum wage is not fun. It's not glamorous. But those who do, clearly benefit society.

Don't get me wrong. I would not be satisfied with my healthy college-educated daughter being satisfied with a minimum wage job. But I would rather see her work at a minimum wage job than spend her days at the beach, and living off a SNAP card and the largesse of friends.

The U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us, in addition to the "unemployed who are actively seeking work," that 2.3 million more people "are unemployed and have quit looking for work."

"In August (2013) 2.3 million persons were 'marginally attached' to the labor force ... not (currently) in the labor force, (but they) wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as 'unemployed' because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

"Among the 'marginally attached,' there were 866,000 'discouraged workers' ... persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them."

So, imagine two men on welfare. One is "genuinely needy" and is genuinely incapable of working (owing to permanent or temporary disability). The other, though presently poor, is capable of working at a minimum wage, but considers working for minimum wage beneath his dignity and prefers to get by with a SNAP card and the assistance of his friends.

The Illinois minimum wage is $8.25 per hour. A person who makes it will earn, if he works a 40-hour week for 52 weeks, $17,160 per year. Hardly a satisfactory income, but $17,160 better than nothing!

Now consider the 2012 federal tax consequences (for a single person). The Standard Deduction was $7,400. The Personal Exemption was $3,800. As such, the first $11,200 of income is not subject to federal income tax. Assuming the remaining $6,000 was not subject to any further credits, federal income tax to be paid would be about $600. That is not much, but if 2.3 million "marginally attached" people were to pay that much, the U.S. Treasury would take in an extra $1.38 billion.

On the other hand, when you start talking about Social Security and Medicare taxes, you're talking about bigger money. A person working at minimum wage pays both into both. For ease of computation, let's assume the minimum wage is $10 per hour (rather than the actual $8.25).

If a person earns $10 per hour, and works 40 hours per week, his gross income is $400 per week. If he works 52 weeks a year, his annual gross income is $20,800.

The FICA and Medicare payroll tax for 2013 is 7.65 percent of wages up to $113,700. (6.2 percent for Social Security plus 1.45 percent for Medicare). And the employer matches that. If you are self-employed, the tax is 15.3 percent (12.4 percent for Social Security plus 2.9 percent for Medicare).

Therefore, an employee with an income of $20,800, pays $1,591 (for FICA and Medicare); his employer also pays $1,591. A self-employed individual pays the same: $3,182 ($1,591 times two).

If 2 million more people earn $20,800 per year, The U.S. Treasury takes in an additional $7.32 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes each year.

Why is that important? Consider a May 31 report in "The Hill" (thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/302719-social-security-insolvent-by-2033#ixzz2gaTypMty).

"Medicare will reach insolvency by 2026 ... Social Security's two trust funds (old age and disability) will become insolvent by 2033 ...

"... (The) Social Security (old age fund) will no longer be able to pay full benefits to retirees after 2033. Only three-quarters of benefits will be delivered after the projected insolvency date."

"The trust fund that pays disability benefits through Social Security is headed for insolvency in 2016 and will only be able to pay out 80 percent of benefits after that date."

So what am I trying to say? People who are genuinely in need are the only people who should be getting welfare or social justice distributions. They would include people who can't work because of temporary or permanent physical or mental disability -- such as a disabled child, a mentally impaired adult or a wounded soldier. A compassionate society clearly has a social justice duty to those who can't help themselves. A person who has no ability to work, has no duty to the state or the taxpayers to work.

But what about people capable of working, who are temporarily out of work? I suggest that while they may be entitled to reasonable temporary assistance for a reasonable period of time, that they have a duty to minimize the amount of assistance needed by taking work -- even at a minimum wage job. When they pay federal, FICA and Medicare taxes they contribute to the long term solvency of the Social Security and Medicare funds, and more slowly deplete what would be available to assist those in more profound "genuine need."

Simply, people capable of working, but who refuse to work, should not be getting social welfare money. As St. Paul said in II Thessalonians, "He who will not work, shall not eat."

So my point is this: A single person who works and makes minimum wage helps support himself, contributes tax dollars to the welfare, Social Security and Medicare funds, reduces their rate of depletion, makes additional dollars available for those needier than him, and derives a degree of satisfaction by being productive and by being a contributing member of society.

Posted Online: Oct. 23, 2013, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Ted Cruz: 'Wacko Bird' or True Patriot?

Is U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, really a tea-party anarchist or is he an American who cares deeply about our country? I think it's too early to tell.

In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 1964, Barry Goldwater argued "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in defense of justice is no virtue." (youtube.com/watch?v=E9buEI8SgwU)

Like many other Americans at the time -- when most adult Americans believed in American "exceptionalism" and considered America the greatest country on earth -- I was mildly amused by his words. In those days, I was a young Jack Kennedy/Harry S. Truman Democrat. I didn't realize that at the time, that in listening to Sen. Goldwater's speech, I was listening to the beginning of modern-day conservatism.

In his book, "The Conscience of a Conservative," (1960) Goldwater wrote "I ... propose to extend freedom. ... "My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. ... not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. ...

"And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Sen. Goldwater was saying the first and most important duty an American president was to guarantee is the birthright of the American people: Liberty.

Now, Sen. Cruz proclaims a desire to snatch the banner Goldwater dropped as he passed from the political scene: And the left savages him. Consider this tidbit from the Huffington Post:

"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is the best thing that has happened to Democrats since 'Brownie' handled Katrina for Bush 43, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is playing him like a violin. Let him talk, and the more voters who hear Cruz, the better for Democrats.

"Cruz is not only the biggest vanity player in Washington (and that is saying something!), and he is not only a charlatan ... he is a walking advertisement for the weird ring of Republicans -- I call them Banana Republicans -- who could well become a death knell for Republicans in 2014 and 2016."

But is Sen. Cruz really the stupid buffoon, that the "left" and The Huffington Post tells us he is? Not if his academic record is any indication.

Sen. Cruz was valedictorian of his high school class, graduated cum laude from Princeton, and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. Allan Dershowitz, a "lion of the left," has said that "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant." Cruz clerked for the Chief Justice of the U.S. William Rehnquist.

Clerking for the chief justice is the most prestigious position available to a law school grad. It is not available to the stupid.

So the real issue is, is Cruz a "charlatan," a "weirdo" or "bananas?" Is he "publicity hound," or does he really believe in what he says?

Recently, a friend of mine sent me a video -- a nine-minute speech made by Ted Cruz's father, Rafeal Cruz. I provide the link below. I defy you to watch Cruz's father and come away with the "take" that Ted Cruz is an insincere "vanity player." On the other hand, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that Ted Cruz, like his father, Rafeal Cruz, has as his first value "liberty."

Rafael Cruz is a refugee from Cuba. He went to jail and was beaten for protesting the oppressive dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. He welcomed the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power, but then when Castro began seizing private property and suppressing dissenters, he fled to the U.S. at age 18 -- with no money and unable to speak English. Listen to what the senior Cruz says and how he feels about America. Perhaps it takes an immigrant and political refugee to explain to Americans what America really stands for -- "liberty" and "opportunity." And consider how easily this most basic of human rights can be lost (youtube.com/watch?v=0Ym4Xt0T6fM feature=player_embedded).

So is Ted Cruz a "wacko bird" as John McCain says, or is he "his father's son?"

It has been wisely said that "social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The human person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him. Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it."

Without freedom of the individual, there is no social justice.

So, if that is what Ted Cruz really believes, he is no "humbug." His political ideas deserve careful examination -- at least until he proves himself to be another Washington political hack.

In America, when serious men have an important point to make, they seek the optimal public forum. To call attention to his cause, the Rev. Martin Luther King and his supporters took to the streets. When Abraham Lincoln believed the Dred Scott decision was immoral and wrong, he denounced it in the Lincoln/Douglas debates, even though after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, Dred Scott became "the law of the land."

When U.S. senators -- men such as Webster, Clay and Calhoun -- have believed that legislation undermines the welfare of the American people, for 200 years they have taken to the floor of the Senate. What better way does a senator have to call attention to his point than to take to the will of the Senate, and hold the floor until press and public are forced to notice?


Posted Online:  Oct. 08, 2013, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Tweet

You Won't Understand the Constitution by Simply Reading It

"The Democrats in Congress refuse to follow the law -- no budgets, votes that support the president's illegal usurpation of power, forcing legislation through without hearings, etc., etc. Any person who seriously takes his oath to support the Constitution would not act this way. Their disregard for the values the country was founded upon, will destroy us in due time." -- From a reader's response to my recent "Locust's Years" op-ed.

Have you ever read the Constitution and Bill of Rights from beginning to end and wondered what the various clauses mean? Or why they were put there? Think abuses!

In the summer before I entered law school at Notre Dame, Dean Joseph O'Meara directed us to read two books: "The Common Law" (1881) by Oliver Wendell Holmes; and "The Lion and the Throne" (1957) by Catherine Drinker Bowen.

Holmes enunciates the abstract principle that "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."

Drinker Bowen wraps that principle in flesh and blood, in her biography of Sir Edward Coke, speaker of the House of Commons, attorney general of England, chief justice of Common Pleas (the civil court), chief justice of King's Bench (the criminal court), and leader in the House of Commons.

Coke held public office almost continuously from 1593 until 1628, beginning his service under Elizabeth I (1558-1603), continuing during the reign of James I (1603-1625) and ending during the reign of his son, Charles I (1625-1649).

He began his service as a loyal supporter of Elizabeth. He ended his days in Parliament (1629) as a staunch opponent of Charles and the Stuart Kings' notion that the king ruled by "divine right."

Elizabeth and the two Stuart Kings were very different monarchs. Elizabeth (by and large) respected the common and parliamentary laws of the realm. James, coming out of Scotland, did not. He believed the king's word was law.

As James crossed into England for his coronation, when a pickpocket was discovered working the crowd of onlookers, James ordered the man hanged. He was -- without trial! The English present, accustomed to trial by jury before hanging, were appalled.

As the years passed, Charles, embroiled in foreign wars, found himself needing money. For that purpose, he convened Parliament. But the House of Commons had grievances and refused to vote to give the king his subsidies. Charles decided to send his tax collectors out to collect the tax "as if ... an Act had passed to that purpose." When the country refused to pay a tax not approved by Parliament, the king's Treasury settled upon the device of "forced loan." Commoners who refused to make "voluntary" loans were impressed into the navy. Peers and gentry who refused were imprisoned without charge. When they sought habeas corpus, the king's judges ruled that when a man was jailed on a king's warrant without charge, the matter must be too serious for the courts to meddle with!

When Parliament dared to debate the "King's Prerogative," members were sent to the Tower of London, to remain there at the king's pleasure. When the Commons sought to call to account the Duke of Buckingham, James' favorite minister of state, the sponsors, too, were conveyed to the Tower.

The men who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights were not simply political philosophers. They were practical men, educated in the history (royal abuses) of England. They valued the rights extracted by their English forbears from the English kings, often at the cost of imprisonment or death. They realized their rights were made only reasonably permanent, by the victory of the parliamentary forces over King Charles I in the English Civil War and the beheading of the Charles.

They wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights to ensure that the American people would rule themselves. They feared kings whose powers were limited only by their own conscience or ambitions. They rejected the notion of a divine right of kings, but also feared that democracy could all too easily degenerate into mob rule. As additional protection, they added a Bill of Rights.

They understood the importance of personal liberty, as guaranteed by Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Rights (1629) and the English Bill of Rights (1688).

Congress members and the president refuse to follow the Constitution for a number of reasons. Many believe what they want to do is just, fair or necessary and that the ends justify the means. They believe their modern interpretation of the Constitution is more enlightened than that of men who wrote and ratified it. They believe it is a living document, and that in a democracy, the majority gets to interpret it to further the will of the majority.

They believe the men who wrote the Constitution were selfish, wealthy aristocrats who wrote the document to protect their wealth. They fail to understand the danger of an all-powerful central government — as our forefathers did. They see government as benign, and ignore its historical tendencies to absolutism.

If you want to understand the meaning of our constitution, read "The Lion and the Throne" ("L&T"). If you want to understand the historical reasons for our Constitution, read "L&T."
If you want to understand the dangers of an all-powerful central government, read "L&T."

It is my favorite book.

Posted Online:  Oct. 02, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea